Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339

Image:199245.jpg

Resolved

Please can an admin delete this image it has had a disputed tag on for ovr seven days now. Procedure for deletion met please delete acordingly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Neıl ☎ 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Missed the chance to stop #11. Ready to block other obvious socks yet?

I brought this up about a week and a half ago. No action was taken then and #11 was able to vandalize a few more times (ex. [1], [2]) before finally being blocked. His unblock request makes it clear that he isn't planning on stopping. Can we block 13 and 14 yet? Am I reporting this to the wrong place? It doesn't seem simple enough for AIV, and it seems far too obvious for SSP. I figured this would be done a week ago. Is there a more appropriate place that I should have brought it up? (or should I just ignore the overall picture and check up on each sock's individual contributions periodically and report them one at a time to AIV once they've vandalized enough to be considered disruptive...) --Onorem♠Dil 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 13 and 14. Is there any way to just block any account (or stop it being created) if it starts with "Paradocks"? Neıl ☎ 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears these were sleeper accounts, as shown from 14's creation log: 18:46, May 21, 2007 Paradocks14 (Talk | contribs) New user account. 15, 16, 17+ are not created, so if account creation was disabled, it should take care of the issues. Ariel♥Gold 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Onorem♠Dil 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Troll check

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guy is a troll who should be blocked for waisting our time? Rklawton (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would advise any blocks to be based on something more substantive than "wasting our time". And maybe try actually communicating with them (to provide guidance and warning) on their talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Or craft up a custom tin-foil hat barnstar for uncovering the TRUTH^TM... I wouldn't necessarily block, but communicating or ignoring are the best options.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just you. I can't find any incivil comments or edits that would even raise a red flag. It seems like the editor is merely expressing his opinion, much like you, and you disagree with it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully if we ignore him he'll get back into his black helicopter and fly away, but experience indicates that True Believers are rarely so accommodating. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued problems with editor - disruptive editing

An editor who has nominated an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms) for deletion has recently interfered with efforts to improve the article by repeatedly reinserting an inappropriate quote and finally by attempting to block further edits and improvements to the article.

The history is as follows:

• AfD nominator threatens repeat reversions:[3]
• warning on user's talk page:[4]
• counselling of alternatives to reversion:[5]

11 Dec 11:03 - all citations not explicitly using the word "apostasy" removed from "Apostasy" row with edit message "replacing synthesis with 2 sources explicitly defining apostasy from the Jewish perspective; srcs not containing the word apostasy removed"[6] This was part of a general effort to improve the quality of citations and remove WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the A-D portion of the glossary.

3 reinsertations of citations

• 11 December 13:54 - 1st reinsertion
• 11 December 14:12 wholesale reversion (after removal by User:egfrank - a message was placed on the AfD nominating editor's talk page explaining reason for removal and inviting her to find another source that would be more appropriate)
• 11 December 14:38 wholesale reversion (after removal by User:Teclontz)

Attempt to block future editing

• 11 December 15:16 - added edit protection tags

Thanks in advance, Egfrank (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this ANI on her talk page. Egfrank (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the page protection tags, anyway. That's just plain silly for a non-protected page, not to mention misleading to other editors. Jeffpw (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank posted the following on Teclontz's talk page:

I just wanted to let you know that I'm also finding some of the more polemical additions unsettling - we can't very well ask for respect from other religions if we are not willing to give it back. There are ways to make points about religious boundaries that both truthful and respectful. And there are ways to make Jewish feelings about those who convert out known, also without insulting the integrity of their most likely difficult decisions. Egfrank (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of the actual POV editing which is going on on this page. Because Egfrank felt that a highly respected and abundantly sourced citation was "polemical" and detrimental to interfaith dialog, he saw fit to remove a highly pertinent citation.

Jeffpw, I apologize for putting the protection tags up. I misunderstood the protection policy, and was trying to prevent further damage. I've now put the request for protection in according to the page you linked for me. Thanks for that. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't get a chance to look through the edit history yet, but I changed "votes" to "opinions" as AFD is not a vote; it is an attempt to achieve consensus through discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to give a little background, Lisa appears to be resolving edit disputes by nominating the page for AfD and THEN making changes and excessive edit reverts as part of the justification for eliminating the page. After a case of vandalism this morning she appeared to lock in her own vandalism with a protection tag and then reported other editors for vandalism on the AfD page! That's like playing on the same "team" in a ball game you betted against, and then reporting fouls to the umpire after kicking someone. The concerns of other editors generally revolve around Lisa's use of language that only makes sense to Jews, and not wording it in such a way that everyone understands what is being said (a major example is using the term Christian when you mean Gentile). That being said, I believe Egfrank ALSO suggested that if you are able to document the exact same information in a more neutrally acceptable way, even better. In short, I've tried to help Lisa be understood, and Egfrank has tried to help her be acceptable. Neither of us have attempted, or wish to attempt a detraction from her religious point of view -- especially since we share it! I apologize for us not being able to handle the vandalism internally, but none of the other editors on the page have the experience in edit warring that Lisa appears to have -- and we don't have the desire for it, either.Tim (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I closed the AFD. There was no consensus there, though I do note that the article needs serious work. I also note that while I think the participants there were well meaning, much of the refactoring/etc made that AFD a complete and utter mess. I nearly relisted it for a fresh AFD. Personally though I don't see the harm in allowing a period of time for contributors to clean up the article issues before a decision is made on whether or not this will ever be a useful encyclopedia article. Beyond that, I simply urge the contributors there to remain as civil as possible, use the article talkpage, and follow dispute resolution if you can't agree.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke o Puke and Wikipedia Review

There's been a recent discussion about Duke o Puke (talk · contribs) and Duck of Luke (talk · contribs), see #User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change. Duck of Luke recently created the article SureFire M6 Guardian, which is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureFire M6 Guardian‎. It appears that he may have been asked to do so by Wikipedia Review. See [7]. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence saying Jimbo has one. We would not include that if it were, say, Matt Damon. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Duck of Luke and deleted the article. My actions may look overzealous, but that WR discussion makes it obvious that: (1) the article wasn't created in good faith (2) it was created because Jimbo owns one such flashlight (3) this article is created on behalf of banned user Daniel Brandt. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing on behalf of Daniel Brandt isn't the wisest move. Agree with your block and deletion. The article was created with the intent of banned editors like Brandt getting to add content to the site, which is a big no-no. — Save_Us_229 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's proven that he was meat puppeting for a banned user, I don't disagree with the ban however I disagree with the speedy deletion of the article. The AFD should have been allowed to complete and there was a consensus that the article should have been kept. I believe the rationale for deletion (WP:CSD#G5) was invalid because Duke of Luke or Puke wasn't the only editor to that article if I recall. I can't tell for sure as the article has been deleted. Also, if I recall, deletion based on the motivation for creating the article is not reason enough to delete the article as long as the article can be improved and add value to the project. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of the article, and the only author was Duck of Luke. The other editors made maintenance edits: adding cleanup tags, adding wikilinks, categorizing, etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My interactions with the Duke/Duck are that he is a very reasonable person. I ask that he be unblocked and warned not to recreate the article. He has been an editor in good standing prior to this and I believe he will contribute positively to Wikipedia if he is unblocked. Looking over the banning policy, I believe that he had to be banned first before creating the article before it can be deleted according to that CSD rule. Many Wikipedians like myself endorsed keep on the article not knowing of external influences. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think. Wikipedia is a reference work. I also believe that we should focus on the content, not the contributor. Ripberger (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that is what I said above. It's a moot point now as someone else recreated the article unless it's going to be speedy deleted again. I would recommend the version before deletion gets restored as it had more information was better sourced and categories attached. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything about the creation of this article that was so disruptive tat it required an indefinite block? AniMate 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the block was for meatpuppetry for a banned user (apparently one that seems to be widely disliked but I don't know the whole story). The article seemed benign to me though. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was closed with "Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith", so just go and do so. DGG (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still the issue of the Duck/Duke being blocked. I'm certain he will not be a problem for anyone if unblocked. Just give him a chance. He's done great work for the project well before this brouhaha and the article he started was well-sourced. I do not see a reason why he should remain blocked. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BAN:

Editing on behalf of banned users

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.

No-one's disputing that it's verifiable; the article has even been recreated now. He's explained his independent reason for creating the article. (he thought it was cool that it was the same flashlight that a friend has)—Random832 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just two notes on this: (1) Does it really matter whether an article was inspired by something somebody said on one of the notorious so-called "attack sites"? What should matter is the merits of the article, not how it happened to come about. (2) Wouldn't this discussion have been much harder to understand without the link to the relevant thread on the site in question? That's precisely the point I've always been trying to make with regard to the insistence on the part of some that no links to "attack sites" should ever be permitted under any circumstances. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is irritating that it was posted by proxy for a banned user, there is absolutely no excuse to delete a perfectly good, well referenced, highly notable article. There is no possible reason that the deletion of that article in any way enhances the encyclopedia. For the record, I have a SureFire M6 as well as an M3. I used them on my rifle in Iraq, as did quite a few others. Surefires are almost ubiquitous amongst military and law enforcement. I understand the text of WP:BAN but there is no excuse to take an action that directly damages Wikipedia for the sole reason of punishing an already banned user. That's just not what we do.

I've unblocked the user, on the condition that he does not edit by proxy for Brandt again in the future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• First of all I'm sorry for not being able to respond here earlier. Now my replies to the above comments. I admit that deleting the article wasn't the best idea, refactoring it would have been enough. There is a very good reason not to trust anything that comes from serial troublemakers, but it wasn't applicable in this particular case because the article was very short and wasn't written by Brandt himself. Anyway, it's much better now after it was recreated. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Beenturns

Unresolved

 – Can we have some opinion on whether Beenturns is a sock or not? Cheers! Davnel03 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only edits of Beenturns (talk · contribs) so far have been to nominate Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of Virginia Tech massacre, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung-Hui Cho. Very suspicious, to say the least. This appears to be a sockpuppet out to prove a point, possibly in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Hawkins. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Beenturns' edits look suspicious, but without checkuser, it will be difficult to determine if he is a sockpuppet. His contribs and log show no evidence of who created the account. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that this user is a sock puppet of another user, but right now the contribs make it Inconclusive. Also, it is unlikely that a checkuser will be agreed to for " fishing". I think the best course of action would be to monitor his contribs. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User TeePee-20.7's posts after ban block

I'm reluctant to engage this user personally but feel some attention should be given to their recent posts. I was going to simply delete this per WP:RBI but then saw they're again referring to other editors as maricons which they were specifically told was inappropriate. If someone else could step in I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• More User:Iamandrewrice collateral damage (not sockpuppetry, I think; this editor seems to have been caught in the crossfire). I'll have a word. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• My bad I meant to say they had been blocked not banned - will try to be more careful about mixing up those on wp. Thank you for dealing with this. Benjiboi 11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, Tony, I don't see this as resolved. I found his message on my talk page agressive, and his continued defense of the use of either Queer or Maricon highly inappropriate, as well as restoring the homophobic slurs for which he was blocked immediately after he returned. I also found his edit summary decidedly uncivil when he deleted my respose to his message to me from his talk page. That was after your little chat with him, by the way. Most annoying. Jeffpw (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Jeffpw - let's keep an eye and see if his behaviour reverts. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like more than an eye, actually. I'd like to see the homophobic slur about me reverted from the pages he restored it to. At least one of the diffs is in the original post of this thread, and he restored it to another page as well. It baffles me that he could be blocked for making the slur, and then no action is taken when he repeats the remarks immediately after returning. Jeffpw (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• And he has now readded the homophobic slur once again, after TonyWalton reverted it and left a message on his talk page about it. This user seems to have a complete lack of understanding of WP:CIV. Jeffpw (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I must agree that this user's reformed ways don't seem that reformed. It's the user's right to delete talk page comments but do they really need an edit summary "Cleaning up after Yamla, that trash was taken off for a reason!" or "Idiotic comments made by a user who has been banned for being fucking idiot"? They also seem to think that "Sorry I forgot to mention I'm a queer, now there should be no problems at all." will excuse reposting queer and maricon comments. And this still seems rather hostile and opposed to working with others to building articles. Benjiboi 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages

User:ChazBeckett has been removing a discussion between Radiant! and Wandering Ghost from Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, arguing that it's 'not appropriate', 'between two people', 'concerns behavior not content'. I don't believe any of these justify the removal of people's comments, especially since they haven't signalled their permission. Whilst many admins will be sick of the spoiler debate, I ask you to consider whether Wikipedia will benefit from this sort of talk page 'sanitising' becoming established.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note the thread was not deleted but moved [8] to User talk:Radiant!. A note was left [9] on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler linking to the new location. The only two users involved in the thread were Radiant and Wandering Ghost and the topic was each other's behavior. A user talk page is most appropriate for such discussions. Chaz ^Beckett 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page in question is for discussion of a guideline. That talk page has been plagued for months by accusations of serious misconduct, but those making the accusations seem to be unwilling to do anything but exacerbate any damage caused by repeating the allegations over and over again in the middle of policy discussions. This poisons the atmosphere.

Moving the discussions to user talk pages is good, but in the long run these people should be persuaded to follow the dispute resolution process, instead of picking at the wound. ---Tony Sidaway 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The clear point of WP:TALK is that talk pages are meant for use in discussing changes to the corresponding main pages. We already remove comments from article talk pages that are unrelated to changing the article. It makes sense that, from time to time, it may worthwhile to do that on policy talk pages as well. I participated in the discussion on WT:SPOILER page for a while (my last comment there seems to be Nov 15), but stopped because I didn't see any progress being made. The talk page discussion was (and apparently is still) made excessively difficult by continued allegations about misconduct by editors. Moving those comments to user talk pages or dispute resolution can't hurt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It can hurt if it becomes common practice on Wikipedia. Imagine people removing comments they don't like at the drop of a hat because they're 'off-topic'.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already common practice. However it's not quite how you describe it- we remove comments to keep talk pages on topic, not because we "don't like" them. This is a crucial difference. Disagree with the removal if you wish, but please don't describe it inaccurately - it's unhelpful to productive discussion. Friday (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one can be selective in removing off-topic comments. Nobody is without bias, so the best thing to do is to live and let live.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

An even better idea than "live and let live" is to keep the postings on-topic, in which case there's no need to move them. Also note that the whole thread was moved, including posts from both "sides" of the dispute. Again, it's about keeping some semblence of order and moving topics to where they belong. Chaz ^Beckett 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The page WT:SPOILER is plagued by irrelevant, accusatory, troll-like behavior by two or three editors, including the editor who opened this comment. As explained at WP:TALK, talk pages are for improving the project. They are not the place for launching accusations of abuse, misconduct, or bad faith. Wikipedia has other mechanisms for dealing with those allegations. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting (or moving) a thread from an article Talk page needs implied consensus by the Talk participants. I don't perceive any general view by the active editors that moving this thread was correct. It is somewhat less intrusive if you 'box up' comments that you deem inappropriate for the article talk page using the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates. This is easily reversed, and it still allows the suppressed thread to be viewed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In this thread, only one editor is complaining that the thread was moved; all others agree that it didn't belong on the Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Chaz ^Beckett 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(To Marc) I've hardly touched the page for weeks. As I say, I think your interpretation of the various talk guidance pages is both unprecendented and open to conflicts of interest. Arbcom's ruling on personal attack removal (that it should be done sparingly, if at all) seems to me to apply equally to 'off-topic' removal.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be your interpretation that's unprecedented. ArbCom has never ruled or implied that off-topic discussions shouldn't be moved to more appropriate locations. It's common practice and good organization to do so. Chaz ^Beckett 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? WP:NPA is a policy, whilst WP:TALK cited by Marc is just a guideline. Why have strict, sparing interpretation of a policy, but lax, free-for-all interpretations of similar guideline? Especially given that personal attacks are far more serious than 'off-topic' comments, and much more worthy of removal.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the discussion was not deleted. It was moved to a more appropriate location, the talk page of one of the two participants. Removing personal attacks is somewhat controversial as the comment doesn't exist afterwards. In this case, it was just moved. Just like when someone moves a file from one cabinet to another; they're not throwing the file away, they're moving the comment to a better location. Chaz ^Beckett 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support the removal of the off-topic comments as long as a reference trail is left for those who want to depart to that thread. The hostility was overwhelming the progress. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be emphasized that this isn't a casual move taken over a few comments. The attacks on that page have been going on for about five months, all parties making them have been, and continue to be, urged to seek a proper path to dispute resolution over their grievances, but the majority of discussions on the page continue to be plagued with such attacks. Moving the attacks to user talk pages is a last ditch attempt to avoid taking action to stop this longstanding disruptive activity unbalancing the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of wrongdoing

Moved from WT:SPOILER

Allegations of editor/admin misconduct do not belong on this page. This is the page for discussing the Wikipedia Spoiler guideline. Contributions to this page should be on the presumption that all participants have a good-faith and policy-compliant intention of improving the encyclopedia. For those who believe that either bad-faith or policy-violating behavior has taken place, this is not the forum. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved some of the discussion to a user talk page, as it was only between two users and focused on behavior instead of content. Chaz ^Beckett 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I find accusations of "censorship" to be fairly absurd, as the content was moved, not deleted and a link to the new location was provided. I fully agree with Mark that this is not an appropriate forum for allegations of misconduct. Chaz ^Beckett 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to the admin's noticeboard we go. It would help if you could cite policies, guidelines and precedents to justify your actions.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about keeping talk pages focused on the topic at hand. Dicussions between two users about their behavior belong on well...user talk pages. Chaz ^Beckett 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can claim anything "isn't focused on the topic 'at hand'". What gives you special insight? --Nydas^(Talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was between two users and the topic was each other's behavior. It doesn't take special insight, just common sense, to realize this belongs on a user talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nydas asked for "policies, guidelines and precedents". Here they are. Per WP:TALK:

• The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

• Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.

