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:Cult free world

User:Cult free world just came off of a two day block here for personal attacks and immediately launched into disruptive and tendentious editing again here.

No less than seven other editors have been working carefully to follow Wiki policies and build consensus and Cult free world continues to change the article without discussion, without consensus, to mirror the version that appears on his blog. This user has exhibited that he is incapable of (a) working with other editors to build consensus, (b) following Wikipedia policies, and/or (c) editing in a manner that does not promote his POV. (Please note this article is now in mainspace, not his userspace anymore, so is subject to all of the normal Wiki policies now, which he was able to bypass when it was in his userspace.)

There have been numerous complaints by many different editors on this user, he persists in disruptive, tendentious editing without any semblance of trying to work with other editors in a meaningful way, and he has failed to contribute meaningful to Wikipedia. Please, can it end? Renee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to hit the "indef" button, but have blocked CFW for one month - I will reduce the length of the block if he pledges to edit in a constructive and collaborative manner. Neıl ☎ 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block, though I consider such a pledge from this user unlikely - but possible. Any objections to a resolved tag? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PLease can you provide diffs, if what Renee says is so I would think it would be a 3RR issue or something. CFW's entitled to his opinion of what the article should look like to be at his best, but he shouldn't be revert or edit warring, perhaps. However there are problems with some other editors on those articles perhaps being members of the group involved or similar ones, and having a WP:COI. If CFW was really that prone to this he wouldn't have survived this long on wiki.Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) diffs please Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkins, the diff listed above is a pretty good indication of what CFW was doing. I'm a bit surprised CFW hasn't been blocked indef for making edits like that right after a block for the same reason. I'm trying to be fair here, but I believe the same edits will occur in a month given CFW's track record. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see it discussed a tiny bit more before marked as resolved, because if CFW was that bad he wouldn't have survived this long. On articles about New Religious Movements it's sometimes hard to make sure they aren't owned by the groups involved. Are there any editors on the anti-cult side of the article who are also finding CFW's approach unwise or wrong? Merkin's mum 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my thoughts on a resolved tag were quite premature - I thought it was more cut-and-dry than it apparently is. I still think a block is in order, and concur with the block issued in this instance. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry-there were lots of edit conflicts there lol. The link was to the revision history. All it shows is another editor saying CFW's version is not "sane". That doesn't sound much like people trying to get on, to me. Merkin's mum 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this article off and on. It is very sensitive terrain, and CFW has consistently exhibited all the tact of a bull in a china shop here, as can be seen with this latest set of edits. I concur with Renee that building consensus is impossible with this user. Several editors have tried and been accused of either being brainwashed or on the payroll of this group. As an aside - This behavior is suspiciously identical to that of User:Shashwat_Pandey who used to frequent the same sets of articles and was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some difs from this page started May 1, [1], [2], [3], [4]. If you review the talk page here you'll see seven editors trying to work together, and then CFW posting original research, his interpretation of things, and ignoring other editors' attempts to get him to work together. He had been building this page on his user page and many of us (mistakenly) tried to work on that, only to find out that the rules for userpages were different (because he posted previously deleted content, I filed an MFD per admin advice here, and an admin reviewing a sanitized version kept it despite a 12 delete/7 keep vote (because it was userspace), and then CFW promptly reverted it to his OR, primary sourced version here. He posted an RFC for his userpage version of the article here and then ignored almost every editors responses. Every single editor who has worked on the previously deleted Sahaj Marg pages believe he is User:Shashwat pandey and User:Rushmi (see sock report here). The reason he looks "okay" in the beginning is because he had been booted off in two previous identities and he was attempting to come into the article via this third identity (again, review the sock evidence please).

I have made many mistakes with respect to this user because I mistakenly believed that userspace was held to the same Wiki policies as mainspace. When I learned that it wasn't I began to ignore the user and his space until the article was posted in mainspace, where I began to work on it. I am a good faith contributer to Wiki and have worked on dozens of articles, including creating several myself. I don't think this user will change and urge an indefinite ban. Despite having multiple POVs on the Sahaj Marg talk page, we were making progress and it was relatively peaceful. User:Cult free world has demonstrated time and again, across three identities, that he is only on Wikipedia to promote original research and a POV. Please indefinitely ban him. Renee (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The term I was looking for was sleeper sockpuppet (in answer to the question of how did he last so long). i.e., when a previously disgraced/blocked editor goes away and comes back working on other somewhat related articles, and then magically, out of the blue, decides to "create" an identical article out of 5x previously deleted material (and this one talked about it on his blog). If he goes away again I think we have to be very careful and watch for another sleep sockRenee (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for secondary neutral sources as a Wiki Editor? My observation is that this user just ignores other editors. I also observed that this user incorrectly draws hasty conclusions on sub-judice matters. This user also tends to get personal with allegations which are unwarranted for in the Wiki world. With so much negativity, perhaps its wise not to have this user as well the article on the Wikipedia and bring an end to everything!! -- Mayawi (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

← A good block, and one well deserved. He has been the issue of many threads at AN/ANI, and his unwillingness to cooperate and work with others in a constructive manner is determental to the project. His disruptions and trolling actions only leads me to believe that the user will not reform until faced with such sanctions that will severely limit his abilities to edit -- and an indef. block is certainly not out of the question if the behavior does not make a turnaround. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for blocking, long as you like. This user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, he's here to remodel it to support his external agenda. Consider my limited patience well and truly exhausted. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse the block. This editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively or to improve the encyclopedia in any way, beyond pushing his point of view and berating those that don't agree with him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Consider this a non-admin endorsement of this block. CFW has shown that the previous block did not change his editing habits, and the project is better off not having an editor who choose to use his personal agenda as a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• This was lenient; an indefinite block would appear well and truly warranted here. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• :I was of the view everyone should get one last chance - previously he'd only had a 48 hour block for this sort of thing and a jump to indefinite would, perhaps, have been over-harsh. If he reverts to type when the block expires, then I'll be the first to press the indef button. Neıl ☎ 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this block is preventing disruption. I just can't help but feel that there was a good contributor in there that we failed to reach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel - It's never a happy moment when a volunteer editor gets booted out. I agree that CFW is diligent in his work. The issue wasn't his ability as a contributor - I would be the first to point to his intelligence and tenacity. The issue was, is, and I'm very sure will continue to be his attitude. This isn't editing - This is raw rage at work. What kind of person comes off a 2-day ban only to immediately repeat the offense? I've worked with this user for a while now (across 3 socks), and the sheer levels of toxicity he injects into the articles he touched has to be experienced to be believed. If you haven't seen it, good for you! I have, and I stopped editing in disgust a little while back. Took me very little time to dig up a few pearls to help you see what I'm talking about - [here], [here], [here], [here] or [here]. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block. Enough is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Thought about this and Utraexatzz and wildthing are right - He'll be back in a month and he'll go back to where he left off. He's been at it too long to change within a month and nothing he's said or done indicates he realizes he's doing anything wrong. Also, it's very odd that a page that had never been vandalized (even in all of its previous versions) is suddenly vandalized by an open proxy just yesterday...(see here). Coincidence? I don't think so! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Look, why don't we try topic-banning the guy first? See if there's anything worth saving? --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. Topic ban, rigidly enforced. If CFW violates the ban (which I have complete confidence he will), then he hasn't a leg to stand on. He'll still call us a bunch of cultist censors, though. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Though I'm not sure if it will make a difference. Here is the user's response to his ban -- he doesn't understand there's a problem. Renee (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse This user had been a suspected sock of previous users (now perm blocked) who have repeatedly tried to publish strong POV info against this topic - Sahaj Marg, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, SRCM. Because of lack of firm evidence (old users) this sock report got closed just short of confirming this. Despite all that, I tried to work very patiently with CFW [5], here, here, only to still not get his cooperation. In light of the fact that since last sept. there have been several attempts to post such information which ended up in deletes after a long discussion [6], [7], [8] I would vote for a topic ban. Can someone tell how broad would the ban be? (New Religious Movements" and "Cults" or just Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission/SRCM). Duty2love (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban or topic ban on New Religious Movements, sects or cult issues. I have tried to work with him now as two of the three different socks, and looked over his actions of the other sock. Nothing has changed, despite having wikipedia policies explained literally a hundred times to him, he just pushes on with his agenda.His behavior is the same each time... except this time those who disagree with im are "members of cult groups trying to suppress information" as opposed to "brain-washed zombies," which I suppose is a kind of progess? I don't see any change happening anytime soon. And of course, like the governor of California, he'll be back. Sethie (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Enough is enough, this user is refusing to follow the policies and has been warned about it enough. I would suggesta topic ban or a indef. block. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst Colonel Warden can have his moments, in this case I think he's right. A proposed merger of Multiplayer video game and PC Multiplayer is fine (and even necessary), but Multiplayer game has nothing to do with either of these articles, bar the fact that the video game element could be mentioned in that article. Regardless, this is a content dispute, which is on the third door down on the left. Black Kite 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the definition of the term that is completely inappropriate. Regardless, thanks for pointing to the dispute resolution page. I'll take it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The matter seems resolved here but we may just note for the record that I have discussed the matter extensively on the relevant talk pages and that my position rests upon reliable sources such as the OED. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Fascinating. Rankiri and other editors were in effect claiming the Oxford English Dictionary to be wrong, while Warden was simply holding the line against utter insanity. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). Please read the arguments before making fool of yourself: "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/multi?view=uk

