Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


RFPP skipped[edit]

Can someone please take a look at WP:RFPP. It appears some requests have been skipped. The Velupillai Prabhakaran certainly needs to be semi'ed, the sooner the better. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

☑Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New sock of Fila3466757?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. Nja247 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put in a full-fledged SPI unless someone else agrees with me on this, but does User:Dexter000 appear to be a sock of User:Fila3466757? The main thing I noticed was that the user's first edits were to use the sandbox to create a colorful signature. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fila3466757/Archive. Matt (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be one and the same. Stub creation, WP:AFD participation, vandalism reversion; and also, his socks technically don't vandalize, so this is possibly telling. <*files an SPI*> --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that Dexter000 has confessed to being a sock of Fila, so all we need now is for the next passing administrator to have the block button set to go. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request[edit]


Could an administrator undelete User:Emperordarius please? Its a sockmaster, and if the deleted edits of the page contains edits by the user it might be of help in further sockpuppet investigations. Thanks. PirateSmackKArrrr! 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The two edits to that page do not appear to be relevant to a sockpuppet investigation. Nakon 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Plus we can view histories anyhow, so no need to be honest. Nja247 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Taken care of by User:Henrik. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That request seems to have been skipped – it's been standing for 5 days. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Time now for 2 groups of editors each with their own Admins.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Per my comment at the bottom, this is not an appropriate use of this page, as it does not require any sort of administrator action. The page header confirms this. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved: This does not seem to be a serious suggestion. If it is then no one seems to think administrator attention is needed. Perhaps another venue? Chillum 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Which one of you is claiming the prize for closing this first? Giano (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has now come for us to have two distinct classes and groups of editors - those that support and abide by IRC placed Admins, and those who refuse to acknowledge them, but continue to write the project. This IRC problem has gone on for too long. We are repeatedly told it is sorted and monitored, yet, once again, the Arbcom have failed to act, it's time to sort it ourselves before we are overrun with "Boriss" and her likes. I for one am not going to abide by the actions or decisions of any Admin promoted by IRC in future. Giano (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your time would be better spent responding to the specific question at the RFA about what exactly made you oppose the candidate and say they are "naive, uniformed and [have] an appalling record regarding content." Diffs would probably help. Besides, from your comments in Friday's oppose, I think it's clear that it's not just IRC that you have an issue with, but other conduct by this user, so it seems like a red herring to complain about just that. If you have an actual proposal, policy would be the place to go. Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to see here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There are good and bad admins/editors in both camps. It is far too arbitrary a position to make such judgements. Under the circumstances, I would oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had no experiences of FlyingToaster on IRC. I'm still personally happy to support the RfA - I would suggest that you concentrate on your entirely legitimate grievances with the behaviour of individual administrators rather than trying to blame IRC. As LessHeard vanU suggests, I also think that there are good and bad admins in both groups and drawing that line doesn't really get us anywhere. ~ mazca t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Er - for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, Giano, perhaps you (or someone else) could explain what you mean by "any Admin promoted by IRC" - thanks! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 10:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to a perceived tendency for the users of the Wikipedia IRC channels to support each others RfAs and hassle opposers. Not sure I agree this is happening to any great extent, but I think that's the problem under review. ~ mazca t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so it's just another, "IRC RULEZ DA WORLD" conspiracy theory. I thought that Giano might actually have meant "any Admin promoted by IRC" - which might have been mildly novel and interesting - but obviously not. Thanks, Mazca. For others... does this actually require any admin action, or is it just a essay/comment/strop which should be marked Resolved? ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no issue here. The candidate of the RfA linked to by Giano clearly uses IRC to socialise with other editors. If this was a case of an IRC cabal pushing through a nomination, I doubt "IRC" would be mentioned so explicitly in the first paragraph of the nomination statement. This thread ought to be archived. AGK 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is off site canvasing or meat puppeting going on in a public IRC channel then log the channel and draw attention to it. Without the specifics it is very hard to come to an informed opinion. While it is often tempting to simply form an opinion, I prefer that my opinions are informed. Chillum 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It is ultimately impossible to tell if off-site canvassing has taken place. If it's that much of a concern, then the problem isn't the canvassing, it's the means by which we choose our administrators. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
<< Giano has decided that the issue is not resolved, and has removed the {{resolved}} tag. Shall we gague consensus on whether any admin action is required (or even being requested!) here? Because if it's not, the thread should be closed. I support marking as resolved and/or archiving. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, editors should be forced to choose between being on Wikipedia 'or' IRC (not both). If that's not possible? then IRC should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So your suggestion, for Wikipedia administrators, on their noticeboard, is that Internet Relay Chat is shut down? Not 100% constructive, I'd have said. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Your two suggestions are identical (assuming by "abolishing" IRC you mean shutting down the Wikipedia IRC channels). If the people on the Wikipedia IRC channels aren't allowed on Wikipedia then they aren't Wikipedia IRC channels, are they? --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly not a serious suggestion, since there is no way to divide people into "IRC admins" and "non-IRC admins", there just isn't such a dicotomy. This is just Giano trying to create drama, as usual. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this IRC seems to be more hurtful, then helpful to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Tango you are completely wrong. We have been told that the Arbs have set up a process to monitor IRC too many times. Yet now we have again a completely IRC candidate. So we now by-pass the Arbs's a nd their failures to ensure this does not happen. There will in future be editors who wish to be ruled by a IRC Admins and editors who wish to be ruled by Wikipedia Admins (ie: Wikipedia Admins being those who have proved their value by editing Wikipedia in a worthwile way), one simply declares one's stance and that is that. If such as Flying Toaster are promoted I shall not acknowledge their status, that is all that need to be done - I'm sure a user box or something can be created - even attached to a sig to avoid confusion. One merely selcts one's police force. This has been coming for ages, the Arbs claim to have looked at the problems and failed, now it's just time to ignore them and go it alone. Many of us are sick to death of IRC and its machinations. This way IRC is happy and those writing the project are happy. Giano (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this suggestion is so incredibly unlikely and so completely devoid of basis in reality or even evidence that we can safely ignore it. I think this matter was {{resolved}} before it started. There is no IRC cabal attempting some sort of civil war. Chillum 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Perhaps IRC is harmful. But this is not the place for that debate. This is a noticeboard where one requests administrator action or technical input. I quote from the page header, "For advice on issues that do not require the use of administrative tools, such as content concerns or naming conventions, see the Village Pump." Since the content of this thread seems to be firstly, a rant about an ongoing RfA, with no practical side to it; and secondly, a request that the Wikimedia IRC channels are closed. Neither of these issues requires administrative technical intervention, and so I am going to be bold and close this discussion. There are more appropriate venues for everything contained in this thread, though most of it's just drama-mongering anyway. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Luckykitty89's unblock request[edit]