Noted there as justification for removal include:

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article
• Removing personal attacks and incivility

Allegations of editor/admin misconduct, no matter how strongly felt, do not help improve the the Wikipedia:Spoiler project page, and therefore do not belong on this talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And above all: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Disputes between editors are taken seriously, but there are procedures and guidelines that should be followed in order to resolve a dispute rather than exacerbate it. Some of these allegations go back to mid-May, this year, and the disputants should by now be aware of the appropriate methods of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK states editors exercise caution in editing other's comments and seek permission. Declaring 'I'm going to remove them unless an admin tells me not to' is not cautious, it's effectively a declaration of page ownership. --Nydas^(Talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is also getting off-topic. I'd recommend continuing it on the ANI discussion you started rather than here. Or even better, just dropping the whole darn thing. Chaz ^Beckett 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Declaring an discussion you are involved in as 'off-topic' is a conflict of interest. If you feel that certain comments are unncessary, why not ask an uninvolved admin to take a look? They could discuss things with Radiant! and Wandering Ghost and hopefully come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, just drop it. It's verging on disruption at this point. I've no idea why you created an ANI topic if you were just going to continue the same conversation here. I'm backing out of the discussion as it's gone so far off-topic. Use my talk page or the ANI topic if you feel the need to continue arguing. Chaz ^Beckett 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about a conflict between me and Ghost, this is about him continually telling me about alleged improper deletions and admin abuse, despite having been told several times already that we have forums for such matters. >Radiant< 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The editors who've been removing content from this talk page know it riles some editors up. There have been many long discussions about this; the page would be less cluttered if editors refrained from removing content. Unless they want cause arguments, which would mean they're trolls. --YellowTapedR (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussions would have been much shorter and more protective if editors stopped accusing each other of "bad behavior". --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They would be shorter if the anti-spoiler people didn't feel the need to police the discussion they're involved in. It's disrespectful and wide open to a conflict of interest. Part of the reason the removal of spoiler warnings is so damaging to Wikipedia is that the tactics used could spread to other, more important stuff.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one man's suggestion: Everyone should stop removing content from the page unless there's a very good reason to do so (criticisms of previous actions by either side doesn't count and calling them "personal attacks" is a huge stretch). Then, the page will stop getting cluttered with discussions about removing content, which is quite frequent. Really, it's not worth fighting over. --YellowTapedR (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WT:SPOILER has been nothing more then 6 months and 6 pages of constant accusations of wrong doing and "cabalism" which has gotten us nowhere. All it ultimately does is poison the well of any useful discussions or compromises. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages and the right to vanish

User:DashaKat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has invoked the "right to vanish" and requested his user and user talk pages be deleted. He had previously done so anonymously, but he finally logged in this afternoon to make the request. However, he has a number of warnings in his user talk history (e.g., this archived version includes civility and RfC abuse warnings). Wikipedia:User page says not to delete talk pages in such circumstances. Both User:Friday and I have refused to delete the page, but DashaKat continues to push the issue. Is there any reason to grant the request? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only reason I can think of is if it's simply quicker and less dramatic to delete it and be done. But, we have good reasons for not generally deleting user talk pages. In my view, we shouldn't give in to drama queens, because by doing so we're sending a message that we'll make exceptions if only you whine sufficiently. Not a good message to be sending. Friday (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Has this user agreed to leave the project permanently, without changing his or her mind in the future? The account is not blocked and I have not checked to see if the user promises not to continue editing in the future, either with that account or with another. I don't see a compelling reason in this case to delete the page but it is sometimes just the easiest option, so long as the person promises to never come back (see permanent departure, WP:VANISH). --Yamla (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Such a promise would be meaningless and unenforceable. Why would we ask for one? Friday (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's been no reveal of personal information and if the user is not planning on leaving the project permanently, there's no grounds under WP:VANISH. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The other thing this user has mentioned is that "three other accounts" of his have had their talk pages deleted. I'm tempted to ask him which accounts they are, to check their talk histories and the reasons for deletion. (Maybe they had clean histories, so deleting the talk page was a non-issue.) The flipside of that is, he won't want to admit it openly, lest it go into the talk page history. Have him email the names? —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with C.Fred on that point.--Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning in the "do not feed drama" direction. Unless there's privacy violations there, there's no compelling reason to delete the page, and it does document violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish > needing a talk page of someone that is no longer here. If they started editing again, undelete it. We should have no less respect for someones privacy because they have been disruptive, than if they have been an outstanding editor, wikipedia has a very high google rank. Viridae^Talk 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A big campaign against articles about fictional events

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=TTN for a sudden big bout of "deleting" articles about fictional events, by changing them into redirects, usually with the edit comment "Redirect per WP:FICT. Do not bring this back without adding real world information.", thus avoiding having to speedy-delete-tag them. For some of the resulting discussions, see:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Star Fox series
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval
  • User_talk:TTN#Deletion of Primeval episodes matter

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If my memory serves me, someone was indef blocked for the same behavior a couple days ago. If I were TTN, Collectonian or any of the others who've joined in this crusade, I'd be taking notice. Yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have the Augean stables to deal with, strong measures are needed. The domain of pop culture fiction is full of cruft, there's no denying it. Somebody just has to start cutting into it. How else would anybody do it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You know... actually improving the encyclopedia by working on it is a start. There are also tags, work groups, wikiprojects, talk pages. These editors on a crusade do not seem to be willing to work with others collaboratively, rather, they jump past the normal steps that should be taken before an AfD and either attempt to unilaterally merge the articles or AfD them. The unilateral merges are worse, imho, since these turn into edit wars where the crusaders (for lack of better term only) tend to react with incivility. NPA says that dismissing arguments due to affiliation with any group is out of bounds, but you don't see these guys getting chastised or warned for it when they dismiss others as "fans". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If an editor sees no realistic prospect that an article could be improved, then getting rid of it is precisely the only rational thing to do to improve the encyclopedia. What else? I mean, seriously, something like this hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever approaching the status of a legitimate encyclopedic article. It's lightyears away. And in the - extremely unlikely - event that somebody actually does come up with something interesting to write about it, they can still un-redirect it. But why earlier? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, TTN and company aren't doing this only to clear cases like the one you linked to. They are doing it to major characters, episodes from notable television programs and main characters from video games. In many cases, these articles would have met with at least no consensus keeps at AfD, but since they can, via mass merging, cut out the whole discussion and inflict their preferred remedy upon Wikipedia. I note that you did not address the NPA infractions that I voiced concern about... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like you do? Oh, wait, by your criteria, you haven't actually worked on improving the article in weeks, maybe months (got tired of looking for some real edits after four pages). Too busy complaining about real work being done, I guess. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in discussions to improve multiple articles, as I suggested you do, as recently as yesterday. I guess you missed that, eh? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want an example of me adding to an article, this morning I checked a source on the Salman Rushdie bio and improved the documentation of who testified before congress that an attempt was made on his life by Hamas-linked militants. Several articles I've been involved with are currently edit protected due to the tendentious nature of where my interests lie outside of fiction so I'm unable to add content to them. But this seems a bit off-topic and appears to be an attempt to try to poison the well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but the accusations of meat/sock puppetry here, in multiple AfDs, and in other places are not attempts to "poison the well?"AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. I do not believe I have ever typed those two words in conjunction. I've gone back 500 entries in my history, to October and not found any evidence to support your accusation. Were you confusing me with someone else? All us "fans" look alike, ya know. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I stand corrected, that was Sasuke9031 (joys of carrying on the same argument in two places at once, wee!). Still, your lumping me with a bunch of people I don't know and making the remark that we should be "actually improving the encyclopedia by working on it" is uncalled for and insulting. I do work on improving articles at length. In the last 3 days alone, I made some significant improvements, additions, and citations to no less than five articles. I've personally created eight articles, improved several others to the point that they went from stub and start class to B class, and am a significant contributer to the TV and Film projects. Despite what you may seem to think, I have tagged dozens, if not hundreds, of articles. I've also initiated clean up and merge discussions on others. In some cases, where I feel the articles clearly fail WP:FICTION, I either prod (if I think it will be uncontested), or AfD. I've also taken it on my own shoulders to do the merging and other work when those who screamed against deletion loudest then did nothing about an AfD decision of merge. Now, I'm gonna follow a recommendation from another editor in that other argument regarding wikistress and go have some coffee and dinner, since I suspect my responses are getting less and less polite. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I accept that you do more than simply add pound redirect to a ton of articles. But I don't accept your WP:Fiction argument nor do a lot of others. These articles seem to be spawned off of a larger article via the second exception in that guideline. The "merges" that are being do not return any of the information from the merged articles into the articles they are being merged into, instead acting as a soft-delete circumventing discussion. And, based on the responses here and elsewhere where this activity has been discussed, it seems to not have community support. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, who do you say was blocked the other day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The case is not quite the same, this user was actually tagging things with CSD notices. At least in those cases, someone could catch them in the act. The delete via unilateral "merge" (I'm quoting merge cause nothing is actually merged in 90+% of these cases) is even sneakier since the only trail is the users contribs. At least CSD notices place the articles in a cat and, potentially, lead to a review by a deleting admin. Here is the ANI thread: [10] And I believe the user was reported prior to his final meltdown. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the same at all; a vandal coat-tailing on this issue. --Jack Merridew 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He only turned vandal after being caught and reported here, though. And I did say the case was not quite the same. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Every time someone complains about TTN and cites something he's redirected and every time I look at what he's been up to, I find more dreck. Perhaps if the fans all cry along the shores of the Alpheus and Peneus rivers, TTN can sort this mess once and for all. --Jack Merridew 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dismissing other editors simply due to them being fans. As I pointed out earlier, this is against the WP:NPA policy. Simply because an article is bad, or cow dung as you nicely linked to, does not mean it cannot be cleaned up. And that is the gist of my argument, these users do not care about cleaning up arguments, they are focused solely on deletion or deletion via merge. And in the vast majority of cases, they do not discuss these merges and if they are questioned, they respond in an inappropriate manner. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean that as a personal attack — I was attempting a bit of wit re the Augean stables. The cow dung reference was based on my immediately previous edit adding the term to Augeas. I do not share your view that many of these articles can be cleaned-up — in the sense that an encyclopaedic article may emerge from the dreck. In many cases the requisite sources and out-of-universe information simply don't exist. I've looked at a lot of these articles, have engaged in lengthy discussions, and have responded reasonably to those with different views. --Jack Merridew 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying my best not to name any names in this thread, but you're not someone I've ran into acting in an incivil manner in regards to this issue. (Although, your support of TTN in his arbcom case troubles me somewhat, but I'm dealing and hoping for a positive result in that.) And um, big greek words went over my head. Sorry. :P For the matter at hand, I think CBM's cut to the core of the dilemma regarding the vast majority of these articles. I'm not even fanatic in my inclusionist feelings for a lot of these articles, I just don't like the tactics being used. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick précis re the big greek words: Hercules cleaned a huge load of shit out of King Augeas' stables in a single day by routing two rivers through them instead of mucking them out one messy shovelful at a time. TTN really has not being particularly uncivil; just look at all the talk page posts he makes. --Jack Merridew 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully subscribe to one Arbitrator's assessment of the situation: "TTN is making a good-faith effort to implement an editing guideline and is encountering resistance from individual editors who contribute a type of article that policy does not encourage. The massive scale upon which TTN is working reflects the ease with which unreferenced pop culture articles can be created and populated with in-milieu information, and the popularity of this kind of editing." [11] Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the very same edit, which you linked above, the same Arbitrator proposed: "The parties are urged to engage in centralized discussion of underlying editorial guidelines and their proper application rather than adopt a piecemeal approach." This seems to support my "go discuss before leaping into broad merge frenzies" point. TTN, and this isn't only about him, may be doing the right thing, he just seems to be doing it in a way that isn't ideal and may be disruptive overall. Afterall, Wikipedia seems to be awfully popular with people interested in Bleach (manga) and he just AfD-ed three bleach related articles. In the end, if TTN and company delete all these cow dung and that cow dung happens to be what most users of the encyclopedia are reading, what purpose does the continued existance of Wikipedia serve if it loses its userbase? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for stuff people are simply interested in, Wikipedia is for knowledge that can be documented from reliable sources. When Wikipedia will lose that part of its userbase that doesn't get this simple idea, it will come all the closer to being a real encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be the next Encarta or Brittanica gathering dust in some small corner of the internet. I love how you dismiss those who use the encyclopedia, doesn't the reader matter? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is for knowledge that can be documented from reliable sources" - Poorly stated argument; everything from fiction and games can be documented to the primary source... which is perforce reliable on the subject of its own content. This isn't about reliable sources. It is, ostensibly, about notability. The idea is that every page in Wikipedia must be independently established as notable. That's a fairly standard and reasonable view, but it runs into conflict with the implementation of two other standard practices. Specifically, it is equally established that every fact in an article does not require independent notability... if the subject is notable and the information relevant and verifiable then it can be included. Further, it is standard practice to 'split out' sections of articles to help organize information - rather than having it all on one exceedingly long page. So what happens with these fictional topics is that relevant verifiable information gets split out for organizational purposes and suddenly people are saying that you DO need independent sources for the notability of each fact. That's a change from past practice and IMO a bad idea... it just encourages keeping all the info in one large article - which is counter to good article design under 'Wikipedia is not paper'. --CBD 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At the root of this is a conflict between merging and splitting (per summary style). WP:NOTABILITY says: "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.". WP:SUMMARY says: "Wikipedia entries tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new entries. The text of any entry consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be summarized from the present entry and a link is provided to the more detailed article." The sticking point comes over whether the criterion for splitting out to a new article (or conversely resisting the pressure to merge) is just size or notability of the subtopic. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the real-world has commented on this issue. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (thanks to Kww)