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Review: User:Zscout370 blocking User:Redrocket

• Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Redrocket (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Relevant links: Redrockets talk page, Zscout370's talk page

I would like a review by the community of the recent actions of User:Zscout370. Zscout370 blocked User:Redrocket, an established editor with over a years experience and 5500 edits, for 12 hours with the block reasons of "you were told not to post real names, yet you still did". To give a quick background on what happened, User:Hdayejr was attacking User:TPIRFanSteve (see [9], [10], [11], the user's contribs and here especially) and Redrocket helped revert some of the attacks. Hdayejr was subsequently indefinitely blocked. He has returned as many IPs and a user name, all of which have been blocked (see the checkuser case). TPIRFanSteve wrote a comment on Redrockets talk page, saying thank you for his help with "Mr. D***" (revision since oversighted). Another sock of Hdayejr, User:Harvey1976, posted on WP:AN/I (archive link) complaining about the users last name ("Mr. D***") being posted on Redrocket's talk page. This discussion was quickly dismissed, archived, and Harvey1976 was blocked indefinitely for socking and vandalism. At about this time, IPs (obvious socks) came to Redrockets talk page and tried to remove the name, with Redrocket reverting the edits based on the fact that the user in question was banned from editing and Redrocket deemed it unacceptable for the IPs to alter a comment made on his talk page by TPIRFanSteve. At about this time three editors commented on Redrockets reverting saying that he should not restore the users last name, even though the user is banned from editing. After which Redrocket replaced the users last name with his user name [12] (the revisions before his are oversighted) Then Redrocket explained the reason he was making the edits (obviously in good faith) here and logged off. Zscout370 responded to the comment with "I don't care..." and blocked Redrocket for 12 hours.

So ultimately a banned editor who has harrassed multiple editors on and off-wiki wins and gets an established editor blocked for restoring a comment made on his talk page that was being removed by IP editors (Redrocket was not the original editor to post the name). Now not only was this block purely punitive, Zscout370 failed to assume good faith on the part of an established editor, failed to properly communicate with Redrocket, as seen by his short 3 comments on his talk page, and his "block and run" (Zscout370 has failed to reply to Redrocket as of this posting, nor has he replied to my concerns or of the concerns of two other editors and another admin on Redrocket's talk page, he has only made a total of 4 edits since his block 19 hours ago as of this post). This block was grossly uncalled for, unjust, unfounded in policy, and was not preventative, as Redrocket was not actively editing when blocked, and he is an established editor, who should have been given more than one chance even if his edits were deemed inappropriate by Zscout370 (I mean come on, we give the worst vandals four warnings). So in the end we have an established user blocked because of miscommunication and trolling comments made a banned user (so much for not feeding the trolls) and an "over-zealous" (as deemed by his quick block) admin who did not take the time or energy to figure out the situation and give Redrocket the benefit of the doubt. Now we have a user who is crushed and feels betrayed, and probably questioning whether or not to leave this site (I know I would after a situation like this). Is this how we really want to treat the editors here?

In the end, the block will probably forever stand in his record, but there are some things that should be done to help Redrocket. I personally expect an explanation, admission of error, and an apology to Redrocket from Zscout370. Also, Zscout370 (or another admin) should block Redrocket for 1 second, explaining that the previous block was uncalled for and unfounded. Ultimately the community needs to clear Redrocket's name, and warn Zscout370 that blocks of this nature will lead to a bad path.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support suggestion, as written. Block appears to have been unjustified. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not an admin, and since I have not been floating around long enough, I don't really know, but would my support/turn down of this have any meaning? Or is it only other admins?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any user can comment on this noticeboard, and all comments will be met with the same weight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means, offer your opinion! I, after all, am not an administrator (yet... someday, perhaps), but I'll often browse this board and weigh in if I have an opinion. As long as you're following WP:CIVIL and contributing something to the discussion, it's "all groovy," as the chill'uns say.  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Then I offer my opinion. The blocking admin was completely in the wrong, as he did not even follow policy leading up to the block. I see one warning, and the block was issued because RR posted the username. I do not see repeated warnings like the user stated happened. As Gonzo said, last time I checked, it was not only policy to remove edits made by a banned user, but it is also policy to warn a user 4 times, visibly on the offending user's talk page, so that others may verify said warnings. Such of course, in this case, was not done. Further, RR was not even the offending party, it just happened to take place on his page.

So, what happened here, an edit-war with a banned user on another established editor's page gets the established editor banned? My personal opinion is not only what Gonzo requested, but that the admin in question has his use of powers reviewed by other admins.

What is an admin that can't follow policy? I may be going to far here, but straight to the point, a temp de-sysop until the user in question knows WP policy like the back of his hand.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We also need to remember that admins get the same respect as Redrocket should have had, and only after continued misuse and warnings should action be taken. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is no policy I am aware of which entitles one to 4 warnings before a block. See WP:WARN , which says "Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant. Level 2 – No faith assumption. Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist. Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning. Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning." We should not use a level 1 warning for such an established editor, because the "Welcome to Wikipedia" is insulting. Three warnings would be more typical. A new vandalism-only account typically gets three warnings before a block. I would certainly expect no less for an established and productive editor. I think that the real world name of an editor should be removed. At the same time, the block seems excessive and premature and should be lifted. Edison (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it appears that the real name of the editor in question is in his actual username. Read it. If a username is User:johnsmithjr, and I say "cut it out Mr. Smith", um, am I revealing anything that the user didn't already reveal themselves?!?!? I mean, its not as if it would take any investigation to figger out the real last name if the real last name is in the actual username!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Amen. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, here is the diff of when I removed the need for oversight on AN/I. [13] I was the one who emailed for oversight. I have no opinion on the matter right now but just wanted to show this to anyone who cares. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for the diff, you gotta love the wonderful trolling going on by the IPs trying to get Redrocket blocked... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that I also don't believe the block was appropriate. Enigma ^message 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment From User:Redrocket: I've written this several times, but found myself going into too much detail. If I leave anything out, please feel free to ask questions.

In his first contact with me, ZScout370 said I had been warned before about the edit. I had not. User:Hdayejr had previously raised the issue at ANI here [14], which was quickly closed and the user's sock blocked. Other editors reinstated the edit on my page (which has been oversighted, so I can't provide links), and I was not consulted at all about this.

I was never warned by anyone except the sockpuppets and IPs of a multiply-banned user, which should be disregarded as per wikipedia policy. The previous ANI came and went, and was closed in less than three hours with the edits still on my page. No legitimate editor or admin had any problem with the comment left prior to this discussion.