LuckyKitty89 is blocked due to a range block placed by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on to prevent Bambifan101 socks. Could somebody more familiar with Bambifan101 take a look at the request? Black Kite is on break and LuckyKitty89 has been waiting for 36+ hours. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked through the history of Luckykitty89 and everything seems to be alright. However, I think an IP block exemption might be more suiting because if we remove the block intended for Bambifan101, then we're sure to get more socks from him. I would keep an eye on Luckykitty89 afterwards to make sure everything checks out. Icestorm815Talk 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely the reason I stopped by. Bambifan101 is back, this time as User:Bernard the Brave. He's been blocked, but this has simply gotten to the point of utter ridiculousness. That name set off an alarm bell or two in my head when I saw it on the new user log; "Bernard" as I've discovered is the name of one of the two main characters in The Rescuers. Most of this little freak's IPs resolve back to Bell South. How the heck do we do a formal complaint at this point? I would rather unblock all one thousand-plus MascotGuy socks and elevate him to bureaucrat before we should allow Bambifan101 to make so much as a single keystroke more either to this site or to Simple English. He's driving Simple out of their minds. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Had another thought: WP:DENY has been working well with other chronic vandals as of late. Should we not therefore do the same thing here? He's less than subtle with his choice of usernames and his choice of subject matter. In short, he's craving attention and getting it on a worldwide stage. If it's OK with other admins, I'm going to stop putting the blocked sock template on his future socks and delete the talk page(s). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one disagrees I'm going to open a quick case at WP:SPI to make sure that a checkuser agrees that an IP exemption would be reasonable. Icestorm815Talk 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An important TFD discussion[edit]