This one is better. [12] I love the spatula. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that silly little WP:Civility policy, how is it, all these people are getting away with their multiple unfounded accusations against editors, including accusations of meat puppetry, sock puppetry, a "planned campaign", etc. without any reminders that it is against policy or reprimands? I've been given reminders when I've bitten a few newbies before (and will probably get one for my snide remark above). Yet, these folks are allowed to bandy about serious unproven accusations all over the place? I guess if that kind of thing is allowed, I should start doing the same for Ynhockey, Sasuke9031, Kyaa and the other "OMG, don't you dare delete articles" crowd. After all, they just run through the same AfDs going "me too" to each others keeps and are actively recruiting one another and others to "save" their articles. They must all be sockpuppets or meatpuppets or something, you know, because no two people ever think a like independently. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? What administrator action is needed? This is currently under consideration of the ArbCom, and they will handle the problems, if it is deemed they exist. So what is the purpose of this thread? I (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be made policy that deletionists import the articles here before nominating them for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.175.58 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some other lists we could do away with

Since we are so keen on deleting lists which do not cite reliable sources independent of the subject there are many others which should be considered;

• ISO 3166-1 - Article derived from primary source materials. No independent verification of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
• List of tallest buildings in Providence - Article sourced to open content web pages and building 'fan sites'. Wikipedia is not a city guide.
• List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type - Article derived from primary source materials. No independent verification of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
• List of Chicago Landmarks - Article derived from primary source materials. No independent verification of notability. Wikipedia is not a city guide.
• Flag flying days in Mexico - Article lacks sources. No independent verification of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Go get 'em guys. There is a whole list of pages like these over here. Once we've taken care of the lists I know where we can find some articles with these 'problems' too. :] --CBD 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is not productive, since it avoids the primary issue being discussed entirely, in favor of attacking a caricature. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

Look, I believe I was the victim of admin abuse by the user name Jeske. We both had a dispute that went on throughout my userpage. Well, he stated getting fierce, so I did too and he blocked me. I know the sockpuppet was over the line, but i do believe he should've been punished too.V-Dash (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So you got blocked for a 3RR violation, then started editing with a sock puppet meaning the block got extended and you think there's admin abuse? Is there any more to the story? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After this and this? Who will be the lucky admin to whack you with a Kraken today? 68.193.198.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I should state that after looking at several threads involving you, this is looking like you're starting to harass Jeske - I suggest you drop this right away as the disruption you've made over the last couple of days cannot continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest he quit while he was ahead. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The quicker you chill the better. I suspect a one week block will prove to be the shortest you will see -- indef more likely. -JodyB _talk 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash, you've now put yourself on the radar of countless admins, so you'd do well to stick with constructive editing from now on. (Cue Pete Seeger: "When will they ever learn...") Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst sock puppetery and personal attacks are clearly not appropriate and the block was justified on those grounds, the admin's behaviour was far from civil, didn't show a great deal of sense and only perpetuated the problem by taking part in such in asinine arguement, not the kind of behaviour one would like to see from an admin. --Neon white (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantlefish, V-Dash is used by Mantlefish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade an indef block. I have blocked him likewise. Review welcome. Sandstein (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's too late. I misread the puppet/master relationship in the above checkuser case. Unblocked. Sandstein (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, I was liking the end result anyways. — Save_Us_229 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with admin opinions above. V-Dash needs to tone it down at least two notches or he's going to have a profoundly unsatisfactory Wikipedia experience, which nobody wants. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, looks like another case of admin abuse (see number 37). Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Quite the classic comment, KS9, you're an idiot. Grow up you cock sucking dickhead. related[13]?? Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dash_Jr----Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dash Jr (talk · contribs) (aka PolluxFrost) is actually one of V-Dash's detractors. That being said, Dash Jr is V-Dash's GameFAQs forum handle (I found this out when I started the first thread here), and here on Wikipedia is an impersonation account run by PolluxFrost. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• These will be the last words I will say on the matter of V-Dash: V-Dash is extremely polemical to the point Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto want new lawyers. I have seen that he will use sockpuppets to support his agenda (Mantlefish asked if I were to be blocked along with him in the prior thread, and the last 3RR block laid on him (assuming the 3RR report on him hasn't finished) had to be extended to 10 days as he used a sock to evade the block and insert the same comment that caused the 3RR block on him in the first place); he selectively picks points to counter and disregards others; he uses ad hominem attacks, and (from the GFAQs forum I looked at) does nothing but pick specific topics he knows will be divisive to create strife. He makes severe accusations without an iota of evidence, and has an incivility matter above and beyond BlackStarRock's capabilities. I will say it again: Enough is enough. It's time for a ban. We don't need people like this here on Wikipedia. And in response to Neon White, I have disengaged from him; I'm staying away from him. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to make a note about his persistent edit warring and incivility on his talkpage and Pokemon Diamond, which almost made WP:LAME. Marlith ^T/C 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Charlie McCarthyism to avoid a block for 3RR is completely unacceptable and usually earns the violator an additional block if not an outright ban. Following it up here with a bogus gripe about the blocking admin only compounds the impression of intentional disruption. Raymond Arritt nails the issue above, and if this sort of behavior continues a ban needs to be discussed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• V-Dash is not blocked. The only sockpuppet he ran when he was blocked earned him a ten-day extension; the two since have been used to make baseless accusations of administrative abuse. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Duk

User/administrator User:Duk just made this edit, which vandalized my user page to insert a reference to stuff I said months ago during a long-ended dispute. This doesn't seem to be conduct becoming of an administrator, is it? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. Wow, er... any other opinions? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful is the word I think everyones looking for, I've given him a warning that if he repeats any such action he will be blocked - we don't need attacks like that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful! Yes! That's the word I was looking for! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are trusted members of thew community, and as such they should not be disruptive towards another user. This conduct is unacceptable regardless of who does it, and he should be blocked if this persists. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, we all get frustrated at times, but this was seemingly from months ago, totally unacceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Duk seems to have apologized for airing his grievances in that manner, but is apparently unapologetic for bringing it up altogether. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears there is another such edit here. Lawrence Cohen 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TheSausageMonster

Their is another user that has nearly the same name as this guy. The suspected sockpuppet's name is The Sausage Monster in 007: Sausage. And The Sausage Monster is a big vandalizer. We need to get him banned before he vandalizes some more. --75.175.86.207 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust a user who is thinking Arby's. — Save_Us_229 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never even been to Arby's. But I don't like the looks of Sausage's contribs; move vandalism. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If no administrator is willing to unblock this individual, then consider him by all means and purposes banned from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I at least found the username funny. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a funny username. :) ...and for the record, I have been to Arby's. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower seed shells are firing out my nose. ;) And, while I haven't been to Arby's, I've eaten Arby's. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelofdeath275

Resolved

 – User:Angelofdeath275 indefblocked

I removed several external links from the Tokyo Mew Mew and English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew as per Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines and WP:COPYVIO policy.[14] Besides being unencyclopedic fan sites, they both have multiple blatant copyright violations and promoting bootlegging and illegal activity. The contribute nothing to the article, except to try to make a WP:POINT against the English adaptation of the show. The user Angelofdeath275 reverted both removals with the summary of "you did a very wrong move. those sites are what we used for refs. they MUCH. MORE. RELIABLE. than other fansites. I'm sure you did not boher to look at them throughly.."[15]. I reverted and he put them back again, then left a nasty message on my talk page. I explained why I removed them, again, and why I called his putting back such inappropriate links vandalism (spam links). In attempting to discuss the removals, he has grown increasingly incivil, claiming I blew him off (despite my having answered each of his messages, though I'd rather have ignored him). He full admitted that the sites are against Wikipedia policies, but in his final message he says "Your being one huge ass prick. I'm going ignore that part of the rule, partially by your attitude."[16]

Normally I'd go with a wikittiquette alert, but on his user talk page, he is blatantly antagonist and "warns" that he will be mean to other editors if the mood strikes him. This, to me, is not an appropriate attitude to have coming to Wikipedia. His response to the removals is also over the top, particularly when he himself has done the exact same thing on other articles![17][18] so he seems to know the rules and just doesn't want to play by them on this particular article. Maybe a WP:OWNership issue, or he just can't stay neutral for whatever reason. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy went way too fair with this lady and he needs to think before he acts. He could have asked other editors, but he doesn't and harassed this lady. He needs to leave wikipedia for a while or be blocked for a couple of weeks to think about his actions. This guy did not want to reason with this user at all.--Stco23 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SHE is very angry with this user. SHE has never gotten so mad at an established for as long as she has been on Wikipedia, as this person also has an attitude.

SHE is in one crappy ass mood, due a vandal on three other articles, who will not even bother to talk, find a source for their biased section, as this has been going on since November 27th. SHE has not had anytime to add constructive stuff because she is busy keeping one sole vandal under control, with another person ever since. (break the 3RR). SHE is the sole person trying to make sure fans keep their stuff off of the Tokyo Mew Mew articles (there were orignally 3). SHE felt blown off my that user as she gave proof why the links should stay. Throughtful ones. That person has no clue how crappy many Tokyo Mew Mew fansites are (typical which character likes who, made up stuff), that SHE looked through many sites (fan and not fansites) and saw that those were the only two that had factual information (something the person probably would not care about). That person has no clue that finding info for Tokyo Mew Mew and Mew Mew Power is hard work, so had no clue why I reverted. That person must have went with the mentality that all fansites are bad, and did not bother to acknowlege that there are VERY VERY FEW fansites, that arent bad, so that annoyed SHE. SHE will probably log off after sooner or later, cause she is pissed off. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Being pissed off is de rigeur for a teenager, it's not an excuse to inflict your teenage angst on other editors. Being uncivil and bratty is not the correct response for being told a spam link is not appropriate for an article. The correct response should have been to read WP:EL then left a message saying that you were wrong and that you apologise for being uncivil. It's obvious from your talk page that you take great pride in behaving like a "bitch" (your words not mine), I'd also recommend that you will be doing yourself a big favour by removing that statement/warning as it will taint any occasion when you are in the right. --WebHamster 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well SHE should seriously consider not posting uncivil almost trollish comments on a board that is surveyed by several administrators or chances are SHE will end up blocked for uncivility. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You could have talked with other editors, but you didn't. You need to be blocked for a while, but if you keep it up, you will be blocked for life.--Stco23 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as if these comments are wholly constructive and civil. The links clearly violate external links policy because they are merely spam links, and copyright violations policy because they link to sites that merely distribute illegal copies of videos. Nothing more, nothing less. Looking at the contribs (Angelofdeath275 (talk · contribs)), I don't see anything that is too alarming, but just take the regular course of action with the templates and if it escalates further, just file it here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are overwhelmed trying to keep crap and vandalism out of an article, there is no shortage of places you can go to ask for help. There is however no excuse for such incivility and WP:IAR does not overrule the copyright policy. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. He put back the links, but his edit got reverted. I think he needs to be blocked for good measure.--Stco23 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We looking at 1, maybe 2 weeks, or an indef? Indef might be a bit severe, but do what you need to do. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say maybe 72 hours-one week seeing that while the account has engaged in uncivil behaviour and may have disrupted the mainspace to fit her taste this would be the first block on this account and there are some constructive edits in there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He did it earlier, I thought he did it just a couple of minutes ago, but I was wrong. Do you think I should have left that report of him on the vandalism page.--Stco23 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "he"? I get the impression from your earlier edits that you maybe confusing who is male and who is female. Both Collectonian and angelofdeath275 are female. --WebHamster 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this ironic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

angelofdeath275 could use some warnings on 3 counts. I see a potential for a username block due to potentially rude/inflammatory intimidative "angel of death" name. Also, the user's userpage clearly broadcasts an intent of incivility, and last but not least, they have followed up on their threat by actually being incivil when challenged. IMO, this user should get an indefinite username block and only be allowed to create a new account on the condition that they drop the manipulative posturing. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, Buspar (talk · contribs) seems to be inserting in some questionable links. I gave him a notice on his talk page, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a username block would be appropiate, it certainly isn't "welcoming" but it doesn't really goes to the extent where a username block would stand. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the username combined with the threats on the user page and user talk page that puts me in the opinion. Agreed, the username by itself is only a bit rude, but the user's published intent clinches it. I'm not doing it without consensus here though, because it isn't cut and dried. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ether way he or she, This person needs to respect people when angry. I don't mind the person's user name, but most of the stuff on this person's user and talk page needs to change. This person is good on video games, but not on respect.--Stco23 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll add a firm warning to remove the bluster, but won't block for now. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by, took at look at the user contributions out of curiosity and noticed this; User:Angelofdeath275/Policies and Guidelines#I will blow off. Sounds like someone is planning to not play nice with others in the sandbox. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This user is blatantly fostering a culture of hostility in order to exercise their will regarding ownership of several articles, apparently, as indicated in the edit summary history. That isn't what this project was designed for. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I had given the user a timed opportunity (24 hrs) to remove the offending material and get back to work, and the response was more abuse [19]. If someone ever wants to unblock a newly repentant Angelofdeath275, I'd suggest having the offending material removed be one of the conditions. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy article and User:Mattisse

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

---

User:Mattisse is on a rampage on the Psychopathy article. At first it looked as though he might have SOME kind of knowledge and point but as he goes on I am coming to realise that he doesn't actually have a clue and is not going to let that discourage him from completely disrupting the entire article. I see he has a recent block history for similar. HELP! --Zeraeph (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse again! Well, i personally believe that you can still discuss that at the article's talk page. As i see, you are both handling a productive and civil discussion and believe there's nothing which can be done here for the moment. You can still try Wikipedia:Third opinion or Request comment on articles. I'll be keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with that Fayssal is that the issues she is raising on the talk page are actually fictions or fantasies, they aren't even POV. You try to discuss them and she responds with a new fiction...meanwhile making all sorts of subtle changes to the article that individually look acceptable enough, but in combination are seriously disruptive AND misrepresentative of the topic and sources. It's got to the stage where I am going to let her get on with it and revert anything that is not a genuine improvement tomorrow.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, it seems from you comments that you have a poor opinion of me. User:Zeraeph is repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion. I worked hard on getting them correct and referenced properly. What should I do? He has not discussed substantive issues or addressed my complaint on the talk page. What do you recommend that I do, so you will not have a poor opinion of me, as he continues to revert without discussion? Thanks! Mattisse 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you edits are not correct, not referenced and frequently not even faintly relevant and are just disrupting a fairly good, medical article. I feel at this stage that your only motivation is the pursuit of ongoing personal attention. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This post to WP:AN/I is inappropriate block shopping. What you describe is a content dispute, which should be dealt with on the talk page, or by methods of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Iamunknown 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. Matisse is actually claiming PUBmed citations are dead and invalid when they are not, that they do not say things you only have to click on the links to see that they do say, posting uncited personal commentary, and outright irrelevancies. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me. --Iamunknown 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, this is mainly a content dispute. You'll need an expert or a third party opinion to verify if the edits in question are part of original research or a kind of fiction. It is difficult for us here to (actually we don't) judge content.

Mattisse, it is not that i have a 'poor opinion' of you. I just see your name being mentioned at the ANI quite often lately. Different users have been bringing their differences with you here. I have no idea whatsoever if your edits are wrong.