ZScout370 made his comment, so I went to his page. Nowhere on his page that I could find indicated that he was an admin (no admin icon in his top right corner, no admin category link on the bottom of the page) so I assumed he was another editor. Assuming good faith, I went to his page here [15] and tried to explain.

ZScout370 came back to my page (after I was off-wiki), saw my explanation, and blocked me with no further discussion other than what was listed above ("I don't care...). Most maddening of all, he got off wiki with no chance for discussion. He only made four more edits (as far as I can see) in the next 24 hours, and only stopped by my page to dismiss the comments of other editors by saying I "had been told many times," which is untrue, and "The block should expire soon, as I only had it for 12 hours."

That's not a satisfactory response, in my opinion. I got a drive-by block, my first in more than a year of editing.

I feel this admin was completely out of line here. He took the word of an IP sockpuppet (which was tagged as such prior to my block here [16]), and didn't bother to discuss it, explain himself, or even look at my contributions and block log to see that I've never had any trouble on wikipedia.

Gonzo Fan 2007 is right, I'm more than a bit pissed off at this. I've tried to do things the right way since day one here, and I've always hoped to one day make admin. I had a dispute that had no clear answer (privacy for banned user whose ID was their name) and I tried to discuss it with admins, and they ignored my attempts to talk it over in favor of slapping me with a block.

This is a perfect example of what gives wikipedia a bad reputation, and drives away quality editors.

I appreciate the work of Gonzo Fan in opening up this topic for discussion, and also Sarcasticidealist. These admins cleaned up my talk page last night after the banned IP editor that ZScout370 blocked me in defense of returned and revealed the real name of another editor several times, including once using a racial slur against him, if I recall correctly. Gonzo Fan 2007 has oversighted those edits, but he can verify that the attacks have continued even after my block.

I also appreciate the attention and opinions of other wikipedia editors in this matter. Redrocket (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would point out that Redrocket is not entirely correct here. I warned him twice as well (and I have got an admin icon on my page, since that appears to be important) - once in this edit summary after I reverted his second re-insertion of the real name and just in case he didn't notice that, on his talk page as well. Yet he inserted the real name again.Black Kite 09:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  If I may fill in some details, your edit here [17] didn't actually revert the user name (or any other edit by me). This edit has summary "rvt - stop it, you've been warned already" and actually reverts a chunk of my talk page written by the banned sock of User:Hdayejr, which I assumed was a message to him. Following that, your next edit here [18] was the comment "Which bit of "do not post real names" was the part that was tricky to understand?" which sure seems to be assuming bad faith.

  • No - remember that the diff is misleading (I posted it to show the edit summary) because your actual edit where you re-inserted the name has been oversighted, and thus is not visible. That edit of mine did remove the name you re-inserted. Also, the talkpage comment may appear to show bad faith, but I tend to do that when editors are reverting after being told what they are doing is wrong. I would point out that I am not commenting on the block here; merely that you did not mention the warnings from two admins, not just one.Black Kite 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I see your point, and I actually thought about the oversights last night after I had logged out. You're right, I did revert after ZScout's reversion, and I tried to explain what was going on to him here [19]. I thought once I made it known that the editor making the case was a banned sockpuppet, the matter would go away (as it did in the previous ANI discussion). An abusive user who's been banned for over a month still socking and starting arguments on wiki and trying to claim anonymity, even though his name is contained in his banned username, doesn't seem to be (by the first ANI) a cut-and-dried case of a privacy violation. While I was trying to explain, the anon IPs of User:Hdayejr continued to make changes on my page, including personal attacks such as this [20], and I'll freely admit reverting him again as a sock of a banned user. I tried to explain myself to every legitimate editor who came to my page, and it's quite frustrating to not get anyone to comment.

• However, after that post, I did not revert the user's real name again. You and another admin (Ricky81682 both made comments, so I spent the next hour or so writing up a full description of the sockpuppet's history and posted it to my talk page (after the ANI thread was taken down). I informed and invited you to comment here [21], which you ignored. I also added the the username of the banned user, not his actual name, as I explained above. Redrocket (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know what happened after I warned you the second time, because I logged out; I wasn't ignoring it. Black Kite 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Understood, and I shouldn't have made that the issue. I don't blame you for not being on wiki, rather I'd like my actions to demonstrate the good faith I had in the system. I'd like to hope that my comments to ZScout, my posting to ANI (and then to my talk page), and then my notification of you and Ricky on your talk pages would show that I was trying to explain and discuss this matter. Likewise, I'll say again after you and Ricky posted, I did not revert the changes. I wanted to show that even though a banned user was manipulating my userpage, I was still willing to talk this out and not edit war. However, no one did that, and ZScout just logged back in to block me and dismissed me with "I don't care." Redrocket (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, I am disappointed in your response here. If someone registers their account name as "Asmithjr" and then gets referred to as Mr. Smith, that's can't possibly be any violation of any privacy or anywhere near anything like "outing". Their name is self declared, and we can use any, or all, or part of it, to refer to them without worrying about privacy. The only reason it came up is because said user was evading their ban to continue and perpetuate the harassment of an editor. The only reason Redrocket was involved was because he was trying to help said editor cope with being harassed. Which is what we, as admins, should be doing -keeping editors from being harassed, not facilitating it, and certainly not by adding to it. You should be apologizing to Mr. Rocket (Sorry Red) for your role in this, not defending an inappropriate block, which unless there's something more (and I've been waiting -I don't think there is anything more) was a bad move. R. Baley (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another part that concerns me about this incident is that if the original concern was an "outing" of a user, the original "outing" is still available on Redrocket's talk page history. If I follow things correctly, it was not Redrocket who originally "outed" the editor in question's name, but instead was TPIRFanSteve. Why was nothing said to TPIRFanSteve and only to Redrocket? I agree with R. Baley and Jayron32 in that I don't think an editor's privacy was breeched since the editor's real name was part of his username. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Gogo, something else for everyone to keep in mind is that the reason HdayeJr was able to wikilawyer in a plausible manner about privacy concerns is because he has been consistently violating our anonymity policy by outing Steve (sorry, TPIRFanSteve) with his original account and subsequent ban-evading, harassing sock accounts. Privacy violations are something with which he is very familiar, because he has done plenty of it . . .and purposefully, I might add. Protect our good-faith contributers, R. Baley (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For background, last night Hdayejr once again came to my talk page and revealed the name of TPIRFanSteve multiple times before he was blocked. It's been oversighted by Gonzo. Redrocket (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP did leave TPIRFanSteve's name on your talk page twice. Gonzo deleted the first one and I just deleted the second. They weren't oversighted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically we have anything but a clear cut case, where there is a big question of whether anything wrong was actually committed, and even if there was it was obviously in good faith with the user in question trying to communicate with everyone else, and then we have an admin block said user? And then, after the block, the admin "runs." I think the above comments show that this block was inappropriate, now what are we going to do to make this right? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would really like to get ZScout's side of the story at this point as everything I have read so far points to this being a truly unjustified block of Redrocket. Any possible actions/sanctions on ZScout shouldn't be taken without his/her input on this matter, just to give them a chance to explain their actions Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't care what the community decides to do about ZScout, I have made it clear that my main reason here is protecting and repairing the damage done to an established editor. My "what are we going to do to make this right?" is echoing the comment made by Mr. Baley, how are we going to "Protect our good-faith contributers." How are we going to make this right for Redrocket, was my main question. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there, it's a shame that an editor like Redrocket gets runs through the ringer like this due to a known troll's wiki-lawyering. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To add to Mr. Fan's comment above, I'm not that plussed about seeking any "sanction" or "action" either. Zscout has been an admin longer than I've been editing (over 2x's as long. I think). And there would have to be a whole lot more there (problems revealed) to get me worked up to that extent. I'm assuming a lapse or misreading of the situation at this point. That said, harm was done, though I think its extent has been greatly mitigated by this thread. I believe that the best resolution, would be for Zscout to leave a note in the block log (per the blocking policy) clearing Redrocket and linking to this ANI thread. It would look best (for *everyone*, I might add) if Zscout did it him/herself. R. Baley (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for me to make contritions or apologies, none are coming. I am not going to block this user again just to say the last block was an error. I am not going to seek for this block log to be wiped. When it comes out to outing people's real names, there is no tier warning that we have to follow. If you out someone, we warn you once to knock it off. If not, blocks will occur. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, how do you out someone who's already appeared to have outed themselves with their username? From what I gather and reading the thread, the user that was "outed" has his lastname in his username. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one out someone who has outed themselves. Judging from your response, I question whether you read through this thread, and RR's contributions. Second, what happened to communication, even assuming good faith?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Zscout, if this is going to be your response to a bad block, please don't block anyone else ever again. Bad blocks stir up drama that we don't need. Friday (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens on here anymore, everything will resort to drama. Had to block two users for edit warring on Kosovo and I been demanded by at least one person to clear their block log. I am not here to play babysitter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so say your real last name was "Scout," am I outing your identity by calling your "Mr. Scout?" And I think you seem to forget that the user whose "identity" was being outed was the same editor who has actually outed TPIRFanSteve, has harrassed "Steve" on and off-wiki, has been banned multiple times, and his abusing sock puppets. And who do you block? The editor who is trying to help Steve and stop a banned editor from abusing Wikipedia, the editor who made a good-faith effort to open the lines of communication, the editor who has made quality contributions for over a year? And no your not a babysitter, you are an administrator. You have the ability to block users, an ability that should not be used lightly or on a whim. You should have a solid reason for blocking per the blocking policy. Many editors and admins have called you on this block stating it was inappropriate, and your response is to call us on making drama. Seriously? If you want the "drama" to stop then right the wrongs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No; my real name is on here, so even if you said it, I won't personally be outed and I won't be upset by it. I am not going to write the wrongs, since the things that were asked of me, I either cannot do it or I refuse to do it. I can't clear block logs, that is a job of a developer. Plus, blocking the same user again just to say the last block was a mistake is counter productive and will just make that log even longer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, not asking you to clear logs, that usually doesn't happen except for extreme cases. Secondly, the length of the block log is not important, it is the symbolic righting of the wrong, something that is clearly written in our blocking policy. Zscout if I may, can I have an explanation of this block? I think we would all very much like to hear why you felt this block was needed? Cause so far everyone in this thread agrees your block was inappropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold up. So, Scout, you say that it is okay to list the real name of a user if that said user has revealed said name? Is it just me or does that seem like a double standard? I can't cite the diff, because the user's talk page was deleted, but it was stated by another user that the banned user revealed that his name was within his username. So, by your definition of outing, you banned RR for nothing?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Daedalus's question. It seemed liek an unjustified block to me, but by just saying what you said Scout, you basically admitted that it taht it was a bad block, albeit rather backhandedly. Wizardman 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Zscout370, my friend, I'm sure you're a good admin and excellent editor. But, here, sadly, well, it seems you've made a bit of a mistake. So, let's keep this brief. When in a hole, stop digging, and undo the damage and end the drama by going to Redrocket's talkpage and saying sorry. And change the block log to clear his/her name. A quick block with an edit summary explaining that the whole thing was a bit of a slip. Problem solved. If you want to dig your heels in over this, well, that's your choice. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, User:Friday has already blocked Redrocket for 1 second to clear his name and point to this discussion ([22]). I also would love to hear the answer to Daedalus969's question and second what AlasdairGreen27 said. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Friday for making that comment on my block log, and also echo what Gonzo said above. I have tried to engage ZScout several times in discussion (both pre- and post-block), and he has not left a single comment for me to explain what happened. I feel like I've wasted a great deal of time on this topic trying to explain things, and the admin involved refuses to communicate. As I said at the start of this, it's quite frustrating. Redrocket (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Coren Bot