Notice is hereby given that there is a TFD discussion concerning whether template:R from other capitalisation shall be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Close of RfC at WP:NOT[edit]

Hi folks, I'm back. The RfC at WP:NOT needs a neutral admin to close it. It has now gone for more than 30 days. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR advice[edit]

I have a brewing situation, and I want to get advice before I get in trouble. I downgrade a fair number of speedy deletions, often to AfD, and once it gets to AfD, I take the position that it's not my call anymore, we have to wait for consensus, even if I learn things at AfD that lead me to believe that, for instance, db-hoax would be appropriate. Occasionally there are editors who will slap the speedy tag back on as soon as they personally believe that the issue is settled, and sometimes they get angry with me for removing it. I'd prefer to deal with this issue in a non "disciplinary" way; maybe if some of you could just state how you think this should be handled, I can learn something, and I can refer the editors to this conversation? We've talked about this at WT:CSD, but the message isn't getting through. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'm guilty there. I think that your method of doing things is kind of screwy: sure, I agree with the speedy, but let's remove it for now in case someone else disagrees. It just seems like process wonkery for the sake of process wonkery. It seems every speedy tag I place these days gets removed, usually by someone who would rather let the article slog through afd for a week or longer because of some process quirk that they think is "better" than a speedy. A hoax is a hoax, why let it rot at AFD for a week? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • There's one that just went to AfD where you tagged shortly after, and I've asked at WT:CSD#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple X Unlocked; that's not a big deal. But when you were tagging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Zaidi, the delete votes were split among notability, hoax and promotionalism ... which is a sign that people really haven't made up their minds yet what's going on. Now we've got a little more info, and we're getting close to being able to speedy. If I can speedy as a result of consensus at AfD to speedy, instead of just doing my own thing, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with G4'ing in the future (and apparently, there are already 4 other pages on this guy, so I could really use that G4). - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • For the reasons explained in many places, time and again, not least at Wikipedia:Hoax, Wikipedia talk:Proposed Deletion for a Hoax#Problems with this proposal, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#DYK hoax article?. You cannot, either by yourself or in conjunction with only one other editor, reliably and safely tell that any given article is a hoax, except in the most blatantly obvious cases of juvenile vandalism; and many an article over the past several years challenged for being a hoax has turned out not to be.

      For example: Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) was challenged for being a hoax, and had every appearance of being a random collection of made-up stuff accrued in a dusty corner of Wikipedia over a period of three years by multiple editors, but turned out, upon inspection, to be fully verifiable on every point as it stood. Ensuring that we avoid the wrong outcome in such situations, by employing multiple slices of Swiss cheese, is most definitely not "process wonkery", but a sound process for ensuring that we achieve what is in fact the correct outcome.

      It's a widely-recognized sound process, too. Wikipedia editors didn't invent the Swiss Cheese model (AfD discussion) — although, ironically, some of us thought that that itself was an outright fabrication.