I gave you (both) my suggestion above. I'd also hope to see you discussing it further at the article talk page and probably leaving the article alone for a while until you reach a consensus. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not done anything to deserve an ill opinion from you. The other editor does not discuss, except now, having seen your comment, he says I am wrong and that is why he is reverting. I will report it to 3-R - I have never done that before and maybe that would have saved me grief in the past, as I do not report things. I am not a bad nor a disruptive editor. Thanks! Mattisse 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As i said above Mattisse, it is about the frequency of reports about you from different users. I haven't used any judgement. I suggest that you both delve into a productive discussion and believe that reporting Zeraeph to the 3RR noticeboard would not be helpful. Both of you can get blocked for that and you'd surely have to restart again the discussion process. It would be just a waste of time. Invest that time in discussing your edits instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have time or energy to discuss this with Matisse any further...so she'll just have to do as she pleases with the article until another editor does have the time and energy. I hope that is soon because what she has tried to do to that article so far is the kind of distortion or information on a medical article that people tear Wikipedia apart over --Zeraeph (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussion page? Maybe just now he has put something there. But before he had not, except to say I was wrong. The advice to discuss with someone who appears (from the edit history) to WP:OWN the page is not helpful. Perhaps if I received some help sometimes, you would not see my name as much. I have only tried to do what is right always. I have made mistakes, yes, but nothing major. And I do not engage in revert wars. I am sorry that you have such an opinion of me. It is one of the very discouraging things at Wikipedia that no one ever looks at my history of edits and contributions but merely judges because they have seen my name a lot. I am sorry. It is very discouraging. Mattisse 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) He still has not discussed. He says I am inventing, that I am disruptive, that I am wrong. I have given citations that he has removed. What else can I do? Just take it you are saying. Mattisse 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You only put in one citation with a comment that had no relevance to the topic, I removed that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&diff=177259646&oldid=177259501 --Zeraeph (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to close this thread because it seems that it doesn't help the situation. Zeraeph, if you are really tired please have a break from the article. You can get a 3rd opinion if you want. I see at your userpage that you have already decided to retire which is unfortunate. So please, whether you refer to Wikipedia:Third opinion or stop reverting. Mattisse, please do the same. You both have reverted more than enough today. It is just unacceptable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests

Resolved

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests can probably be closed now. Mercury 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johncons (again)

Resolved

 – Wikipedia has quite enough unrepentant POV warriors, so I showed Johncons the door. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A few days back, I brought this user to the attention of AN/I in respect of his actions in bringing no less than four vexatious complaints here and at WP:WQA, after I and other editors pushed back against a 200-edit fringe-theory/POV-pushing spree on Grandiosa from the user.

User:Manning Bartlett blocked him for 24 hours on 7th December for disruptiveness, refusal to comply with established policies regarding sourcing of information despite being advised on several occasions, instigating frivolous administrative actions.

The user, who has a self-confessed agenda (namely that he believes that a scandanavan pizza company is putting dead people into pizzas), greets any editor who tries to implement or explain policies that don't suit his agenda (whether by firm but civil instruction, or by patient explanation) with cries of "harrasment", and did so again on his own talk page after being blocked.

Once his block expired, he posted to User talk:Tom harrison asking for advice on harrasment, because he felt that users were harrasing him (he picked this user because he had edited Harrasment, although in an ironic twist, User:Tom harrison's only recent edits to that article were to revert vandalism!)

He seems to be firmly of the view that any editor that disagrees with him must back off from all interaction until an agreement on future interaction can be reached (presumably leaving the way clear for further POV-pushing)

Throughout, I have remained civil, and actually spent a good deal of time and effort trying to work with him, but it appears that the only help that he wants is help that might allow him to do exactly what he wants to do. Anything else is "harrasment". I have responded to his question as to future interaction by stating that, provided he refrains from adding unsourced POV material from articles, and ceases to make malicious reports, there need be no future interaction. He has responded by making legal threats here

I don't believe this user to be an avowed disruptive vandal, but unless he can be dissuaded from his current editing practice, the effect will be the same. Clearly, I've failed to make any headway on helping him to become a constructive editor, but that isn't to say that others wouldn't have more luck!

Could I ask that an admin takes a good look to determine whether there is any possible course of action that might achieve a positive outcome without having to resort to further blocks. I have refrained from adding {{uw-legal}} on his talk page, as although it is clearly warranted, I feel that it would inflame the situation if I did so, and that it would be better if the warning was issued by another editor.

Mayalld (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Overissuance of POV tag by User:Jjk82

On the South Korea article, a series of POV tags has been issued without reasonable and persuadable explanation by Jjk82. Jjk82 has been accused of his disruption on various South Korea-related articles numerous times before, though he is still actively participating on editing those articles. I really would like to see justice comes true in Wikipedia. Thank you.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're referring to is the fundamental oddity of tags. If they are not discussed and rationalized, then they have no more legitimacy than any other user edit. I.e. his putting them there and your removing them are equally justified, if there is no consensus. If a person continues to place an edit that the consensus is against, then it becomes an issue for AN/I, as it is edit warring. If a person reverts 3 times in 24 hours, that is a violation of one of our policies and calls for a block. The issue of justice should be alien to content disputes. The issue we have to address instead is consensus and discussion. If the POV tags are argued out at the article talk pages and if neither side has consensus for its point of view, then the article may need mediation. Geogre (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Qworty on Mitt Romney

Seems to be engaged in severe POV pushing ("This section should include Romney's racist Mormon beliefs against African-Americans, for example"), which is prolonging the protection on the article. Article originally protected because of dispute over alleged UNDUE weight for including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors. A rough consensus has emerged that this should indeed be covered in a section relating to Romney’s religion and the impact it might have on his presidential bid. However, User:Qworty seems to be using this as a forum to introduce every wacky fact about Mormonism he can think of without regard to actual sources. He does not feel the need to provide reliable sources in connection with Romney and, say, "Mormon underwear" because "Every single article that refers to his membership and position in the church supports the inclusion of the underwear. The burden of proof would be on you to show that he is wearing the wrong underwear and therefore going to hell." He excels in BLP violations and undue weight, and is generally editing disruptively, so that the page must remain locked. Yesterday, he edit warred on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008.

Romney's religion, including uncomfortable topics like blacks and the priesthood certainly should be covered with due weight, but this POV pushing is way over the top. I think editor needs to step away from this topic. Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this dispute, but a major candidate's article really should not be full protected for 8 straight days... --W.marsh 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ejfetters

• User:Ejfetters has deleted some pages (e.g. The Adventures of Captain Proton, where the delete opinion was far from unanimous) in queryable circumstances, and several times recently he has blanked User talk:Ejfetters (his talk page, see its history), apparently to lose unwanted messages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Ejfetters is his recent contributions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ejfetters didn't delete that article, they simply nominated it for deletion, and if you disagree with the decision made by the deleting admin, take it to Deletion review.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ejfetters isn't an administrator so he did not delete anything. He nominated for deletion and the AfD was closed by a Wikipedia administrator as a consensus for deletion. Unanimous opinion isn't required. Since this was closed as an AfD, the closing administrator deleted the article.

Also there is no rule against blanking one's user page, just a preference for archiving. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute at List of Cuban Americans

I'd like assistance from an administrator to help out with on ongoing edit dispute at List of Cuban Americans with XLR8TION. The problem began when I first edited that list. When I later checked the page I found that my edits had been completely reverted without any justification. When I tried adding names back on the list they were again reverted and now he just reverts all my edits sight on seen labeling them "ongoing vanadlism". [21] [22] Yet as you can see what he describes at vandalism is hardly that. I included references in the page that he deletes as well, how could references (added to verify the subject's ethnicity) be vandalism? He seems to think he is the sole arbitrator of what goes on the list and that he is always right. Like in this diff [23] where he states: Any further attempts to undo the corrective and positive edits I have taken will be addressed to an administrator(s). He's completely unwilling to reach an agreement, it's either his edits or his edits. There's an ongoing debate, with the major grievances listed at Talk:List_of_Cuban_Americans#RfC: Multiple Entries and Non-Notable names. I've tried to remain civil even though his tone has been rude and abrasive from the get-go, but it now seems he's just looking for a fight rather then to reach a compromise. Any help would be great! InMySpecialPlace24 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Metal to the Max!

User has been warned several times about being insulting to others. In the last act of defiance the user really mouthed off at me on his/ her talk page here. I think this at least warrants a block, considering the user has been warned many times before about this. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history, I can't find any previous warnings, aside from the current conversation happening. Am I missing them?? I've left a waring, but blocking may be appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse again, I'm sorry

I feel as if I am risking a community ban by posting this again, and I am scared, particularly when I see User:SandyGeorgia making posts like this [24] and this [25] which are not very truthful personal attacks on me, obviously aimed at exacerbating the situation, there is NO WAY what is happening on this talk page Talk:Psychopathy is a "Content Dispute", or in any way for the good of the project.

User:Mattisse is well known [26] there is even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mattisse. Psychopathy is a medical article that needs to have a certain amount of integrity. User:Mattisse's behavior on the talk page has escalated to the point of being completely unhinged. There is no point in waiting for Third Opinion, because Mattisse is so well known that no one wants to get involved. Please, someone do something, it's about the integrity of a medical article, not about me. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:FayssalF closed out a thread above, a complaint by User:Zeraeph, that I was adding material to his article. He was advised, as I read it, to consult with me. [27] User Zeraeph also asked User:LessHeard vanU for help and he advised consultation with me also: [28] Now, above, I see that SandyGeorgia wrote to me and I have read that now and feel better. I will go with what SandyGeorgia says and I thank her for that. I feel better now and wait for another day to fix the article. Thanks! Mattisse 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And I see several requests for citations there, and a lot of back-and-forth about what is correct and what is not. This is a classical content dispute; please pursue dispute resolution if you wish, as this page is not to try to get one's opponents in a content dispute blocked. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I take that to mean that I am also allowed to edit the article. Thank you for that, as all my edits have been removed. It sounds like you are saying since I have discussed my ideas at length on the talk page of the article that I can go ahead and edit it also and add my references back, even if the editor says No. Thanks! Mattisse 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, have you read that talk page? It's not a valid content dispute, it is constant determined disruption of a valid, fully cited medical article, by an editor with a long reputation for it. There is also, now, the matter of the personal attacks made on me by both User:SandyGeorgia and User:Mattisse. They are not a "content dispute". --Zeraeph (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph blocked for 1 month for persistent edit warring. The user has already been multiply blocked for this. The longest block was 1 month for uncivility, which is continued in edit summaries. `'Míkka>t 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

edit war/talk page comment deletion

See Bobby Petrino and related talk page. User:Enigmaman Keeps reverting on the article, and deleting people's comments on the article's talk page. I left a 3RR warning on his talk page and he removed that, and then went and reverted the article again as well as removed part of comments on the article talk page. -- ALLSTARecho 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of edit warring, I have reverted to the version that doesn't report rumors as fact... I don't think we should be speculating here. --W.marsh 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch talk page

The problem brought up in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Quackwatch continues. The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it,

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"ARRRGH!"

The arguments began 27 November 2007. Over 400 edits to the talk page later and we're making little or no progress. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The page is Quackwatch and Talk:Quackwatch. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for replying here, but would this be better considered by article request for comments? —Whig (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Adam Cuerden, my concern is that the discussions are just going in circles. We've already had a large number of outside editors give their perspective after two requests for outside opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? A great many publications are not peer-reviewed, many of which are respected & reliable sources. It's insisting statements about a presumable negative condition, for example "Seattle is a city in Washington state of the United States, and not a neighborhood of Tel Aviv." I'd share a real example of this from Spy magazine many years ago, but I suspect it would be redacted due to WP:BLP. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's like trying to prove to certain people that the moon is not made of green cheese. Graham87 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the crackers, Gromit. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation at Talk:Quackwatch. I'm sorry you see it that way. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said, "you've misrepresented the opposing POV". Misrepresentation is a serious accusation. Please back it up with diffs or remove it. Please indicate which editor you feel is misrepresenting something. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my previous comment offends anyone. I don't see any reason to remove it. What Adam and you have effectively done with the above summary is say those with the opposing POV have said nothing more than "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!" Do you feel that is a fair representation? --Anthon01 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it offends, but that it's pretty inappropriate per WP:TALK to make such personal accusations here, much less in an edit summary. However, as I noted on your talk page, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with the use of "misrepresentation" in WP:TALK.

I quoted Adam because I thought it was close enough to what is going on. I also clarified my own point of view with my initial comment, and my reply above to Whig. I also added 16 diffs to your talk page of your own comments on Talk:Quackwatch to indicate exactly what I mean.

I also preferred Adam's summary because it did not list any specific editor nor any specific section of the discussion. It expressed his frustration, and my own: that no matter what is done, the responses are changing little if at all. --Ronz (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01. This depiction of events above is inaccurate in that it misrepresents one side as being blindly stubborn without any policy to back up their position. This could not be further from the truth. Please consider revising to actually reflect both sides position or simple remove this from AN/I as it may be an inappropriate forum for such a grievance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of complaining, follow TALK and CIVIL to help progress the discussion along. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the language properly represents the discussion. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of complaining, how about helping to progress the discussion along? --Ronz (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an RFC/Article. That should help. This doesn't seem to be the place for content disputes. —Whig (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Stuck tag. Apologies if it's inappropriate to do so. I've already disputed the need for further RfCs, though I've written one up myself. The problem is that we're stuck. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Rfa

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2

I know that this is already here on the noticeboard, but I feel that Kurt is harassing any user that decides to nominate himself/herself for Adminship. If you look carefully at the current Rfa's you will see what I am talking about. I see only one other place that he has currently voted and that is also an oppose. It seems as if he is only voting on Rfa's that are self-nom and they are always an oppose. Isn't that harassment? Dustihowe (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep (as its my RFA, I do consider it to be harrasement). Davnel03 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecx4) No its how democracy works. You stand for a position and people take pot shots at the candidate. There has already been an RFC and lots of drama on this already. Kurt is entitled to express his view and the 'crats who assess the outcome are free to weight his comments accordingly. It all evens out in the end. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is healthy given that quite a few people seem to be upset or hurt by his comments - it's having this effect on quite a lot of users now and regardless whether or not you personally believe it's a problem, it has to be considered one when this number of people consider it disruptive. Kurt knows some people consider it disruptive, yet he has carried on regardless - to me is increasingly looking like disruption of the RfA process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In my view it is disruption, in the RFA nomination stuff there is nothing that says you cannot nominate yourself. Davnel03 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing that says you can't nominate yourself the first day you're registered. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to oppose you for that reason. Epthorn (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. It's disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I'd support an RFA ban for Kmweber, or at the minimum, an injunction against opposing on grounds of "self nom". ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup; the correct place to protest is certainly not in the individual noms of other users. Surely there's a precedent for, say, an inclusionist who opposed every single AfD on the same principles? Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In my view, his opposes should be removed. Something needs to be done to stop his opposes, that seem to spiralling onto all of the "self-nom"'s FAC. Has he shown any sign of backing down and communicating with other users? Davnel03 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote: I seriously doubt that his one vote has swung a single RfA, because bureaucrats can weight it as they see fir when closing. Regardless, it's still a silly and ineffective way to protest. He's said that he's not backing down, but seeing as the whole point is to draw attention he seems willing to at least discuss the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, RFA is not a battleground for protest. You've just effectively shown that he is using this as his personal battleground. WP:NOT, WP:POINT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This horse and every other animal on the farm have already been beaten to death. The bottom line is that the community accepts and supports Kurt Weber's right to oppose requests for adminship, despite how specious his reasoning may seem at face value. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Can you show me this consensus? Because it appears right now that there are a good number of people who disagree with it. Consensus can change, don't forget. And please show me where he has the right to oppose against a certain class indiscriminately?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