Resolved

 – I guess -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please white list my account as I am receiving two messages a minute from Coren Bot which wrongly keeps taggin my new Burmese settlement articles of which I am adding two articles a minute. No response from User:Coren who operates it. Its driving me crackers. Will somebody help give the Bald Guy a break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it's saying you're copyvio-ing from a Wikipedia article - which would be true if formatting and non-substantive information in the article violated some copyright. Each article is a one-line stub that takes its format from the first article on your list, so I don't think there's anything problematic about any of them. Would there be any objections if I rollbacked the bot's tagging of those articles? As for whitelisting your edits, or edits in this area, or that source - I don't know. I'm not seeing a way on the bot's page, so my impulse would be to ask Coren. I'm hesitant to shut down the bot, but this isn't the first issue raised in the past few days. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles I spot checked are indeed copyvio-free, so I've removed all of the tags on your Burma articles. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I checked several as well, and, I don't see any obvious copyvio's. Would you like for me to protect your talkpage for the time being, until we can get ahold of Coren? SQL^{Query me!} 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The whitelist appears to be at User:CorenSearchBot/allies -- at least I found my name there, and I'm not getting the notices anymore. – Sadalmelik ☎ 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added your name to the whitelist - I've seen your mass article creations in the past and can understand how the bot might get confused because of them. If Coren objects, I'm sure he'll remove you, but I doubt he'll have a problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't even know about that whitelist :P SQL^{Query me!} 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy days are here again in the land of Wiki bots I guess... Is anyone going to take a position on Corenbot's instant tagging of mirror scrapes, highlighted a few posts above, or is it just going to be ignored because it's seemingly accepted that a bot op can be absent from wiki for days on end while still running a bot (or months it would appear since my talk post about it). MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish: instant tagging is good, it lowers the amount of false positives. The error rate is low, and real people review every tagging. There are two white lists to prevent such things to continue when a false positive is raised. Do you need something else while I'm here? Otherwise you can come and help, you know, build a free encyclopedia? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute between Bermudatriangle and Sennen goroshi

I repeat here what I wrote at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

Conclusions

It's clear that there are issues here and at the counter-accusation Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki that go far, far beyond whether Rajkumar is (again) using sockpuppets or not. My first impression is to recommend a short-term block on Bermudatriangle because I interpret his accusation against Sennen as WP:POINT, where the accusation on this page, especially connecting Bermudatriangle with Dhirroses, is based on reasonable evidence. This dispute has already gone to WP:ANI once (I'll look for the link), and I think it may be headed back there. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• ANI link from May 5: [23]
• ANI link from May 2: [24]

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen is asking for an indef-block on Bermudatriangle. That may be too harsh, but not by much. I think Bermudatriangle has been disruptive and probably should be blocked temporarily until we can figure out how to mediate this dispute. Do you agree? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shalom, thanks for looking into this. Without going too far into the basis of the dispute (occurring at or around the Princess Diana article, with respect to the inclusion/non-inclusion of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace") . . .a cursory evaluation on my part makes me think that Bermudatriangle could be blocked without much detriment to the encyclopedia. Comparing the edit history of the 2 accounts in dispute ("wannabekate" for Bermudatriangle and "wannabekate" for Sennen_goroshi) looking at the 2 ANI "reports" as well as the SSP reports, leads me to a couple of conclusions: 1) BT is a 2 month old single purpose account with 2 trips already to ANI (more edits to ANI than any article or article talk page) which makes me think this is a SPA and possibly sock and has already been blocked once, 2) OTOH, Sennen_goroshi has edited fairly consistently since July 2007, made over 1500 edits, with an average of 2.8 edits per page across almost 600 different pages. Conclusion: probably non-tendentious and not a SPA (caveat: Sennen goroshi has been blocked twice for edit warring in the past, last time was in march. Neither block was related to this topic.) 3) Bermudatriangle seems to be here to advocate for the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" not edit the encyclopedia generally and people who are volunteering their time here in a good faith manner shouldn't have to deal with that.