      TenPoundHammer, like all other editors here, you do not know every subject in the world, and your evaluation of verifiability is not enough by itself. Multiple editors, with different areas of expertise, with access to different sources, in multiple timezones, independently double checking one another over a period long enough to allow for proper research, is required for a conclusion to be made safely, so that we can be confident that its outcome is the right one. Stop rushing. There is no rush. We prefer the right outcome over an immediate outcome. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

      • Yeah. Good points all. I just get frustrated so often when things seem to take forever and a day to get done. Some Wikipedia processes seem to move at glacial pace, and some editors seem cautious to the point of paranoia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this has been discussed in various places, at least for hoaxes. The deletion policy says that once a page goes to XfD, it isn't supposed to be speedied. However it is relatively common practice to speedy pages while at XfD if someone determines that a discussion is superfluous (like SNOW closes, this is a risky decision to make) or someone realizes the article fits a speedy criteria. I agree that pursuing this borders on process for process's sake but I am also of the mind that deletions (especially speedies) should follow process quite closely. At least for hoaxes, one solution is to replace {{Hoax}} with something that looks a hell of a lot like {{Copyvio}}--most of the urgency around hoaxes stems from a desire to get them out of mainspace because they actively damage our credibility. I sympathize w/ that desire. I think if the hoax template looked less like every other template and instead offered a clear warning to the reader we could get around this (I like this solution because it is a neat technical fix for what is essentially a social problem, always cool to find those). I'm not the person to mock a template up, though. Anyone got any ideas on what it should look like? Protonk (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • My idea would be to have a template like the existing "hoax" template for things that are disputed by some editors (which says "dubious" instead of "hoax", with a question mark), and a template that says "HOAX WARNING" or something similar (with an exclamation mark), if there is a consensus that the article should be treated as a hoax until a possible verification, or if such a consensus is very likely to emerge in the deletion discussion.  Cs32en  21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I like this idea. If {{db-hoax}} blanked everything below it, some editors would be tempted to use it on content they disagreed with. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Old edit summary vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Edits have been oversighted. Icestorm815Talk 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove old edit summary vandalism from Rapidfire squad (talk · contribs), please? Note that this has been addressed already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467#The usual Twinkle vandalism spree and death threat but it looks like the said e-mail got no results. Is it impossible to do? Or simple got forgotten? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like oversight didn't do anything about it. It's probably too old for a regular admin to delete and selective restore those articles, but I might email oversight again. They can't possibly accept that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be much easier to do now since oversight has access to revision delete. They can just remove the edit summaries. Icestorm815Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog[edit]

Resolved: CSD is at a manageable size. Icestorm815Talk 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of a backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that could use some sysop attention and fast! Articles like this shouldn't be lasting more than 1 minute. Cheers! John Sloan @ 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder - PROD period is now 7 days[edit]

I have recently noticed some articles being deleted after being tagged for proposed deletion for less than 7 days. (For those who are unaware, the minimum time required before deletion recently changed from 5 days to 7 days.) This is likely due to some admins not being aware of the change and/or using old scripts to assist their edits. As such, I thought I'd give a friendly reminder here to adjust your habits and/or scripts. Thank you, --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with propagandist users in the areas of pedophilia and child sexual abuse[edit]

I really just need some advice on this. I’ve been a Wikipedia editor for almost 3 years now. About a year ago I became involved with several articles that touch on an extremely unpleasant subject, the sexual abuse of children. I was even more horrified to find that there are users who periodically attempted to undermine these articles in an effort to push an agenda; that is, that there is nothing wrong with molesting children.

This is not about censorship. The information these users try to insert is frequently unsourced or uses extremely fringe sources that have been rejected by the mainstream medical community. The vast, world-wide scientific consensus is quite clear to all but the most depraved mind.

It is also not about prejudice. I know of at least 2 users who are admitted pedophiles (not molesters, mind you), but they claim they have never offended, are seeking mental health treatment, and they not only refrain from disrupting articles with POV pushing, but are valuable contributors to other, unrelated articles.

The presence of these POV-pushing users has often tarnished Wikipedia’s reputation. Several high-profile news stories have covered this, and there has been backlash in other communities as well. It pains me to see such a grand project dragged down by such a tiny minority of its user base.

Things have changed over the past year. Almost every one of these propagandists has been blocked permanently. I even have a list of them that I know of, should you require evidence. One user even turned out to be wanted felon who was traced and arrested.