YA RLY. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, which got comments from a far broader range of people than this pile-on here. --155.98.230.202 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecx3)Joy. However, consensus is that these comments are not trolling and should not be removed. I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). But twice in one day we see his RfA comments at ANI (once by me, of course) ? Either the community accepts it's all okay, and everyone complaining about him is wrong, or Kurt accepts that his actions could be seen to be disruptive, as per Ryan. Let's also not forget that Kurt is also a very valued contributor across the project. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This and this are germane, as are several crats asserting that his opinions are OK even though little stock is held in them. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't find them that disruptive, but the disruption comes from the fact that a lot of other users do. If self noms were discouraged, I would fully support Kurt, but they are welcomed at RfA. Given this is not going to stop, or people are not going to stop being hurt by it, I would endorse an RfA ban at this point. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not harassment, Kurt just has a closed mind on this issue. In the same way some other editors refuse to support children for adminship. RMHED (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict): A closed mind is not how we do things here. It's never acceptable to disrupt wikipedia for a point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that it's not harassment, but it is getting disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are willing to "disenfranchise" a user who opposes candidates based upon their self-nom, and whose !vote can be "discounted" by a bureaucrat after close, but in the case of my failed RfA, trolling, disruption, mayhem, and sabotage by the sockpuppets of two banned users was allowed to occur and continue, with no consideration at all on the part of the closing bureaucrat? There's something seriously wrong here. - Crockspot (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Rude? Yes, but that is it. It is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose someone for admin-ship. I would think the tone of the message could be altered, but you cannot stop someone from expressing a legitimate concern. IMO, however, blanket policies such as Kurt's are ill-advised as he does not appear to even consider the individual user, but again that is his perogative, even if not too many others appreciate it. But everyone judges one's character differently, and this appears to be how he is comfortable making that judgment. More power to him.--12 Noon 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope your statement "more power to him" is idiomatic, and you don't actually support giving more power to people who vote on RfA candidates ostensibly without looking at their contribs. - Chardish (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More power to express your opinion to him. If he failed Kurt's litmus test, then there is not much point in digging deeper. Like I said, blanket policies are not my preference, but who is to prohibit individualism? Not me. --12 Noon 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kurt's behavior is very disruptive. To be wary of users who self-nominate is acceptable, but to copy and paste the same vote on every self-nomination is disruptive to the RfA process, which is supposed to individually evaluate the merits of candidates. - Chardish (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Each time that comment comes up, more of the community expresses the opinion that he is being disruptive. I have not reviewed all of his RfA remarks, but in what I have reviewed, I have yet to find an oppose that was based on any apparent review of the candidate. Since RfA is supposed to be a consensus discussion, making a blanket statement without any knowledge of the candidate does appear to be disruptive in intent; it strongly appears to be nothing more than a WP:POINT. I agree that 'crats may well be overlooking his !vote, but I'm not convinced that resolves the actual problem here. Shell ^babelfish 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It seems to me that Kurt's contributions to RfA are in clear violation of WP:POINT, therefore I am suprised that they are allowed to continue. They clearly are disruptive, otherwise no-one would complain. _TheIslander 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a disruptive violation of WP:POINT. If he has a problem with policy, he should take it up on the policy page. Rklawton (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The WP:UNBLUEDPOINT is simple. Twice in one day Kurt's comments have been bought to ANI. Their validity is not the issue. The fact we've had two threads inside 12 hours is prima facie evidence that it's causing disruption. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a novel approach: Ignore him. Let the crats give his !vote the appropriate weight. - Crockspot (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been tried that way, and look where we still are. It's not the weight of the argument, it's the upset it's causing some users. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • • Too bad. If an admin candidate is going to get upset by an oppose vote, no matter the rationale, they have no business using the admin tools. What are they going to do when they take some REAL heat? - Crockspot (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And those users should know better than to get upset. It may be a hard lesson, but if they are to make good admins, they need to learn when to let something go, and when something is not worth pursuing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I said this at the WP:RFARB, which is permalinked from the RfC, and I'll repeat it here. RfA has always been far more of a voting process than AfD. Banning someone from a voting process like RfA because you disagree with their opinions, or how they are expressing it, is fraught with peril. It is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. I advise those getting upset by the oppositions to examine themselves and consider why they are getting upset. Are they taking the opposes personally? Why can't they see those opposes as nothing to get worked up about? If anything, I'd say that Kurt's opposes are (unintentionally) serving a good purpose: namely bringing out those who misunderstand how RfA works, and who are too sensitive to an oppose vote, and are too easily upset by such things. It is a good test of admin temperament to see how the candidate reacts to a frivolous oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot took the words out of my mouth, ignore him and the disruption goes away. He has no other effect on RFAs....and if a candidate can't take a oppose vote that is destined to be ignored then they may be in the wrong place. RxS (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• And Kurt's only comment in the archived debate above (presumably aimed at me) was I'm not going to let you get away with it. No-one gave a fuck about that either, as far as I can see. So fine, let him issue threats, but as usual the big bad admins will just have to take it. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• The problem is that he is opposing for something that isn't even based in policy, and in fact, we explicitly allow what he is opposing for. If he doesn't like that, then he should try and change RfA policy, not oppose in the way he does. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• We explicitly allow you not to use edit summaries - but if you don't, your RfA will be clogged with opposes - this is specious reasoning. Anyone who can't tolerate specious opposes isn't cut out to be an admin. WilyD 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we "explicitly allow" people to be uncivil and attack editors by giving them an "edit this page" button. Doesn't make it a good thing. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no we don't, see WP:CIVIL for example, we explicitly disallow being uncivil. We allow opposes based on many editing behaviors that are explicitly allowed, focusing mainly on vandal fighting, not creating content, being young, editing a narrow range of topics and so on. There is no WP:POWERHUNGRYRFA. RxS (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Carcharoth and others. How long until we see "Please oppose using the following list of community-approved reasons"? --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Radical idea: don't react to everything you see. Seems to me that a lot of drama would die a quick, silent death if nobody paid it any mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need a list of community-approved reasons to state that this reason is bogus. The fact that a common response is that the 'crats will ignore it just underscores that the post is not intended as a constructive comment in the RFA process. I would support a topic ban from RFA until Kurt agrees to contribute to the process constructively. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One more - without saying anything in favor of Kurt's tactics - a single short sentence opposition is not nearly the response an administrator should expect to get the first time he or she blocks a persistent vandal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• The disruption is being done by the drama queens people who get offended by Kmweber's opinions, not by his actual opposes. Friday (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically happy with all of Kmwebbers contributions in the last 24 hours? There's been no disruption, incivility or threats that concern you? Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I disagree. WP is not a democracy, and Kurt has no 'right' to express his opinion. If he doesn't desire to contribute constructively to the RFA process, it's perfectly reasonable for us to ask him to refrain from contributing at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • What the hell is RFA for, if not to express your opinion? Says so right at WP:RFA. Unless you mean, you have no right to express a minority opinion, which is what is going on here. --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • RFA is for deciding whether particular editors should be granted admin rights. It is not a general forum for expressing you opinion. Constructive comments are those which are intended to help make the best decision about granting admin access. Kurt's comments are not intended to do this - even those who support him making the comments say that his comment should be ignored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Kurt actually following self-noms around and interfering with their other contributions? Or is he just saying he opposes them in their RfAs? If the latter, then I think calling it "harrassment" is frankly ludicrous. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Restricting a user from participating at RfA is a serious action, and one that should only be taken by arbcom. I suggest that someone file a case there. - Crockspot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow. With the demise of CSNB, this is now the designated forum to discuss topic bans. Restricting someone from RFAs still permits them complete freedom to write articles and contribute in the rest of WP space. Why do you think Arbcom must be involved? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that this has come up here several times qualifies it for arbitration, and the "right" to express one's opinion about candidates who will hold the admin tools is one of the more important, as far as I am concerned. - Crockspot (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Arguments like "Here's a novel approach: Ignore him" and "Radical idea: don't react to everything you see" are helping no-one, and certainly aren't forwarding this conversation. "The disruption is being done by the drama queens who get offended by Kmweber's opinions" is just plain rude, and an attack in itself. If this had been the first time that this had been brought up, then yes, the above would be valid points to make. However, it's been brought up a number of times, so it clearly affects a number of people. For users to say "just ignore it" is kinda like a slap in the face for those that get upset by it. I think that people are forgetting that RfAs are not supposed to be "let's tear this candidate to shreds if they're not suitable" death-matches. Civility comes into this more than anything. An RfA is supposed to be discussed civilly, so if something upsets someone, there's a problem. It is to be expected that non-suitable candidates will apply through RfA, or else the entire system would be pointless. For this reason, arguments along the lines of "just ignore it" are plain rude. Clearly the community has tried ignoring it, as this has come up in the past, but the community clearly cannot do so if it is coming up repeatedly. Kurt is in clear violation of WP:POINT, and so appropriate actions must be taken. (Before I'm accused of having a slurred view on this matter, I'm actually one of the few that went through a self-nominated RfA without Kurt actually responding. If he had, I personally would have ignored it. Doesn't mean that others should). _TheIslander 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• One of the purposes of the RfA process is to gauge how a candidate reacts to stresses within the RfA process. In that respect, Kurt's spurious opposes have resulted in some enlightening reactions, and have thus actually been useful, at least to me. - Crockspot (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A comment for which the right action to ignore it can hardly be called a constructive contribution to the discussion. The goal of RFA is not to goad the candidate to see whether he or she will respond well; if it were, we would find a better and more realistic way to do it than Kurt's comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Almost all supports are for no reason at all. If supporting for absolutely no reason is constructive, opposing for a reason many people consider silly is definitely constructive. WilyD 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree it is appropriate to ask supporters to explain their reasoning upon request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • On a more realistic level, why not try asking every supporter who doesn't include a detailed rationale for one and see how long until you're blocked for being disruptive? The standards for supports and opposes on RfA are different, even if they shouldn't be. WilyD 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Kurt is prefectly entitled to oppose candidates for self-nom'ing, for using userboxes or whatever else strikes his fancy. The people harrassing Kurt about it are the ones being disruptive, not Kurt, who's merely being silly. If you don't want your suitability for adminship evaluated, don't apply. For fuck's sake, it's not a big deal that a silly oppose is applied to a bunch of candidates, and it's transparently not a violation of WP:POINT or WP:HARRASS or any other policy one can dream up. Leave the boy alone and they're be no problem. WilyD 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kurt is not "entitled" to contribute anywhere. There is no "right to self expression" on wikipedia. If Kurt does not wish to contribute constructively at RFA< he should find a different area in which to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • He's an editor in good standing, so until some action is taken against him (community sanction, Arbcom etc) he has as much right to his opinions as anyone else. So in that sense he actually is entitled...as much as any of us are, and no less then any of us are. RxS (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. That's why we are discussing taking action against him in this thread. In the end, I think it is only a matter of time until some action is taken, as Kurt has not taken the opportunity to moderate his own comments on RFA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, I think the advice to ignore him is very sound. More folks should consider it. Your assertion that he's in clear violation of WP:POINT is not shared, nor is it a consensus view. I also don't think his opinion amounts to a death match. Not every perceived slight needs immediate action and community censure. RxS (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A significant number of editors appear to agree with me that he should be ignored, and after several discussions here on this topic, there appears to be a lack of consensus on what to do, therefore, my suggestion is to either ignore, or send it to arbcom. Crockspot (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A significant number of editors appear to agree with me that he is disruptive and should be topic banned. Your point? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was clear, and you have illustrated it further: There is no consensus. Therefore, either ignore, or file an arbcom. - Crockspot (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...except it's already been before the committee, and their reaction was to trout-whack everybody involved. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems the only point of this thread is to harrass Kurt over unpopular opinions, which is not appropriate. Work your way up WP:DR if you have a problem with him, there's transparently no support for community sanctions. WilyD 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, how inappropriate is it to take a persons good faith complaint and refer to it as harrassment? I suggest you rescind that statement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(too WilyD and copied from above) So you're basically happy with all of Kmwebbers contributions in the last 24 hours? There's been no disruption, incivility or threats that concern you? Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an instance where he goes a bit over the NPA line, but it's not related to his habit of opposing self-noms. One might argue he should retract it or face a short block, although I'm not sure that's particularly worthwhile. WilyD 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The disruption stems from people replying to him, not him voicing his opinion. Perhaps someone should speak to them. John Reaves 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment which is best handled by ignoring it can hardly be called a positive contribution. An editor who makes such comments regularly, despite being asked to stop, can only be described as disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please put the straw man down. It's not helpful. The complaints are about RFA opposes, specifically, and there's nothing wrong with him giving his opinion in the appropriate place. If there are other concerns, they're separate concerns. Friday (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro - you couldn't get support for your previous complaint about Kurt today, some might question just who is being disruptive or harrassing. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are unacceptable here DuncanHill. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation based solely on the threads here today about Kurt. Is it OK to question Kurt's behaviour yet forbidden to questin Pedro's? Perhaps we could have a list of editors whose behaviour it is permitted to raise questions about? DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw gee, you found me out. I've only done this to harass Kurt, launched this thread myself, and indeed all the people above voicing concern are just my sockpuppets. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a little more sarcasm would be helpful. John Reaves 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, Apologies for the sarcasm. That's not helpful. Duncan, did you see the "I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). " comment of mine. Did you read the archived thread? I fail to see how I'm disrupting here. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot of difference between "some might question just who is being disruptive or harrassing" and saying that someone actually is being disruptive or harrassing. The first is quite clearly an observation on how certain behaviour could appear to a disinterested observer. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I think this thread needs defusing before we go any further. I've clearly upset the community and made some very poor choices and comments today. Obviously I'm clearly wrong and I apologise. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Two important questions are raised by this issue:

1. If you make decisions on every candidate with prejudice based on a single litmus test, and contribute to RfA in no other means, are you disrupting RfA?
2. If "no," then is every form of litmus test acceptable? It has been argued by some that a self-nom is a "legitimate" reason to oppose. Is it legitimate to oppose based on racial prejudice? Sexism? Ageism? Users with numbers in their username?