We could go slow and start out (at the very least) with a 2 month topic ban for Bermudatriangle for anything related to Princess Diana, to be interpreted very broadly. Also, any perpetuating of the dispute on BT's part (wrt Sennan goroshi) during this time would be met with increasing blocks. Or we could move fast, and I wouldn't be bothered by an permanent ban to be enforced with an indefinite block either. I slightly favor the "go slow" approach, should an admin be willing to closely supervise, otherwise an indefinite block is called for. I would appreciate more editor input (the links Shalom provided don't take that long to look over) and thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds about commenting on this, I would like to make unbiased comments, but I am sure a little bias will be evident in my comments, due to the circumstances. I have been involved in my fair share of disputes on wikipedia, and for the most part they were resolved by admin intervention, the other editor and myself growing up, or simple consensus. I had no issues with these editors, and despite having a dispute, I could see that overall wikipedia was better off due to their presence. There have been two editors, who I just considered to be a waste of bandwidth and time, one of them is on a 12month ban, the other is Bermudatriangle. I might have a slightly different attitude if I had seen one single constructive edit, one attempt at compromise or the slightest respect for what wikipedia is trying to do - but unfortunately I have seen none of the above - I can understand someone coming to wikipedia in order to edit articles that mean something to them, but Bermuda is not editing a variety of articles, he is here to push an organisation that I feel he is the founder of, or according to his own statement (if I didn't misunderstand) to gain publicity for an organisation that was founded by someone he was at university with. There is no difference between his edits, and someone shamelessly promoting their own website. It is a bit cold, but nothing would be lost by him being indef blocked/12 month blocked - it might give a few other editor time to make edits, rather than deal with this. I for one, know I have spent the last week or so, filing reports, dealing with accusations, etc, rather than making edits. But then again, I'm sure a little bias crept in, so I would love to hear the opinions of others. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is advocating too much to ban me indefinitely. But another User's experience with User:Sennen goroshi is a fine evident how she/he is disruptive on wikipedia.

It is ridiculous to note that I am the only one, taking interest of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace, then what about the following edits/comments by various other editors.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]
[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries

User User:TharkunColl repeatedly deleted text from the British Isles article, each time very loudly insisting that the text was not supported by the reference cited and that he was defending the truth in a rearguard action against POV pushers. The text was in fact verbatim supported in the references cited. User User:TharkunColl reverted two other editors who replaced the text, each time using CAPITAL LETTERS in the edit summary to state that the text was not supported by reference. The diffs are [43], [44], [45].
The accompanying talk page comments include [46], [47], where TharkunColl repeats the assertion that the deleted text was not in the reference. The page was then partially protected, resulting in the following comments [48], and [49], with User:TharkunColl accusing the original editor of lying, and the reverting editors of being POV, a politicised minority, etc. The deleted text, which can be very easily seen in the diffs from the article, appears in the reference given, i.e. the words "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism" appear in the article from the Canadian Journal of history at [[50] (look on page 2).
I pointed out on the talk page that the references did exist and that I believed the repeated deletions and misleading edit summaries qualified as vandalism. It has been pointed out that vandalism is generally considered to refer to more dramatic actions and that I should come to the general incidents board if I wanted to raise this issue. Once challenged with the detail from the reference, User:TharkunColl began defending his actions by claiming instead that he felt that the text he had deleted wasn't immediately relevant to the article and later by saying that he hadn't actually read the reference at all. I belive this is a post-hoc defense.
Given the LONG term issues around the British Isles article, I feel that such repeated deletion of supported text, such misleading edit summaries and the (incorrect) accusations of lying and POV are serious and that behaviour like this represents a major problem on a page with the problems of that one. Note, I don't have strong feelings about the content deleted. I think it probably belongs, but it hasn't been discussed and I don't believe it's the point. (I also feel - perhaps incorrectly - that two admins who frequent the page, John and Deacon of Pndapetzim, have strong views on the article content and perhaps ought to recuse themselves from any discussion on this incident.) Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that part of my edit included rephrasing the bit that said that British trade in the North Atlantic dated to Saxon times. If that appears in the article then I certainly never saw it - and even if it does say it, it's demonstrably wrong. Incidentally, I have since added the whole quote, not just the half that was originally there. In any case, it is referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't this matter brought up a couple of days ago on this or the other admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes on this very one and it was decided it was a content dispute involving User:Bardcom with no admin action required. Merkin's mum 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikistalking case, was moved back to Tharky's page (at Bardcom's choosing). But, so far that discussion hasn't continued there. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any possible sanctions against those who repeatedly make malicious and/or frivolous complaints? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate complaint that has nothing to do with the wikistalking incident. And yes, the wikistalking conversation has not continued on any Talk page that I am aware of. Interesting that Merkinsmum interprets the previous incident as "no admin action required".....is that an assumption.... ??? --Bardcom (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a fact that that is pretty much how the last thread here ended- it was to be continued on Thark's talk, i.e. not on the administrators noticeboard. As far as I know, everyone who commented in the previous thread you started the day before this one saw it as a content dispute, and some referred to the RfC about Bardcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom (which, in my opinion, is pretty much a content dispute, but that's by the by.) Please reread my words above- I'm not assuming anything about this thread if people really consider it a separate matter, I was commenting on the previous thread, hence my use of the past tense. However- as it is so soon-about a day after the last thread, people might wonder if it is actually the same matter, as LessHeardvanU did above, and as I am yet to be convinced that it's not.:) Merkin's mum 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkin, there is no conspiracy theory. This is a separate thread, and a separate complain. I steered well clear of the British Isles Talk page when this row broke out. The last thread ended because the admins weren't going to actually do anything about Tharky's behaviour (which appears true - nothing has yet been done). The admins have blessed Tharky's behaviour as justified, because they have interpreted it as a content dispute. Same thing appears to be happening here, only more so, as you are now attempting to connect (while trying to make it appear that you are merely wondering) two separate issues into a single issue and then absolving Tharky's behaviour, again, under "Content Dispute".

Question Does Content Dispute grant editors a special license under which they can evade warnings (still nothing on Tharky's Talk page), blindly revert edits without justification (then or since) or discussion(my separate complaint), and continually remove references (this complaint, different editor, although similar themes (Tharky, British Isles))??? One of the hallmarks of good adminship is an even-handed approach, low tolerence of ad hominen attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at all times. Equally, when editors deliberately breach these fundamental policies, a warning must be issued pointing out the problems. After warnings come blocks, etc. This incident, and the one before involving my complaint, appears to teach editors how to edit war, how to breach policies on civility and assuming good faith, all without warnings or sanctions. Many editors will learn these lessons. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we let Watapalaver continue his complaints againt Tharky. Let's not get his report & Bardcom's (archived) report interwined. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, aren't any edits related to "The Troubles" under Arbcom thingies? I'd urge all editors to step back and go through dispute resolution. Also, that huge chunk of text: tl;dr. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - The Troubles - this absolutely is a "related article" and I'm suprised, and disappointed, to see admins brushing it off as a content dispute. It is a content dispute, but the editors involved clearly need stern advice about dispute resolution, and to be reminded of the sanctions available against any disruptive editor on those articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's stretching it to link "The Troubles" with this complaint. If I squint up my eyes and peer through my eyelashes with my hands over my eyes and my head moving back and forth really quickly ... then yes! I see the link! Otherwise no. --Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? It just seems like the same subject matter. I do agree something perhaps should be done about it, but I don't know what except maybe a ban on these behaviors from one or either side. I'm not an expert but don't think that would be dealt with on AN/I, it's a matter for mediation (has there been one?) or if ArbCom want to spend the time on it, eventually ArbCom. But it would be depressing to see it come to that, IMHO. Merkin's mum 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

IfD rapidly running out of control

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.