But the problem persists. Getting these users blocked was no easy task, taking weeks or even months of tolerating their disruption and ranting, despite their intentions being blatantly obvious from the start.

Surely their must be a more efficient way to deal with these users. I and many others have grown very weary from having to argue with such irrational people. Is there a better way? Are we going about it wrong?Legitimus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a stream of people disrupting the talkpage with identical misunderstandings, it might help to create a FAQ section in the talkpage, like on Talk:Barack Obama. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As unpleasant as the subject matter is it shouldn't be used as a reason not to present both sides of the issue. If the fringe sources are the only sources available then they should be permitted as long as they are reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note: WP:PAW. Tiptoety talk 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE comes to mind, Betty. The vast majority of the world considers pedophilia to not only be illegal, but disgusting. Jtrainor (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"Disgusting", however, is not an encyclopedic consideration; articles that attract paedophile advocacy are kept clear of such promotion because of the neutral tone of an encyclopedia does not permit such viewpoints - and nor should it the opposite one. The fact that the sexual abuse of minors is illegal and its proponents abhorred by most citizens of most nations might be mentioned in the relevant articles, but it should not effect how we police the editing of same. Oh, and one last thing; the old saw that paedophilia is not in fact illegal, it is a medical/psychological term for a sexual impulse - but acting upon the impulse invariably does break the law. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Disgusting is not an encyclopedic consideration. Periplaneta americana, anyone?
While the actual opinion may not be relevant to how we treat a subject, the fraction of people who agree with that opinion is, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Mr.Z-man 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a zero-tolerance policy on this, from Jimbo and Arbcom. Any editor identified as promoting pedophillia on Wikipedia is subject to immediate permanent blocks, no if and or but about it. Admins acting on these issues are required to notify Arbcom on acting, in private, but that's it. Not all that many admins have had to deal with it, which may be the problem here, but if you can point out what article(s) and editor(s) are involved I will review and take appropriate prompt action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, as I remember it back when the issue was going on a few years back, but could you provide the links to refresh other admins and I? Thanks. —— nixeagleemail me 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The policy is not written down in one place as clearly as it could be, however anyone unclear on what the policy is as enforced in the past and standing now should peruse the following:
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and last but not least the Arbcom decision note in the Pedophilia userbox edit war: [6].
If anyone advocates pedophilia on Wikipedia, and administrators become aware of it, they should be permanently blocked and the case and evidence referred straight to Arbcom.
Arbcom (and Jimbo) are the appeal path in that case - not normal unblock requests, ANI discussions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Legit, if you come across any editor pushing the POV you've described, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have that user banned or the IP blocked. We can take action quickly. Kingturtle (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright backlogs[edit]

Any sysops with a few moments to spare would be welcomed at Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files. All you need to do is open the oldest dated subcategory, open each image, check that it's orphaned, and if it is, delete it as F5.

There is also some help needed at Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status, Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files and Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files, which are slightly less straightforward to handle. For these, you open the oldest dated subcategory, check that the reason indicated for the image still applies, and delete it if so. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone wants any guidance on these, I'll be happy to help out. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to come post this! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Aitias[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that a conclusion has been reached.  GARDEN  13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Filename[edit]


The file name I was trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. All other Quebec Route articles call in their respective signs with the filename format Qcxxx.png. Would it be possible to remove File:Qc211.png from the blacklist in order to complete the sign group? Or are the articles themselves being looked at to accomodate a new filename at a later date? Thank you. Gordalmighty (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any restrictions on that file name, can you be more specific? Nja247 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Attempted uploading this file again this morning. Wikipedia gives the following message:
    • Unable to proceed

The file name you were trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. Please go back and choose a better file name. When uploading files to Wikipedia, please use a file name that describes the content of the image or media file you're uploading and is sufficiently distinctive that no-one else is likely to pick the same name by accident. Examples of good file names: City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg" KDE Kicker config screenshot.png" 1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg" Polyhedron with no vertex visible from center.png" Examples of bad file names: Image01.png" Joe.jpg" DSC00001.JPG" 30996951316264l.jpg" For more information, please see Wikipedia:Image file names. If you have a good reason for uploading a file with this name, or if you receive this message when attempting to upload a new version of an existing file, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact name of the file you are trying to upload. Thank you.