I also think it's worth considering that Kurt's comments would most definitely be considered disruptive if he pasted multiple paragraphs explaining his agenda with every oppose vote, rather than just a sentence. - Chardish (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly some litmus tests are accepted (edit summary usage, for example). Others are not. The real point is that everyone has a deeper responsibility to the project to avoid making repeatedly making posts which lead to this sort of thing, especially when the likely outcome is already known. This doesn't mean that nobody should express controversial or uncommon viewpoints; it does mean that we should do so in productive rather than unproductive ways. WP (and RFA) is a collaborative environment intended to find consensus, not an adversarial system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Another point is that Kurt is not the only person to be applying single litmus tests, or to have applied such tests. There have been periods when others have opposed on principles such as "not endorsed by a WikiProject", or even the more common "not enough edits" or "not enough experience" or "too young" or "1FA" (having produced one featured article). Those reasons aroused people's ire as well, but for some reason those who are deeply upset by this sort of thing are making a stand and want to make an example of Kurt. On the other side we have the "civil libertarians" (for want of a better phrase) who recognise that RfA is, at its heart, a liberal process that shouldn't be heavily policed and restricted. I know Wikipedia is not about democracy or freedom of expression or stuff like that, but equally Wikipedia is not a place where only "allowed" opinions can be expressed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The 'not endorsed' opposes were equally deserving of a topic ban, since it's an impossible standard to meet. The 1FA meme had some significant following, which is important to remember. I don't believe it's possible to reduce this in a legalistic manner, so that all comments (or all litmus tests) are equally valid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain to me in words of one syllable (I am a simple man) how Kurt's opposition to self-noms is measurably more disruptive than editcountitis? Guy (Help!) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Point. That's what I think everyones getting at here. As I said, I personally don't find it disruptive, but the fact that many people do shows it most probably is. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is more disruptive because editcountitis doesn't lead to nearly as much wasted talk page space or as many ANI complaints. In other words, it's the duck test. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it must be a full moon somewhere, & that's the cause of this tempest in a tea cup. (Sorry Guy, I couldn't keep all of that to words of one syllable. Maybe next time.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• STOP THIS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. This proves that there are many who should not have the power tools, not when they believe a bit of criticism is a personal attack and/or harassment. This goes for those admins with the tools already. You lose respect that way. Wikipedia has two black eyes already, and this is adding insult to injury! Now stop it. - Jeeny ^(talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jeeny that is an awful comment. Anyway, it is disruptive, because he does it on purpose, I would ask him to stop, and if not, start blocking. Maybe I am just mean. But most importantly, admin is not a position you run for. Well, it is, but it isn't supposed to be. It shouldn't be exclusive. Prodego ^talk 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if he does it for the purpose of being disruptive, do you? Anyway, the double-speak is another major problem and is not going unnoticed. Don't you see that? This is not a networking site, it is an egalitarian collaboration to compile "the sum of all human knowledge". There are a lot of bright people contributing to this project and can see right through all the double-speak, the hierarchy and the hypocrisy. It's embarrassing. Now stop it. - Jeeny ^(talk) 00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is what we make it. If you don't want it to be an encyclopedia, it won't be. The idea is for it to be one though. In that respect, you need to read Wikipedia:About, and you most certainly can't complain if we try to make Wikipedia into that. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• You know, if there's anything Weber shows us is that some potential admins do have skin too thin for my taste. I am impressed when someone ignores or discusses his rationale, I am thoroughly UNimpressed when people threaten to block him unilaterally or break down over what is a relatively inane criticism (and one that is dwarfed by much more uncivil things that admins have to deal with)Epthorn (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I said previously, I definitely can't condone Kurt's personal comments on the admins above, but there is a world of difference between that and his spamming of self-noms which are routinely ignored by the 'crats anyway. BLACKKITE 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA should be as free as is possible and reasonable. Ultimately, of course, KW has no 'right' except as we establish, but I don't see these numerous RfCs as establishing consensus. Does anyone really believe somehow things have changed since the last one and editors are ready to decide what people may or may not say at an RfA as grounds for opposing? I don't think so. The disruption here is not entirely of Kurt's making, and I think we should note that in this case the matter would have immediately died had people not kept bringing it up. Epthorn (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from this discussion that a significant number of people find Kurt's edits disruptive. That on its own should be enough to convince Kurt to change his behavior voluntarily. It is true the matter would die if others ignore it, but it would also die if Kurt would adopt a different strategy in his campaign against self nominated RFA candidates, so assigning fault only to those who find the edits disruptive isn't accurate. A certain level of collegiality is necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes a certain level of collegiality is definitely necessary and a plus. But, it's a bit difficult when there is such an age disparity and education levels among the community. The "group" is divided into many mini groups. Also, a personal attack and what is considered disruptive is arbitrary because of those difference, along with cultural differences. Bringing this type of thing to AN/I is childish, unprofessional and disruptive IMO. Whining over a silly opinion is more disruptive than the posting of that opinion. Buck up. - Jeeny ^(talk) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh here we go again. Clear consensus is that his oppose votes, regardless of his reasoning, are valid. I also feel, like others above, that the attempts to disenfranchise this editor are much more disruptive and hurtful to the RfA process than anything he's done. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion vs manner of expression

Many people above seem to be discussing whether Kmweber's points of view on adminship candidates, and whether or not he should be allowed to express them, which is really beside the point. If the arguments expressed by any participant in a request for adminship are irrelevant, or not regarded by the community as significant, or whatever, then bureaucrats can safely disregard them when evaluating the consensus.

The real issue is the way in which Kmweber expresses his views. Having the freedom to express one's views does not mean that one also has the freedom to be a dick when one does so. Kurt should be able to put forward his opinions, like anyone else, but if he can't do so in a collegial manner then he shouldn't do so at all. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to persuade him of this, because the comments he is getting above seem likely to only harden his attitudeDGG (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that Kurt has explained his reasoning over and over and over again, and seemingly each time the issue comes before the community ultimately it is decided that there is no consensus that he is violating any policy. Why, then, does this keep coming back to AN/I with roughly the same people on each side? It should be accepted that the community does not endorse the view that he is being disruptive. Imagine how much less disruptive it would be if it didn't keep coming back here? If RfA candidates are hurt or insulted by his comment, even though it is clearly not personal, then that fact on its own should call into question their fitness for the tools. If you want to judge the opinion of the community, start (yet another) RfC. If you want ArbCom's opinion, read the past decision or call for a new one. Hitting AN/I every 12 hours to try to get a different group of respondents is irresponsible. Avruch^Talk 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• For emphasis - seriously, why clog up AN/I with this stuff? Is this really the place to debate this perennially contentious issue, when everyone who follows it knows there is no consensus either way and that this is not part of the dispute resolution process? Avruch^Talk 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change, and I would propose that each time this appears on ANI it is more likely to do so. Regardless of the merit of the edits, the fact that he continues to make them when they cause so much disruption reflects badly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit dismayed by the notion that something has to be offensive to be considered disruptive. While I don't find it particularly offensive (though its not my RFA) - its certainly annoying and quite possibly pointless. If he wants to have the rules changed or argue his opinion, the RFA talk page is the correct place to do it. Repeating his opinion on numerous RFAs is not the way to get the RFA process changed nor is it the way to get people to debate his idea. If he doesn't want either of those, then it is disruption. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I find this line of reasoning circular. So, what, you propose that opponents of his keep bringing this to AN/I and therefore increase disruption ergo justifying sanction? This is getting worse and worse. Epthorn (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, if you are referring to my comment, note that I made no mention of the ANI threads. I said that it is disruption because he has been told numerous times that he is arguing his point in the wrong forum yet he continues to do it. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • • I was not referring to your statement, rather that by CBM. Epthorn (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that self-noms are "power-hungry" is assuming bad faith. Assuming bad faith, repeatedly, and focusing on editors themselves rather than one's perceived problem with the system (i.e. that self-noms are allowed), is disruptive, counterproductive, and offensive. - Chardish (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct his statement- and I've seen it many, many times- is that he sees a self-nom as indication of being power-hungry. A small point, perhaps, but we should not (and I believe can not) eliminate someone's rationale for opposing like that. RfA should be treated in good faith, but it's not a suicide pact- if he sees an indication of a problem, he should be able to spell that out.Epthorn (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think great care should be taken in the labeling of civilly expressed opinion disruptive, particularly when it comes in a forum where it says "Voice your opinion" at the top. Not censored means more than not taking anatomical diagrams or Muhammad's face - it means that sometimes people have to deal with things they find unpleasant, because this is an environment that accepts the full spectrum of opinion as long as it is expressed civilly. Avruch^Talk 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake. The last debate over this topic was like two weeks ago, right? And yet it's back...on the theory that if we flog this issue long enough we might end up with a change of consensus. (Or the theory that if enough people yell about the underlying behavior, that yelling will eventually transform non-disruptive behavior into disruptive behavior because, well, gee, see how disruptive all the yelling is?) Seriously - have we finished the wikipedia, and now have unlimited free time to revisit this issue every couple of weeks? Can we hand out the trophies and have cake, or are some people still working on editing articles? This issue has been beaten to death, and none of the above discussion sheds any new light on it -- it just gives people new opportunity to become angry at each other. No, Kurt's views are not disruptive. No, it's not a violation of WP:Point. Yes, we all think he's wrong, but no, the community isn't willing to silence someone for holding a view we think is wrong. We've hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed this -- at some point we have to throw a slab of corned beef on it and officially declare it hashed...and then move on. Here's an idea -- click here to start. --TheOtherBob 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So people that are annoyed by his comments should not be allowed to express their opinions, but he should be? Mr.Z-man 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We might actually be able to build a consensus for chocolate cake with cream cheese frosting. - Crockspot (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we discussed him already once today. And guess what, the overwhelming consensus was that he was doing no wrong. These petty little vendettas do nothing but amuse those who are "critiquing Wikipedia", if you can read through the lines. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

and I doubt very many people care what they think anyway. Personally, I find this entire debate hilarious, if for no other reason than there are other editors who have opposed an RFA nom becuase their nomination was not a self-nom. Ultimately, I agree that the beuracrats will deterimine the validity of an oppose (or support, for that matter) if it is important. Does it make a difference if a candidate passes 100-1 with the only oppose being one of these useless "self-noms suck" votes? Talk about a tempest in a teapot. If anything, the frustration over these types of votes indicates a lack of trust in the beuracrats. Ultimately, if you want to be an admin, you are going to become a target at times. Might as well face that as part of the process of becoming one in the first place. Resolute 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many Wikipedia editors (possibly including myself - I am not self-aware enough to determine this) will never, ever, change their mind on an issue, ever. And the commonly-used approach around Wikipedia to get the result you desires is to repeat yourself on multiple fora over and over again until everyone gives up and you get their own way. Expect to see another complaint to AN, AN/I, RFC, or somewhere else again, because they will keep bringing this up until they get Kurt banned, and given a few admins are of the same mindset (Kurt Is Evil And Must Be Stopped From Opposing RFAs), no doubt someone will block him sooner or later and make things even worse, because someone won't resist unblocking him, we will have a wheel war, it will go to arbitration, and we will have even more drama. It happense over and over, and it all stems from the fact many Wikipedians are abnormally intense and narrowly focused upon repetitive patterns of action, with an inability to regard other people's feelings that may come across as insensitive, and are ruthlessly singleminded. These characteristics are great for categorising stubs or new page patrolling, but useless when it comes to dealing with real people. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Neil. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most intelligent and most insightful things I have ever heard on this forum. 131.111.8.99 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I agree. But where, oh where do we go from here? We may be doomed. Epthorn (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Close this

Let's close this so we can continue discussion at the RfC. See below. It is pointless to have two venues for discussing the same issue. - Chardish (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Let it stay open until it either auto-archives, or the discussion is resolved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a good reason why discussion of this issue in two places serves to anyone's benefit? - Chardish (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It was closed, it needs to be closed with an appropriate link. This discussion is going nowhere and will just serve to present a misleading view of the conversation.Epthorn (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can keep talking about it here too then, although I think it will be like two ships passing in the night.Epthorn (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I closed this thread twice (the first time before the RfC opened and the second time after the RfC opened, on the mistaken impression that everyone would agree that the RfC was a logical place to continue the discussion). It turns out, as SwatJester has said, that there is opposition to closing this thread. The best thing to do in such circumstances is not to close it. The "see also" link at the top, and this section at the bottom, directs people to the RfC. Give it time, and this thread will eventually auto-archive. I would plead though, for people not to move this whole section to a subpage - that is a method of "managing the noticeboard" that doesn't have universal approval. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case there should be the opposite as well- an indication on the other page that redirects back to here indicating that a previously closed discussion is now open... right?Epthorn (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Split? This topic is now 54kb long. Perhaps instead of the two extremes of closing or leaving it open we simply fork it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rfa and leave an {{unresolved}}? That way we reduce the edit conflicts but maintain the discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, and frankly the situation I worried about hasn't happened since people don't seem to be commenting here anymore anyway; it might more or less be a moot point. Epthorn (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't split to a separate subpage. It messes up the edit history of the thread, splitting it over two pages. I've said before (only a few posts up) that splitting dying threads is less helpful than just letting the thread archive normally, and in some cases is actively unhelpful. The only real discussion still going on is in this "close" section! The only thing splitting does is reduce the size of ANI. A long thread like this doesn't cause any more edit conflicts than normal, particularly when there are subsections. Page splitting should only be done when a long thread looks like it will continue for several days longer. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm going to just leave this alone and hope it passes away then. Epthorn (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Death threats from an anon IP

This diff shows a user at an anon IP making death threats against Knowledge of Self. Mr Which^??? 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and let KoS's block stand. Prodego ^talk 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has already been blocked, so what's the issue? — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue was that I didn't see a block notice on the talk of the anon IP when I visited the page. Sorry about that. Mr Which^??? 12:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Karmaisking on my talk page.

Started as a mere content dispute. User apparently is taking this very personally. Not sure if this is the right forum.

[29] [30] [31] [32] Montco (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They've had two notes on their talk page; in the meantime, looks like both of you are reverting instead of discussing. Will try and check back in on this, later. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Things are calmed down a bit. More eyes/opinions might be good, even if only briefly -- help keep things from getting so personal, maybe. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BritinDC

User:BritinDC (contribs) keeps adding a section to Heinrich Müller claiming that he was employed by the CIA, which is as long as the rest of the article. His contribs all read like essays, are all related to the Holocaust, and are highly contentious. Possibly a Holocaust denier. I'm not an experienced editor myself so I'd like someone else to look into this. Difference engine (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No clue. Mentioned that he should go to the talk page first and warned him to stop. Next time, be sure to add a link there, as he might not know where it is. All he has done is try to POV-push that same point across the page since October. If you does it again without discussion, tell me and I'll block him indefinitely. There should be little patience here for POV-pushers who aren't interested in discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What he wrote here about Franz Stangl in the bio of Gitta Sereny completely contradicts the WP article on Stangl. He calls Stangl an Austrian postman, rather than a commandant at Sobibor and Treblinka. That seems to be holocaust denial. His unsourced comments about Gitta Sereny appear to have no basis in fact - he calls her American, but only British subjects can receive a CBE, as she did - and go against WP:BLP, WP:POINT, WP:POV, WP:NPA. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What he placed on that page was copied and pasted from here. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he's been warned and I'm watching the article. If he edits like that again, I'll block. I'm still going to assume good faith and maybe he's be a decent editor here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The addition [33] to the Heinrich Müller article was also copied and pasted from there. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

questionable edits...

I came across an edit that triggered my concern.

I reverted it, and explained why on the talk page.

The other contributor reverted it, without explanation -- and a totally empty edit summary.

I left a note on their talk page.

I was going to leave a note here, about my concern, because they seemed to have been making dozens of similar edits, without explanation. But they left a note saying they had undid the edit that had originally concerned me.

It turns out this reassuring note was untrue. They did not undo the edit that concerned me. Rather they have proceeded to make a bunch more similar edits.