See the DRV and the links towards the end of this section for the wider discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg - I do not subscribe to the view that we should keep shild porn just because we can, but regardless, the thing is running out of control. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested it get closed but I appear to have been ignored. Rgoodermote  20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, are you asking for an uninvolved admin to review and close one way or the other? _GB^T/C 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope not. It's just being reported on Gawker (although, oddly, without a link to the IfD) and that's pretty 'big' in the blogosphere. Of course, people who think that they can vote on what is or isn't legal (which is up to the courts to decide) are coming and voting en masse. --TIB (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the image has been deleted. I can't see how kowtowing to a minor right wing organization trying to stir up publicity for itself is ever a good thing. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:Angusmclellan for a policy-covered reason for the deletion, but, barring one, I plan on opening a DRV. I'm just going to wait for a response from the deleting admin before I do that. I might be surprised by his response. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Just edit the article to include the meaningful discussion of the cover necessitated by the non-free content criteria cited in the closing argument (whew!) and get it undeleted - that'll give you fewer hoops to jump through (and consequently less drama) if you want the image back. --Kizor 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently protected, else this would have already been done. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis has now restored it. I think going DRV would have been a more cool-headed route, but I also think that Angus's deletion, which was by his own admission for a rationale other than those under discussion in the IFD, was a de facto speedy, and needs to be discussed as such. I don't think such a discussion reflects well on his decision to delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just on my way here to say the exact same thing. Ford MF (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kizor has it spot on. Since the original debate never really touched on the NFCC#8 issues, there should be no problem getting the image undeleted once there is enough discussion of the image in the article to warrant having a copy of the image in the article under our non-free content criteria. Incidentially, WP:NFCC criteria #5 and #6 also apply here - the image needs to be encyclopedic and must meet "general Wikipedia content requirement" (ie. not be pornographic, which is what some people claim it is). But at the moment there is far too much drama around all this. I have a related discussion I want to get started once I find a location for it, but I fear it will get lost amongst the noise. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good God, what a mess. Well, if media outlets other than WorldNetDaily haven't picked this up, they certainly will now. IMO, the deletion was entirely correct; I was arguing for it to be deleted on ethical grounds, not having considered the fair use issue, but I agree with the closer's argument re WP:NFCC #8. In cases related to image licensing, it is perfectly acceptable to disregard consensus where said consensus violates licensing restrictions, since those are non-negotiable. I also think it should be deleted for fundamental ethical reasons, but let's not re-hash the IfD here. Walton^One 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you argue that non-free images with borderline adherence with WP:NFCC should be speedily deleted without discussion of said adherence? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the closing admin should be in the process right now of speedy-deleting all album covers. If album covers fail NFCC, fine. Let's say that. Delete them all. FCYTravis (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(to Sarcasticidealist) Generally, no. Image policy isn't my area of expertise, but I certainly wouldn't endorse that statement as a general rule. However, the fair use issues combined with the ethical issues certainly merited deletion. They are also related; the main problem is that the album cover is simply not necessary to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic, which means that the fair use claim is dubious, and also raises the ethical issue of why we are keeping something so morally questionable when it isn't even necessary. Walton^One 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, those sound like issues that we could discuss! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't disagree with that. I have proposed on the DRV that we speedy-relist the image at IfD, since I think IfD is probably a more productive forum for deciding this than either DRV or ANI. Walton^One 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, a DRV has been started at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 9. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Follow up comment - Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. There is also a talk page subpage covering stuff moved from the Signpost tipline discussion page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion here, as there's an ongoing discussion at DRV. Corvus cornix_talk 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible flood of edits to Flock (web browser) due to tweet

Flock has asked its 723 twitter followers to update their wiki page. --TIB (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. HalfShadow 21:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it - but I doubt if it is going to be vandalised by the birdwatching fraternity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a little faith here and hope that some of the contributors add to the article to improve it. Just canvassing for an article necessarily isn't bad, especially if the editors can be constructive, not destructive or disruptive. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially when the person offers rewards for significant changes. --TIB (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup (copying the features pages verbatim does add text which sounds good), but the biggest concern should be copyright problems, not vandalism. I do think we have at least one or two new editors that might be coming out of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eric.k.herberholz is at least trying to be helpful. Can't really hold that against him. HalfShadow 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sportsbook.com spammer

An apparent single purpose account is edit warring and continuously adding a link to the external links section of this article. Looks like obvious spam to me, but I'll leave it for an administrator to deal with. Apologies for not including the user, but it's probably obvious from the edit history that the editor in question is FadeIntoYou. Rray (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified User:Fadeintoyou about this discussion. I remove the link to a site that probably doesn't pass WP:RS which is purporting to be reviewing the site. I'll look more into it later. The edit dispute doesn't belong here, but the possible COI problem is worth looking into. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire entry is spam for Sportsbook.com! Are you kidding me? I'm trying to protect people from this criminal organization!Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

no what you are trying to do is push a single point of view, and it is getting old quickly. You have been advised several times as how to work with other editors on this matter but it appears to be going in one ear and out the other. Enough now. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what YOU are trying to do is push a single point of view. Why are you so intent on defending their propaganda? What is your agenda? Fadeintoyou (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories

Is there someone knowledgeable re: multi-racial categorizations? A contributor is reverting a number of such biographical designations [51], and I do not know if the changes are legitimate or not. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rule was, unless they were self-described or in a really good source, get the people out of the categories completely. Notified him anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No explicit rule. Going through 1, 2, 3 levels of abstraction about guidelines, it seems that for religious beliefs and sexual orientation, not unless the subject publicly self-identifies or the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. It isn't explicitly the same for ethnic groups but I'd follow a similar pattern. Any other ideas?-- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not terribly fond of such categorizations to begin with, I was struck by the contributor's inclination to 'take offense', especially since most of the cats being reverted were supported by the articles' biographical information. But as suggested above, I am unfamiliar with Wiki policy on this. JNW (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, that kind of immediate offense, quick action, and immediate stop when questioned at all is really suspicious. I already reverted one because he broke up a ref tag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your research is appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another "forever war"

Don't know what the right action is, but the edit war over pictures in Latin America has gotten ridiculous. An edit history should never contain: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68].

This has been going on since February. There have been some efforts by registered editors to impose some kind of sense: GDP, alphabetical, north-south, something. Nothing seems to help. A couple of anonymous editors from varying IPs keep shuffling it, and efforts to fix it just wind up shuffling it further. Kww (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reading that mess but you can head over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection next time. Is it just varying IPs playing around? If so, next ones I'll post a note on the talk pages and then just semi-protect the page from them. If there's some established users in that mess, I'm more hesitant to full protect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it the way it came out. Kww, summarize. Is it just the IPs? If so, I could look at the history and figure it out. Is it a few reverts a day, or are we talking silly goofy vandalism that's hard to pick up? If it's the goofy type, Latin America is properly important enough to stop that for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I had. I'll be more explicit. A few anonymous IPs (each dynamic, but from obviously from two different pools. 201.*.*.* from speedy.net in Peru, 76.232.*.* likes Santiagao, 75.62.*.* favors Mexico City, etc. ), keep pushing their own cities to the top of the image list, and deleting and rearranging their rivals. This happens three or four times a week, and provokes a little edit-skirmish of image rearrangement to see who winds up on top for a while. Registered editors have been trying to enforce some kind of sanity, but sometimes that just makes it worse. It's been going on for months. We get valid anonymous edits, so I hate to see semi-protection. It may be that "put up with it" is the best answer, but I decided to ask if someone had a better idea. Kww (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief semi-protection may convince the warring ip's to resolve the matter by discussion (of course, choosing a third way that demotes both the other options in favour of another while protection is enabled is far too WP:POINTy to be considered...) and the other ip's can always use the talkpage to suggest improvements elsewhere in the article. Seriously, a 24 or 48 hour semi-protect may be just the answer - or at least the start of finding the answer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd kill for love to have the ability to range block individual articles. --barneca (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:POINTy solutions, I've considered always making sure that the top image is a picture of a slum from the relevant city.Kww (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by 67.164.113.37

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week for 3RR. Indef block might be considered if he resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For a few weeks 67.164.113.67 has been removing sourced content from Hans Reiser and does not discuss changes despite being warned. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking - recidivist sockpuppeteer needs another block

Resolved

 – User:Socppt11 indef blocked —Travis^talk 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)]]

From [this] post/admission of being a sockpuppet, it is clear that User:Socppt11 is yet another sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking (and most recently User:Lagrandebanquesucre.--Gregalton (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

This user has repeatedly been uncivil and rude and I am sick and tired of it. I ask that his pattern of behavior be reviewed. He's been blocked at least a half-dozen tiems before and still there is no improvement. Diagreements can be worked out if people are reasonable, but when they are not, what to do? nelson has ised profanity directed to me and has also insulted my good-faith edits. Both of those are specific, clear-cut rule violations. I know I am not a registered user, I chose that because of privicy concerns. I still hope that my views on this will be takne seriously. Clearly the past punishment of Nelson has no affect on his behavior, in some ways it is worse than before.