    • Wiki Commons gives a different message:

Permissions Errors You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file.

That's about as descriptive as I can get with this frustrating file. Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, there are a couple of alternatives. You can list the source here and an admin can upload it or you can break with whatever tradition has been for these articles and name it "quebec route 211" or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd recommend the latter. The name is, as the blacklist message notes, short and uninformative. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a task considering all other 300+ routes are already in with this format. The highway articles themselves do not have an image line, so it is also unclear as to how the images are attaching themselves. Any other suggestions? Thanks all. Gordalmighty (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some technical necessity for that particular naming format, such as an automated template? Otherwise, there's no reason other than unnecessary consistency to not simply use an alternate name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It must be automated. All other Quebec routes with name Qcxxx.png also have a (jct|state=QC|QC|xxx) format that allows use of the sign with link text attached.

Infobox road

With this coding, the sign would normally appear at the top of the infobox, as it does for all other routes. I reloaded one with a different name, but no luck at all in linking. I think 211 got deleted down the road somewhere, but no idea why. Gordalmighty (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I missed something glaringly obvious in this discussion, but is Commons:File:Qc211 Quebec Route 211.png part of the problem or part of the solution? — Athaenara 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That image should simply be moved to Commons:File:Qc211.png, by a commons admin. There's no need to tweak the titleblacklist just for one image to get through, and it should live at commons anyway. Amalthea 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does feel like moving all the images, Template:Infobox road/QC/shield Route would then be changed to the new format. --NE2 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Qc211 Quebec Route 211.png was an effort to get the image back into the system. When I saw that the template did not pick up the format, I recommended it for deletion. However, a move to the proper filename (File:Qc211.png) would allow the image to display correctly. How does one go about requesting this change? Thanks everyone. Gordalmighty (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordal, you will keep running into the same problem all the time. The ideal solution is contacting a bot user to mass-move all images to a different format, like "Road Quebec type Qc route 211.png" or something, and then update the template to use that. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be "Quebec Route 211". It's also probably easier to sit here and tell someone else to find a bot than to actually find a bot. --NE2 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As I understand most have been uploaded already (List of Quebec provincial highways). Amalthea 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard to get it sorted. Next time, Gordalmighty, you might want to go there right away, or ask a random Commons admin to upload it right away, by e-mailing it to him or uploading it to some free image host. Amalthea 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Cool. I'll follow it up from here. Don't want you to lose too much time over this somewhat insignificant glitch. Thanks for all your input, everyone. Gordalmighty (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Admission to sock[edit]

Would this be an admission to sockpuppeting? Would be interesting to see the user's edits when he didn't forget to sign out... - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? No. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No? He's basically saying "I'm removing this comment I made while signed in because I meant to post it while I was signed out". That doesn't seem like an admission to socking? - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just means that he forgot to log out before making the post. Unless he was using both his main account and the IP to try and sway consensus he has not violated WP:SOCK. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it does lead one to wonder what edits have been made while logged out.. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You could check out the Poorman's Checkuser here Livewireo (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Abd and JzG[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Moving Are You the Next Big Star to Are You the Next Big Star?[edit]

The additional ? is part of the show's title, as shown in this source and should be included in the article name. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have just suggested moving it yourself, but the move is blocked by the page move blacklist because the pattern is apparently used for vandalism. So, an administrator will have to move it, and I'm not an administrator. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 Page moved. J.delanoygabsadds 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Even though this I.P. address is blocked for 1 year, could someone please ban this I.P. indefinitely? The students at Tomball High School have persistently been using that I.P. to vandalise Wikipedia, and my school principal couldn't help stop the vandalism.--Tomballguy (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