Now maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for these edits. But, if so, it should be stated.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• From a quick scan, it looks as though these are valid edits - fixing redlinks because Farsi (language) doesn't exist, and redirects because Farsi and Farsi language both redirect to the Anglicized Persian language. Your reversion on Mohammed Aman actually re-introduced a redlink, and I have put it back. Note that I have not checked every edit, though.BLACKKITE 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Farsi and Farsi language may both redirect to Persian language now. But I don't regard that as definitive.
  • I don't speak Persian. But I know that the articles on Persian, and the various related languages, use some dubious sources. Pashtun is one of the major languages spoken in Afghanistan. Farsi, or Persian, or some dialect thereof, or related language, is the other major language. Different sources claim one or the other is 'the major language. This is all highly colored by politics.
  • It is all a big mess. All the articles about the languages in this region need a good looking at, to make sure the references are legit, and back up the assertions they are supposed to back up.
  • Yes. [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]. I don't know that this contributor is pushing a nationalist POV. However their unwillingness to respond to civil queries concerns me. Realistically, articles on topics like this are vulnerable to POV pushing by nationalists. Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did check that, and Farsi has redirected to Persian language for well over a year without any obvious controversy, so I assumed all was well there. You may be correct that there is a deeper problem, though. BLACKKITE 12:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is not what Farsi and Farsi language redirect to. The problem I have is that there are a small number of contributors who want to periodically go through and change all the articles that used Farse so they now "say Persian".
      • If you look at the edit history of Abdullah Mohammad Khan you can see that someone else wanted to change Farsi to Persian back in July.
      • These contributors may be right. Maybe there is some convincing justification to change most instances of Farsi to Persian. But I think they have an obligation to explain themselves. Which this guy isn't doing.
      • Some of these "change Farsi to Persian" enthusiasts have gone so far as to make that change right in the middle of quoted material.
      • This contributor responded to the civil query by saying they undid the edit that triggered the concern -- but not doing so -- and then continuing their campaign. I find that worrying. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantically accurate, then perhaps those links should be directed to Dari (Persian), since Dari is the name given to the form of the Persian language spoken in Afghanistan. Not entirely sure what the fuss is about here. "Farsi" is simply a slightly pretentious alternative for "Persian" (language). --Folantin (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Severe incivility from User:IrishLass0128

(Moved to WP:WQA)

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of each side (and I think that severe incivility is putting it rather strongly - If I were asked to put a label on it, then "testy", "grumpy" or "grouchy" would be as far as I would go!), it ought to have been clear from the start that no admin actions were required here. As such, WP:WQA would have been a better place to take this. Mayalld (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that board was active anymore. I've moved this there (but, regardless, it wasn't and isn't clear that IrishLass0128's actions (esp. if part of a long-term pattern) aren't blockable) —Random832 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom behaviour

[Moved to Jimbo's talk page]

Adam, in as much as the Arbcom is acting in its official capacity, administrators have no jurisdiction over it - it's acting in loco Jimbo. You need to take your complaints to the Arbcom, or failing that to Jimbo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The project leader has veto powers. If you have a convincing case, you may consider posting on his talk page, or if it contains nonpublic information, email. Regards, Mercury 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Will do. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I have not researched all of these cases but I can respond to two of Kirill's examples. You are an extensive editor of Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with more than 100 edits to the article or talk page. Under those conditions, it is a misuse of your adminship to decide to protect, or even semi-protect the article. When you are involved in an editing dispute as an editor, you must use WP:RFPP or some other means to contact an uninvolved admin for an unbiased assessment. Sm565 (talk · contribs) was also an extensive editor of Homeopathy. As such, you are forbidden to block him, even for a clear-cut case of 3RR violation, but instead you must file a report at WP:AN3 like any other editor. Basically, it boils down to this: When you are acting like an editor, you may not intervene as an admin. I'm afraid I agree with the sentiment of the 5 arbitrators who have so far voted to desysop you that RFA made a mistake in your case and you are not (yet) ready for the admin toolbox. Thatcher131 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Marginal notability BLP deletions

Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC - for your information

An RfC has been started which relates to two recent threads (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear cut personal attack by User:Kmweber & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Rfa) on this noticeboard, it can be found here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My closure and redirection to WT:RFA of one of those threads was undone, pointing out a possible conflict of interest. Based on this, I'm now closing it again on the basis that discussion should continue at the new RFC.. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else starting to get tired of beating this horse? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to let the second RfC run. I suspect the results might surprise some people. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention to try to stop it. Just noting that it seems awfully silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your closure of the thread was highly unacceptable. It's not ok to use the discussion top/bottom templates to shut down a discussion that is active and ongoing, certainly never ok to do it with one that you have participated and have strong feelings about. I've reopened the thread, which is indeed appropriate for this page because it involves the possibility of a topic ban. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should direct comments to the RFC. Once that is over, it should clarify whether further discussion is needed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in keeping the above threads open either if an RFC has been opened. Closing the thread here and moving to the RFC for furthur discussion is just another step in moving forward in dispute resolution. — Save_Us_229 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the page protection tags, anyway. That's just plain silly for a non-protected page, not to mention misleading to other editors. Oops. Thanks, Carcharoth! Jeffpw (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, do you mean this? I think you are in the wrong thread... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester, I was not closing the thread. I was attempting to redirect discussion away from ANI (there are other matters that need attention here, you know) and towards the second RfC. That is not stifling debate. Do we have to have a pre-discussion before closing the discussion, and then another discussion to decide where to hold the next discussion, and then another discussion to sort out the right order in which to do things? There is a time for ANI and a time for RFC. A time for action and a time for discussion. I won't be restoring the tags, but I hope that the discussion does not fragment over three or four different places. That won't help anyone. Two other people have agreed with me that discussion should continue elsewhere. Could someone add a "see also" note at the top of the other threads, directing people to the RfC? That way the discussion here can keep going as SwatJester wants, but people are at least aware of the other discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added "see also" at the top of the two threads, to enable editors to keep abreast of the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the RFC is brand new, I'm opposed to any closing/redirecting/archiving/whatever you want to call it, until the RFC has had some reasonable time to develop and attract users of all viewpoints. Many people, such as myself, check AN/I regularly but not RFC. This way we get a broader opinion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There were at least 4 hours between the initial closing of the second ANI thread and the opening of the RfC, discussion had halted when Carcharoth initially closed it prior to someone (I'm not looking it up cause it doesn't matter) reopened it. There really wasn't much point in reopening that discussion especially since the RfC is probably the best place to be discussing this non-incident (imho) at this juncture since its centralized and won't have confusing discussions spread all over the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was me who reopened it. I opposed closing it on grounds that someone uninvolved with the discussion should close it when ready; I now support closing it on grounds that it is superceded by the RFC. Chardish (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to close it (although I've made my own opinions known) if no one objects. Having re-read it this morning, I don't see any consensus emerging there, &, with all due respect to one & all, in its current form the topic has evolved into something that is not relevant to AN/I. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lonnie Frisbee talk page assistance please

Resolved

(reposting in hopes I can get some help.) Benjiboi 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for outside assistance as User:71.238.68.127 has a history of deleting items they don't like and adding in items that myslef and others have seen as POV. I just reverted a deletion of a part of sourced quote then saw that they had posted this lengthy piece on the talk page which frankly I feel should be deleted and possibly reworded if they can remove the personal accusations. In the past they have posted extremely long passages and myself and other editors have worked to remain constructive and address their concerns. I think in this case it might be helpful to have another voice weigh in as I'm a bit frustrated going through the same conversation again and generally being accused of wrong-doing, etc. Benjiboi 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty please could someone address this? The content issue doesn't seem to be a problem as the material has been sourced but the civility issues are problematic and this is an ongoing situation on this and other articles. I'm hoping a kind word from an uninvolved editor might be heard by this potentially good editor. Benjiboi 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Update. Jeffpw was kind enough to address this. Benjiboi 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion campaign by 76.176.167.130

An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions: When the content within articles regarding living people follows the policy at WP:LIVING -- particulary so that the content in question is properly sourced -- it shouldn't be removed without discussion. Briefly looking at the removals made by the IP, it appears that these sections comply with WP:LIVING -- thus, the correct course of action would be to warn the IP, which someone has already done. Then you go through posting these templates and, if the IP still fails to stop, you request an admin to block them at this very page. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Well, these sections should have citations from reliable sources, which they don't, so strictly speaking s/he is entitled to remove them.

The issue here is one of discussion. Nobody has told 76 not to do this, as far as I can tell. More jaw-jaw == less war-war. The fact that the editor is an IP complicates discussion but doesn't preclude trying. Some attempt should be made, perhaps via dispute resolution if people don't want to just edit a talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm new enough that I don't know how to tell him to stop if he doesn't have a Username. I did tell him in the subject line of my reverts, but that may not be deemed sufficient. I also thought that there was in fact a fair amount of citation in the articles, though perhaps not enough. Maybe most pertinent here, though: do the answers above still apply in light of the fact that these articles are NOT about living persons? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can still leave them a message at User talk:76.176.167.130, but (a) if it's been a while since their last edit, there's a chance their IP has changed, and (b) there was a MediaWiki bug that was causing problems with the orange "new messages" bar for anonymous users, I don't know the status on that, so you'll need to keep those both in mind. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The bug was solved, last I heard (and a bug is no reason to not try); and the IP is relatively stable (the same style of edits have been made over the past few days from the same place). As always, try discussion first, even if you think it won't work, and enforcement as a last resort. People are generally clueless, not malicious. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He has already been informed and the sections which were removed appear to be well sourced, such as this. Something should also be said about the focus on content relating to Cary Grant in some way, but I'm not quite sure what. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

S/he hasn't really been informed. S/he's got a single, generic template warning about unhelpful edits. That's not the same thing as a discussion or asking why such edits were made. And then it was escalated to ANI, with no further attempts to discuss or offer help or seek a consensus. This could be a POV warrior, it could be a new user, it could be someone with an agenda, it could be someone hurt by our honesty, it could be someone who doesn't believe us, it could be someone who doesn't want to believe us... and thus we come back to WP:AGF as a good point to start from. And discussion is the best way of ensuring AGF is applied. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"You have removed accurately sourced information in several articles, before doing this again i advice you to give an explanation as to why you are removing whatever it is you are removing, in the article's talk page." was appended to the template. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed appended to a template. I'm at a loss to know what part of that qualifies as discussion. So far, all I can see is a single, generic template warning with a few words of (poor) English that don't explain the problem appended on the end, followed by the case being brought directly, without further templates or discussion, to ANI. How this meets the spirit of WP:AGF (or WP:BITE, for that matter) is a mystery to me. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Redvers, for your insights into this. I brought it to ANI because I asked on a talk page how to go about addressing such an issue with someone who didn't have a Username. I was advised to come here, so I did. I've now learned a little bit about the process, and I'll try to have a discussion with the person. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't thought anything more than that template and my poor english were needed. The IP hasn't made comments anywhere, (not in his edit summarys, not in talk pages) so i don't think he really knows how Wikipedia works. By the way he's still deleating information. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Block review — Brrwawall

Brrwawall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) WP:AIV report is here.

I've blocked this account for 24 hours. This editor created many articles that have been speedily deleted, and received plenty of warnings about creating unverified articles. Given the extensive deleted edits and recreated articles, and the early returns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung XX, I blocked this account prevent further possible disruption.

I am not familiar enough with hip hop to know if this is outright hoaxing, just run-of-the-mill spamming, or if it's a legitimate editor that won't source his/her articles or use any sort of talk page...I'd like further input on my block and whether it should be lifted or extended. Thanks, — Scientizzle 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been following the user for a while now, ever since I found false info on hip hop artists, especially on "upcoming" albums. I even did a Google search if the info was accurate but didn't receive anything at all related to the artists. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, block endorsed. Not opposed to extention. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with hip hop either, but per the AFD, it seems that many editors agree that this user has been creating hoax articles. I think that the block was perfectly justified. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of User:Tweety21

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by User:Kafziel

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Halloween12 (talk · contribs) blanked Tweety21's Talk page. Looks like a sockpuppet. Corvus cornix_talk 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

IP socks of User: Diluvien

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for five days. Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that indefinitely-blocked user Diluvien is back using sock-puppets to mask his series of arbitrary edits and his abusive, malicious editing style. I noticed that a series of anonymous IPs in the 87.122 range (see my recent edit history) were all making edits to The Birthday Massacre without engaging in debate on the talk page, and sometimes hurling abuse at other editors which matched exactly the style of Diluvien. (Generally accusing other users or their preferred bands of being "baby" or "kiddie," a favorite word of his.) Diluvien was indefinitely blocked, and was known to use anonymous IP sockpuppets shortly after being blocked. I haven't absolutely proven that it's him, but when I engaged in debate with one of these anonymous IPs on the talk page, he didn't deny it.

This user has a long, checkered history of using sockpuppets, making arbitrary edits, abusing other users, and generally approaching debate with a thickheaded attitude of "I'm right because I say I am, and I say I am because I'm right." In addition, nearly all of his edits are mere quibbles over whether or not a certain band matches a certain genre, deleting content added by other users without ever adding anything, and generally throwing temper tantrums and shrieking about his crusade against labeling things as "goth" if he feels they don't deserve it, which he frames as a holy mission against a looming threat to civilization as we know it. --Halloween jack (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here [34] is a diff of an anon user in that IP range making a change to a goth subculture related page, and making a grammatical mistake for which Diluvien was notorious--peppering his dialogue with superfluous plurals. [Here is another edit that appears to be him, though the edit is not abusive. Then there's this anonymous user, exhibiting precisely the abusive, arbitrary editing behavior and sockpuppetry for which Diluvien is known, making edits in a similar style (editing goth-related articles with no edit summary or "crap removed" in the summary). Here's another one. And another. And another exhibiting abusive edit behavior. And finally, here is one editing with the comment "kiddie crap removed," which as I said before, is Diluvien's trademark insult. And of course, all of these anonymous IPs are in the 87.122 range I identified earlier as a haven for Diluvien's sockpuppetry. How long is this guy going to be allowed loopholes to evade his indefinite block and continue arbitrary, abusive, unsourced, and unsupported editing? --Halloween jack (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, you must be bored. You're reporting insignificances. And you know that there are sources for every shit. In the world wide web you can find sources for every stupid crap. If you add Industrial to TBM, the Wikipedia will lost its credibility. People laugh at Wikipedia. WP needs scientists, no hobby users, which add any crap. This is the problem. Btw: You should check this IP, which is the reason for my kiddie crap edits. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.47.229 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Irishguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) went ahead and semi-protected the article for 24 hours, however given the persistence of the banned editor in question, I went ahead and extended the protection to five days. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

66.41.69.113 blocked

66.41.69.113 was intially blocked for vandalism. It was later lifted as not being clear vandalism. While under the block and even after it was lifted, the user has posted long personal attacks and legal threats (threatening to report another user to the F.B.I. as well as reporting to Homeland Security) and after numerous warnings he continued. As such, I have given him a 24 hour block. I am posting this for review. Obviously, I think the block should stand but if someone else wants to lift it I will not consider it wheel warring. IrishGuy ^talk 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the block, he has reiterated that he intends to report another user to a governement agency as well as made a new personal attack. IrishGuy ^talk 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing, keep him blocked for a while to have a cooldown period. Useight (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool down blocks never cool anyone down. A block to stop ongoing disruption or fighting could work, if it were a clear case. However, the policy invoked here is WP:NLT. The editor took a very long time to explain himself, so it wasn't really your typical legal threat. The personal attack wasn't a personal attack. It was puerile, and it was a wish for unpleasantness, but I don't see blocking for insult, and Bumm13 is not a delicate flower that has to be protected from such things.

I support the block, but for repeated NLT violations. I also think that you guys need to be patient. It seems like the fellow is simply mistaking Wikipedia for life. Wikipedia is not real, and it is not life. It is a palimpsest, and so incremental narrowing of focus, gradual moderation of adjectives, triangulating toward moderation, and phenomenologically surrounding the truth are more on the cards than being right or wrong, true of false. Geogre (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

{{indef}} tag accidentally restored for unblocked user?