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football)

• User talk:72.0.36.36#Chris Long

72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but you should provide specific diffs here to highlight uncivil comments that were made. Grsz^talk 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is already mediation going on, shouldn't we wait until it is completed before acting? Either way, notifying Chris and the mediator in case this just belongs there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments have been made, but I'd wait on this. Right now, the mediation (at medcab) is rather behavioral, and I'm trying to switch that over to content. This is a predicated affair, at the moment. Or should be, I think :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting, I just started this because the other mediation was only going to look at the use of "originally". Therefore, I was advised tha this is the incident place. I can make the case anytime, whenever it is deemed appropriate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Chrisjnelson has been the subject of a (recently expired) arbitration ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Durova^Charge! 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Drafted or Originally Drafted contains more examples of his incivil tone and attempts to bully a conversation. This looks exactly like the kind of behavior that led to the prior ArbCom ruling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer

Resolved

 – What's the difference between Albertsons, Fred Meyer's, and Safeway and Wikipedia? On the latter you can't shop around. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. denial of editprotected

Apart from all other issues pertaining to this, I can't see why my request was denied, except that admins are afraid to deal with controversial issues.

Prior to the hysteria surrounding the press release, the article was stable.

It was protected, and happened to have the image moved down at the time;

My requests to revert have been denied even though consensus had clearly been reached.

I know that, in a few days, this will be irrelevent, but in the meantime it appears to the outside world that WP has bowed to external censorship.

--  Chzz  ►  04:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Being vague here doesn't help anyone help out. Look at Talk:Virgin_Killer#Editprotected_revert_request, you request a reversion, claim that consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg (extremely controversial, deleted and now at deletion review being discussed) and an admin rejects it (in part because of the oppose votes), so you forum shop. Recommend marking as resolved and head to WP:DR if you want to complain some more. If not, discuss it on the article page but it's dumb to do that until the discussion about the image itself is done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was vague. I didn't want to spam this forum with detail that can be obtained by research, and this specific request for an edit should not be related to ongoing isputes re. the image. I disagree with the admin rejection due to oppose votes, as consensus is clear. I agree it's dumb to discuss on the talk page, as discussion re. the image deletion is irrelevent to this request. I fail to see policy that substantiates denying this specific request, and discussion with admins has led to "I agree but I can't do it because it's controversial" (unfortunately not a citable quote for obv reasons). --  Chzz  ►  05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section shows your view isn't the only one. If you were unopposed, it wouldn't be controversial. Even then, there is a reason why there's a process to get the mop and bucket and it is because we supposedly have better judgment =) Let the DRV and everything else sort itself out (which I think will require a ARBCOM decision in the end) either about NFCC (unbelievable) or about how far to take WP:CENSOR. I think we're done here though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced information with repeated offensive edit summaries despite warning

At the article Monica Seles I inserted information about her receiving Hungarian citizenship in 2007 with three reliable references. User:Tennis expert removed it with an offensive edit summary. I warned him not to use such an edit summary again, also referred to my detailed explanation on the talk page. I reinserted the information with a fourth(!) reliable reference, translated all the titles into English, even inserted a quote from one of the articles.
He deleted the warning from his talk page, then reverted my edit again, this time explicitly using the word vandalism in the edit summary. He called my edit "pushing agenda" on the talk page and despite my explanation again denied the verifability of the sources, because "these are not English news agencies". It's also kind of strange that the same user never questioned the blog of a young Serbian woman as a reliable source.
I'd like to ask an administrator to reinsert the well-referenced information with all the references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly in the right here on the content, but I'm not going to involve myself in an edit war. I have warned him. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I reinsert the info once again, but that means I'll have two reverts (which I don't really like). As he uses such phrases as "enough said" and "rv vandalism", I don't know if he will be able to finally stop. Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page regarding this thread. Hopefully he can be involved in this thread and maybe come to a conclusion. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And he reverted it D= [69] <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Tonkleheimer, as Squash Racket did not do me the courtesy of doing so. Turning to the substance of this disagreement, Monica Seles is a very famous tennis player who was World No. 1 for several years and who very publicly became an American citizen in the early-1990s. She has lived in the United States for over 20 years and, before she stopped playing on the tour in 2003, she often played on American Fed Cup and Olympic teams. She is now one of the most beloved female professional tennis players in that country. Therefore, if she had become a Hungarian citizen in 2007, there is no doubt whatsoever that an English language newspaper or website would have prominently publicized that fact. But not one has. Various editors have tried for at least 6 months (possibly including anonymous IP accounts of Squash Racket) to add Hungarian language information, which appears to be nothing more than rumor-mongering or wishful thinking, about her alleged new and secretly obtained Hungarian citizenship. Various established editors, including myself, have reverted those attempts as not being supported by reliable sources and highly unlikely to be true. If anyone is reverting against Wikipedia policy, it is Squash Racket. Personally, I strongly suspect that Squash Racket is a sockpuppet of the banned user VinceB, who was well known for nationalistic agenda pushing concerning Hungary and for harrassing editors who resisted that agenda. See this. By the way, I have no idea what Squash Racket is talking about concerning the "blog of a young Serbian woman." Clearly, blogs are not proper sources. Tennis expert (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As two administrators immediately answered you on the talk page, one of them reverted you and you deleted my first message, I didn't feel the need to send a message (I hope you understand). If you have insecurities about who I am and have some kind of evidence, you should ask for a Checkuser. Although Deskana already said (back in the day) I was NOT editing from the same IP ranges as this banned user that you are trying to associate me with who basically didn't respect any Wikipedia policies ever. Very nice. Also take a little look at my contributions for a fair view.
It is enough to translate the titles of the articles (I already did that, you can check it with an online dictionary), you don't need to speak Hungarian. The references (for example this one) are reliable as explained on the talk page. And I have not asked for a block on you for your overall conduct.
"Clearly, blogs are not proper sources", but you never questioned the reliability of that Serbian blog, while immediately removing the reliable references that I added. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the point here, but I would highly suggest a hidden comment saying that there have been rumors of a secret Hungarian citizenship and to see the talk page before inserting it. It doesn't matter if 100 users every day add that nonsense, you should be assuming good faith at all times. Put a comment there, remove it if it's still insert and say, "see the talk page." That should be clearer than this conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Squash Racket, I don't understand your starting this thread without contacting me. Deleting a prior message of yours does not imply anything. As for the Serbian blog, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I delete blog references and links to external fan websites all the time. The whole problem here is that your sources are not reliable. Clearly. I'm sure that there are many in the English media who can read Hungarian as well as you. They would've noticed reports about Seles "secretly" obtaining Hungarian citizenship. Because she is such a well-known and beloved public figure in both Europe and the United States, they would've investigated those reports to determine their credibility. But not one has reported the rumor that you are so stridently saying is reliable. And aside from all this, you are insisting on adding information against editorial consensus that has been so explictly demonstrated over the last many months. Tennis expert (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is a translation: Titokban (titok=secret) lett (has become) magyar (Hungarian) állampolgár (citizen) Szeles Mónika. Here is the reference. The blog is still among the references (and nobody questioned it, although you say you were "protecting" this article for months from different IPs).

I repeat: I haven't asked for a block on you even though despite an administrator's warning (and mine) you still openly call my edits vandalism. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1UP Forum + 1UP Resources

Resolved

 – nonsense deleted..._GB^T/C 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Might an admin move 1UP Forum in mainspace back to User talk:1up king, and 1UP Resources back to User:1up king, over the original move redirects? The user appears either unaware or uncaring of policy on user vs. mainspace and WP:FORUM, per the comment: Ok, I did some redirects so I could proper titling for these pages. So this is now the 1UP Forum, and the page with all the links and content is the 1UP Resources page. Enjoy! BTW: you can now use the Wikipedia search to find these pages!!. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a good reason why we should be keeping "articles" full of non-free images around so that users can link to youtube and flash games? I'd suggest deleting the whole sucker and tell the user to quit screwing around and use the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget that. I deleted the whole sucker and told him to stop screwing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I did think about speedy tagging them, but since WP is a lot more forgiving about user pages and talk page content, I figured no big deal, it's most important to get the content out of mainspace. Without admin intervention I would have to tag the pages, hope an admin agreed with the CSD, blank the redirects, post to the (new) talk page asking the user to cut out the moves and why, tell them that "no, they can't have their own private forum", and then they would very likely ignore everything I said. Seemed easier to ask for a move over redirect back to status quo and work from there. But the double delete works for me, too.-- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDFan

• Has been previously banned
• Suspected of sockpuppetry: USEDfan, 66.195.30.2, Booowooo, Usedfan1989
• Repeated warnings for disruptive edits
• repeated failure of understanding the concept of NPOV.

--SilverOrion (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That name isn't shown as registered. Are you sure you have the spelling and the case of the name correct? Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Try User:USEDfan. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try giving the guys at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets an insight, so they can investigate. Lradrama 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fluffing

Resolved

Isn't this just a content dispute now? And no one should be doing any unilateral moves like a DAB or rename if it's contested--everyone has to respect consensus from admins on down at all times or face consequences. Talk it out, if someone acts disruptive or keeps moving/renaming, thats what the 3rr cluestick is for. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are repudiating WP:BOLD. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. I wrote: "if it's contested". If it is, the bold move (fine once) gets thrown back, and discussion decides. Like it is now, and like it should be. No one user on any one matter has any sort of sticking permanent power; we all have to bow down and accept a formed consensus when it forms. If that consensus is undesired by the one party, they have to change the consensus. If consensus is to not rename or DAB Fluffing, then anyone who goes down the BOLD route repeatedly is against consensus and could be validly sanctioned. Hypothetically, if you started an edit battle over this, as an example, and consensus did not support you, you could be sanctioned or blocked (3rr, disruption), as could any admin or editor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

We had a User make a whole-sale page move with absolutely no discussion, make up a bunch of words that don't exist for the word "fluffing" and then put the current page under a wholly inaccurate term ("Fluffer(makeup artist)}, all under the guise of WP:BOLD - page moves always get discussed, but in this case, it was absolutely ridiculous. It's even spelled wrong - there's no space between the paren and the word Fluffer. I'm unsure how to undo the damage of a page move...?--David Shankbone 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you could start by not doing a wholesale cut and paste move back to the original location. Viridae^Talk 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one "start" by not doing something done? That's not really the start. --David Shankbone 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That is how you started though - cut and paste moves (or in this case restores) are a violation of GDFL. Either way the move has been reveresed - I am going to restored the dab page that was created into the history of Fluffing so no content is lost. Viridae^Talk 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How is moving information a violation of the GFDL license? --David Shankbone 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't attribute the original authors - all of the work was to all appearances written by you when you cut and paste it back without the articles history - sorry I thought you had been around long enough to know this, hence the sarcastic response. Viridae^Talk 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's real helpful, thanks Viridae. David is correct, this was done with no discussion, it's not an accurate title, and it's badly formatted to boot. If someone could kindly undo it, please,we'd all appreciate it. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, this does need to be moved, and the main page made into a dab, since around half the article (including 100% of the independently cited uses) is a list of other uses, and it's far fomr clear that the main use of "fluffing" is in porn - actors fluffing their lines is probably in far wider currency. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• What needs to happen, Guy, is for you take part in the discussion on the talk page - the article has existed for four years, and probably has collected a lot random facts and ideas. But we don't just move articles by fiat, especially ones that have been around for a long time. Creating a disambiguation page might be merited, but sorting out how to do it takes discussion, and certainly not in the misspelled mess that the user did it. --David Shankbone 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Having only come across this article the other day (a dispute over the picture grabbed my curiosity, i believed the picture should stay), i was always under the impression fluffing was a polite way of saying fart. Im no expert on these things but i think a disambigious page might be in order. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

new account/refusal repeatedly of different usernames

I have tried using all sorts of usernames without success, suggesting that there is something wrong with your website section for setting up new accounts137.186.61.69 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)lakeside

Reasons why people tend not to be able to use accounts are;

• the usernames are the same / similar to others already in use
• a vandal who has been blocked from creating other accounts

Lradrama 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy

The page Jeremiah Wright controversy has been subjected to undiscussed edits by several users. Recently there was a discussion leading to a compromise text in the "comparisons" section. Several users who, of their own accord, did not participate in the discussion have persisted in reverting the compromise text to their version. Additionally, they have shown a lack of willingness to have a civil discussion about the academics section, or to reach any type of compromise. The administrator who was handling this has been inactive for several days and this page needs attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was just fully protected by PhilKnight. Sasquatch t|c 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone delete this junk?

Resolved

Blocked/banned user:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as user:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.

After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:

1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?

--barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked user:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of user:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Handlebars (song)

User:Rau J is continually making reverts to the article, well above and beyond the "Three Revert Rule." Just in the last 24 hours I believe he has made 5 or 6 reverts to the article (plz. check the edit history for confirmation). This editor is substituting his own interpretation of the song and claiming it is the "right" one, based on a cite to the "song itself." How subjective, uncivil, and improper. JeanLatore (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like he's removing original research, not adding it. Could you double check that this is the right person? Maybe you have him confused with another user. Could you elaborate on the problem? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• He is simply re-placing with his own "research," and at the rate of more than 3 times a day. JeanLatore (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not research. It is a paraphrase of the lyrics to the song. Rau's Speak Page 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they mean me. The person who has reported me is the one adding OR, check the edit history. They have also accused me of being uncivil, please read our discussion on our respective talk pages and the articles talk page. I feel that will shed some light on this incident. Rau's Speak Page 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I have now protected the article. Sort it out on the talk page. It is unreasonable to continuously revert the article over and over, even if you believe you are right. Of course you believe you are right. That's not the point. And this applies to BOTH of you. Sort it out on the talk page. You could both be blocked for 3RR at this point. Lets not go that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for not blocking us. Rau's Speak Page 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider the page protection. This should be a last ditch effort, it freezes all contributions to the article, not just those of the parties involved in the reverting of one section. This is going to stultify the article, as there have been many people contributing to the growth of the article, and not just the "meaning" section. Important other facts cannot be added to the article at all now. JeanLatore (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page protection will prevent us from being blocked, be grateful we are not right now. And all of the edits have involved the meaning and the "structure" section, which repeated stuff from the meaning section, contained OR, and had nothing to do with the actual structure of the song. Rau's Speak Page 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes for the time being. Additions can be proposed and worked on there. Given the amount of back-and-forth reverting that has gone on, this seems the best course of action. There article's talk page has not been protected, so discussions of changes can happen there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I am in favor of the block. Although previous attempts at a discussion there have proved futile. Rau's Speak Page 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks from FScalano (talk)

This user FScalano (talk) has been edit-warring on Roy Eugene Davis [70], and posted a blatant personal attack in an edit summary here [71] and when warned, did it again. [72] --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR ... I know this is harsher than normal for 3RR cases, but the abusive edit summaries led me to throw out a longer block. Blueboy96 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

WP:BLP suggests we probably should not have User:Justmeherenow/Hooker Gone Wild hanging around in userspace. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it and send a copy to the editor via special/emailuser. Explain in the email. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it and send copy to the editor via special/emailuser if they so request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• That works also :) I was just saving an extra possible step. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User: John celona

Can someone help me deal with this: [73], [74], [75], [76]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously. I have given this editor 24 hours to file a request, absent which I reserve the right to block for harassment. --Rodhullandemu 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to Rodhullandemu, I note that you and John celona were involved in discussion over this matter several months ago, and if Rod had not intervened I was considering issuing a warning of harassment regarding those claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)