Resolved

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

Just happened to notice that a user has restored the {{indef}} tag on a user page[35]. Looking at the block log it appears that User:Ral315 removed the block and restored the previous state of the page. Another user came along and restored the blocked version of the page (perhaps they hadn't checked the block log). Don't know much about this sort of thing, but perhaps someone who knows could check this out? Egfrank (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, we should probably assume good faith that User:The undertow didn't know that the account was unblocked. I believe he was the one who originally protected the page after the incident of the Main Page deletion. — Save_Us_229 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Knee-Jerk reaction to a user that deleted what should not have been deleted. If TRE is back in good faith, then let me stand corrected and my apologies are for all to see. the_undertow ^talk 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't know what is going on below this comment, but I'll say this. While Undertow's revert was probably a good faith revert, he/she should note that there is no possible way that User:Ral315 could have removed the tag off of his user page if he was still blocked, as blocked users can only edit their talk pages. So the fact that Ral made an edit to his/her user page, tells us all that s/he isn't blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit was made to User:The Random Editor, not User:Ral315. --Onorem♠Dil 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew that. ;) - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a seperate issue

There appears to be a separate issue regarding The undertow's behavior though, as he deleted his talk page User talk:The undertow and protected it despite it falling under any criteria. He doesn't appear to be leaving the project, so I'm not sure what to think. Alison unprotected his talk page, but the old history remains deleted. I would call for this to be undeleted. — Save_Us_229 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, he protected it again. If he's editing, he can't have a protected talk page so I've unprotected it. I've asked him to also undelete his talk page, we wouldn't accept this if he was a non-admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly deleting his talk page and wheel warring a protection of his talk page is highly unbecoming of administrator behavior, at all. — Save_Us_229 11:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also this as well. Daniel 11:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall Jeffery O. Gustafson protected his talk page for a good long while, and got ArbCommed for it (among other reasons). Sean William @ 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I think The undertow is having a bit of a rough time right now. Just a little perspective on all this - Alison ^❤ 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My talk page has been deleted for a week. Show me where I cannot delete my talk page? It is only since the recreation that this has become a problem. Throw some acronyms at me, so I at least have a path to follow. This username will be re-guided to usurpation in 12 hours, so I would value the input of those who feel that I have abused my tools. the_undertow ^talk 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PROTECT, any user can request protection of their userpace, but there talk page should be left unprotected except in serious circumstances or when someone excercises their right to vanish - this was not the case here. If this came up at WP:RFPP it would be rejected without question, so why as an admin do you have a special right to protect it yourself when others wouldn't be able to? Secondally, if a user requested deletion of their talk page, but carried on editing, it would be restored straight away - hence why I suggest you do that now. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that but you wheel warred the inappropriate protection. — Save_Us_229 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERPAGE mentions user talk deletions. Were there legal threats involved? Nonpublic personal information on your user talk? SQL^{Query me!} 12:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My given Christian name was here mentioned. Is that not enough? the_undertow ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet you put your SSN (or at least something you claim to be) up on AN? I can't say I really buy that you're concerned for your privacy. SQL^{Query me!} 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as Pedro feels that he has been outed, which has been discussed ad naseum, then I still don't feel comfortable, regardless of my position. My SSN is my own, and under U.S. law, I am free to disperse such information. I didn't do it to prove a point - I did it because if someone feels that I have violated their privacy, then I only have two options: protect my own, or offer myself as a gesture of good faith. If you feel like questioning my motives for deleting my user talk, then I will have to assert that my privacy was an issue, but it is no longer. Things simply change. I have changed my mind and regardless of my defenses, I cannot assure Pedro that he is now 'safe,' so why should I be? Sometimes, even amongst those you always disagree with, something strikes a chord. It's not for you SQL - it's for me. It's how I sleep. the_undertow ^talk 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What privacy reasons are there with your user talk? If there's a bad revision, delete said revision, if not then restore it. As I said before - if this was a non admin, they would never have got an admin to delete their talk page, so administrators shouldn't get that privilege either. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

urging me to delete said revision while telling me i have no right is elliptical. the_undertow ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Delete one revision, and restore the rest if there's a privacy concern, not the whole thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip, if it's the usurp request you put in last week, you're changing your name to your Christian given name, so I seriously doubt that's the issue. The history should be restored. Lara_Love^Talk 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we close this and move on? Pedro :  Chat  16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not if he continues to have his talk page deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Too true, everybody whether admin or otherwise should be treated the same, why should he be allowed to delete his talk page when the rest of us can't. I'm damn sure if I asked for my talk page to be deleted I'd be told "No Way Jose". So if the rules apply equally to all, then I'm sure the_undertow ^talk will face sanctions if he doesn't restore his talk page pronto. Won't he? RMHED (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He might, but his talk page has been unprotected and he has no desire to protect it ever again. It's over, as far as I am concerned. However, any further discussion is welcome. In fact, you can place it on my talk page! the_undertow ^talk 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [36] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Better asked of ArbComm at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. My sense from the DBWW case is that it starts from the case decision. GRBerry 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like wikilaw (not accusing people of wikilawyering). The nice way would for everyone to agree to work together. The concept of credit for time served is followed in many countries. The most important point is not the number of days but an agreement to all work together. Good luck, Privatemusing. What ever your accused of (I don't know what it is), just look to a positive future. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, remedies are considered "in effect" from the time to the case is closed. Might not hurt to ask, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ApotheCure, now with legal threat fun!

Resolved

We are going to file a lawsuit against the admin for our company. The statements made on this are 100% completely false. Either it is removed today, or we will file suit.

Call me: [phone # redacted].—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.28.194 (talk • contribs) Retracted.

My first real legal threat! I've blocked this IP for 24 hours...See the edit history of ApothéCure Inc. for what was going on. I believe my well-cited sources will stand up just fine. Any advice here? — Scientizzle 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my block message. — Scientizzle 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One comment, one question: They are going to file a lawsuit against the admin for their company? Ooook. Second, since you are involved, is your block appropriate? Just want clarification so there is no gray area on policy concernsspryde | talk 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should not have blocked. I'll gladly support any other admin's unblock. — Scientizzle 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am all for the block. Clear threat and such. I don't fault you for the block either. I just wanted to make you aware of the possible COI there, that is all. Cheers! spryde | talk 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone makes a legal threat to you, that does not make you to "involved" to give a block. Good block. 1 != 2 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More info: there is something of an unblock request (though without the template) at User talk:76.197.28.194. I have replied and would welcome any other input on that page. — Scientizzle 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you covered all the bases. The ball's in their court. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat retracted. I'll now unblock. Thanks all, — Scientizzle 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK is late

DYK next update page was supposed to be moved to the main page more than 2 hours ago. Any admin can help? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I do it right? =P - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if DYK get out at a certain time? To we need a post here every other day telling us about it? John Reaves 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of admins who do not normally frequent DYK are more than willing to lend a hand when the update is overdue. For those of us willing to help, how else are we going to find out about it unless someone makes a post to AN or AN/I? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about some sort of template on your user or talk page which says how long since DYK was updated ? Nick (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I was an admin, I'd use the list of available admins on the DYK page, and try to find one currently making edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

Ninjadude9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to OpenEdge Advanced Business Language. Persistantly re-adds weasle wording, opinion and addspeak, such as "...to create a unique product. Because of the significant ease of use...". this has continued since s/he origionaly inserted it back in 5 April 2007. Edit summaries and revisions:

• "Restored Facts"
• "Restored facts - again - from overzealous editors who have an axe to grind"
• "restored text."
• "restored text"
• 'YOUR edits appear to constitute vandalism. Please refrain from doing so"

Obvious tendentious editing per WP:DISRUPT, by this editor who continues editing this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. This may fall under Disruptive editing where people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. I've tried repeted attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo), including a warning on the users talk. Please advise.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored back to the neutral version and left the user a {{npov2}} warning, with the idea of escalating if they continue. BLACKKITE 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, a better aproach, i would add. --Hu12 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

road rage

Blocked 68.208.176.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for adding joke entries to the article after a final warning, just checking in here to make sure I'm not considered "involved" due to a history of trying to keep crap out of the article (see [37] - various editors have a history of adding joke entries, these aren't even the worst historically) —Random832 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A new gem just today (not from the same IP) is "* going totally Super Saiyan while driving, causing other cars to explode forcefully to either side. Often associated with long periods of grunting and yelling, followed by a change in hair color and muscle mass." —Random832 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

seems heavly vandalized. I've semi-protected it for a week, to prevent any attempt to subvert the block--Hu12 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for clear vandalism shouldn't be a conflict, even if you do help monitor the content of the article. Shell ^babelfish 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries here. Sound Block. Thanks for bringing it here though, to keep your "hands clean" and ensure transparency. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange functionality with WP codes

The WP codes seem to be behaving strangely lately. When you link to a WP page, such as WP:U, the link turns into "Wikipedia:U". And if you visit the page by hand, it says "Redirected from Wikipedia:U" instead of "Redirected from WP:U". Not a huge problem, but surely a bug? It leads to redlinks on several policy pages. Nimman (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP: vs WIkipedia:. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something being tested. Attempting to get some of these redirects out of the mainspace. All broken shortcutss should be back up soon--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tap (valve) Entry — 3x Vandalized

See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=prev&oldid=177509792 ], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=prev&oldid=177509940 ] and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=next&oldid=177509940 ] for specific incidents. PLEASE CORRECT AND PURSUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.50.170 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Its been reverted--Hu12 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Deadlyfix

Not sure if this is blockable or not:

[40] [41]

Could an admin or someone else look these as well as this user's other contribs and make a decision. Thank you. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked for 24 hours just 5 minutes before your post here. I'll try to help monitor after the block is up. — Satori Son 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for two-week block of user with static IP 24.105.212.83

I am requesting that the following user's participation on the following page be reviewed. I believe that this user may have violated both the vandalism and three-revert rules of Wikipedia:

contributions

The user has ignored a warning from administrator Kukuni regarding his/her participation on the Wikipedia page for the City of Hudson, New York. The following comment has also been posted to their talk page, with no effect:

This user has repeatedly inserted and re-inserted a handful of edits, typically without modification, despite a wide variety of attempts by other disparate users to make the page more neutral and factual. These repeated posts include hyperbolic and promotional claims which have no place in an encyclopedia entry. Other posts propose clearly revisionist history or even absurdism, which may constitute vandalism. No sources are cited for the users various and repeated claims. Multiple users have attempted to call the attention of 24.105.212.83 via the discussion page. As this appears to be a static IP address, I would urge administrators to block this address for a period of a week or more.

Since the time of these warnings, the user in question has re-posted material more than three times, and also made personal attacks within the body of this page entry.

This page is clearly the focus of an all-out edit war, and needs administration in general. However, a review of the edit history suggests that 80-90% of disputed edits are originating from this single IP address.

I believe that a two-week "cool down" period would be appropriate in this instance. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 24.148.108.186 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a static IP address, but rather a generic IP address issued by a cable-television ISP.

In any case, the proper procedure for normal non-admins like us would be to place escalating NPOV warnings on the talk page (I personally think that by now, the final warning {{subst:uw-npov4}} should be sufficient, and when it gets exceeded, report it at WP:AIV.

You could also report the IP for a WP:3RR violation, provided the appropriate warning is placed on the talk page and the violation occurs thereafter.

Another alternative is to request semi-protection, to prevent anonymous IPs from editing the article.

On the other hand, in looking at the edits from this IP address over the past day or two, I don't see them as disruptive or violating WP:NPOV. Someone else may disagree. -Amatulic (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of copyvio images

Someone please delete copyvios that this user uploaded in December. Thanks. Miranda 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall/

An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

EpicFlame block

I just noticed that EpicFlame, a user I help out from time to time, was blocked on 13 November by GlassCobra. The block seems pretty unfair: as far as I can tell, it was for recreating an "attack" userbox in userspace that was only referenced from the user's own page. EpicFlame was a valuable contributor, and was indef blocked without warning. Can anyone shed any light on this? I've asked GlassCobra for details, but did not hear back in his last session of editing. -- Mark Chovain 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That userbox was previously deleted by ST47, as an attack page, and was recreated by EpicFlame with the edit summary "Take that ST47!". The user also had a number of other userboxes in the same vein, such as User:ShooterBoy/UserBoxes/youreadouche, User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture and User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/douchebag; had moved the first userbox out of his userspace to the templatespace as Template:Youradouche; and had the page User:EpicFlame/Epilepsy2 in his userspace, which consisted of a series of flashing GIF animations and was created with the edit summary "YAY! EPILEPSY! *DROOOL*!".

All of that probably had something to do with the block too. --bainer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, Mark, for not getting back to you in a more timely fashion. Thebainer is absolutely correct in his observations here. I had blocked the user for creating these obvious inflammatory userboxes and pages. Even User:Mschel, his adopter and mentor, agreed that the block was just, especially when seeing EpicFlame's verbal lashouts directly after (for example, this), as well as creating a sockpuppet to try to evade his block. Coincidentally, EF just today requested unblocking again, but was denied. I hope I've alleviated all concerns. GlassCobra 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Indefinite?" You banned for that? Yikes. I have no sympathy for the adolescent behavior, no use for it, no support for it, but an indefinite block? That's not something we ever do without considerable support. Is there a history of blocks going from 24 hr to a month? Is there use of the community noticeboard? Indefinite is inappropriate, if this is really the reasoning. Adolescence is a disease state, but most people get cured of it on their own, and before "indefinite." Geogre (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, though that shouldn't come as any surprise given my recent posts on this topic over the past weeks. Immediate indefinite bans are judging future contributions on past behaviour. When you have no previous disruption recorded in the block log, you are judging on one incident. Much better to issue a short block and strong warning, and then see if the behaviour changes. Blocks can cause people to change their behaviour, but not unless they get chances to demonstrate changes in behaviour. And expecting them to grovel on their talk page to get unblocked is not really an educational experience. Any real change in behaviour will be learned 'out there' after they've been unblocked. Or not. Indefinite banning too soon is likely to lead to the creation of sockpuppets or other forms of block evasion, especially if they are an inexperienced user. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, your hypotheticals are a bit flawed; how an inexperienced user would react to such a block is irrelevant when discussing the indefinite block (not ban) of a user that clearly knows how to function in a wiki and decided to use that knowledge to be inflammatory. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. Or, rather, one can hardly be faulted for thinking such crude humor is the norm on Wikipedia, given the many examples that one can find. Deleting it as a personal attack was inappropriate in any case, as there was nothing personal about it (still may be a valid CSD-T1, but some deletion reasons carry with them an accusation against the author of the page, and we need to be careful _not_ to make those accusations when they're not valid). A block is warranted, but an indefinite ban is way out of proportion.—Random832 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed my name come up here, and would like to explain my position. I was very much against the original block of EpicFlame, and thought it was unfair. I still hold to that position, but do not think he should be unblocked as his behavior after the block deserved an indef. --Mark (Mschel) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually EpicFlame is a sock of Indefinitely banned vandal we all know as W00t, who is a troll from "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and he also has many other accounts on Wikipedia..I believe the indefinite block was justified....--Cometstyles 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? How did you find that out, Cometstyles? GlassCobra 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He was caught on IRC for attacking the #wikipedia channel with dronebots..and since then he was put on our blacklist on wikipedia...--Cometstyles 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cometstyles, thanks for replying. EpicFlame has just added another unblock request on his talk page; would you (or anyone else, really) mind going and declining? GlassCobra 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cometstyles: Okay, that would be good justification for an indef block, but I still disagree with the original blocking rational. Anyway, that fact will keep him blocked, which of course is a good thing. Thanks for finding that out. --Mark (Mschel) 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember exchanging words with GlassCobra about this block, previously; see here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

EpicFlame/w00t is a chronic troll and botnet-operating flooder in #wikipedia; his childish behavior on-wiki as well only underscored that he's not here to contribute to our project constructively. --krimpet⟲ 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what some say, I think it is a good block. 1 != 2 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I Guess that you're all right guys! Otherwise, you can <removed vulgar personal attack>... Peace! By the way, i am active on Wikipedia ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.195.161 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)