I'd suggest an email to their IT person first, just so they know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP's first edit was only seven months ago, so it is already blocked for nearly twice as long as it has been in use by your school. Why don't we wait and see if it still belongs to your school in twelve months time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Normally we'll only {{consent block}} on request from school administrator or IT. –xeno talk 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Carlson and User:Ukexpat[edit]

At Katrina Carlson's article, which was clearly written by someone with WP:COI, there were two unsourced sections--one of them had her IMDB page as a source, but I was under the impression that those weren't considered reliable by themselves. I removed them because they were unreferenced, as I thought the policy was for BLP articles, and User:Ukexpat left me a warning message for "removal of information without explanation" even though I wrote "unreferenced" in my edit summary. When I told him this, he said that shouuld only count for "controversial" information, and then left me another warning, accusing me of outright vandalism and disruption. Is he right?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a pretty powerful, non-negotiable policy, but it should be applied with some common sense. Jimbo's take on sourcing generally is

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[7]

Now IMDB is of variable reliability; the "top pages" for a film or actor or director may be regarded as reliable in the absence of glaring inaccuracies; the bios, trivia and other "subpages" less so. The difference between "unsourced" and "controversial" should be obvious; unsourced controversial information (i.e. that which might be defamatory) should be removed without question; unsourced non-controversial information should be investigated; sourced controversial information should also be investigated for reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. But I not you haven't yet notified User:Ukexpat of this thread, nor engaged beyond templating his talk page. Perhaps you might discuss this in the light of the above comments. Rodhullandemu 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little heavy handed, but my view is as stated by Rodhullandemu above - the information that was deleted (and reinstated by me) was clearly non-controversial (place of birth etc) and sourced to IMDB. Now, I recognise that IMDB is of limited reliability as a source but it seemed OK to me for these purposes. I think most editors who come into contact with me around here know that I am pretty non-confrontational and bend over backwards to assist other editors, but I am pretty ticked off that this was brought to WP:AN (the first time my actions have been brought up here, I hasten to add) without more in depth prior dicussion with me.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that I don't see any editing going on at Talk:Katrina Carlson. Wouldn't that really be the place to hash this out? @ukexpat, yea - maybe a landing a little hard. @Sandor, I tend to see a fair amount of ukexpat at the help desk, and I'll attest to the editors friendliness, and willingness to work with others. You both seem to be of a reasonable sort, why not just get together on the talk page and find a common middle-ground? Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what middle ground there is - I don't think the unsourced material that was deleted and that I added back was of a sensitive enough nature that it should be deleted as a BLP violation - date of birth and early education... – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was kind of hoping to nudge Sandor over to the article talk page where you could explain those very items. To be honest, when I saw a thread with "Ukexpat" in an AN section, I was rather shocked, and thought it might be a mistake. When I initially looked at the contribs., I thought maybe the warning templates might be a bit harsh for a new user - but something about a user with 50 contribs. finding their way to AN had little red flags nagging at me too. I see on the user page that Sandor states that he is not using the account for sockpuppet purposes - which begs the question of what the primary account is. Since he/she is only willing to disclose that information via e-mail to an admin., and identifies with COI/BIO issues, it certainly raises the level of intrigue a tad. Not that there's a problem with having a second account(1), I have one myself for when I'm traveling or accessing WP from public access points. (User:Ched (public) clearly states that however). To summarize: I agree with you 100% Ukexpat, that is perfectly acceptable to retain information that isn't contentious or derogatory in nature and hopefully supply references further down the road. Without drifting into an "inclusionist vs. deletionist" debate, that is my understanding of the spirit of our policies and guidelines. I know that's kind of a rehash of what was said up above, but Rod actually put it in a nutshell very well I think.

Moving Are You the Next Big Star to Are You the Next Big Star?[edit]

The additional ? is part of the show's title, as shown in this source and should be included in the article name. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have just suggested moving it yourself, but the move is blocked by the page move blacklist because the pattern is apparently used for vandalism. So, an administrator will have to move it, and I'm not an administrator. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 Page moved. J.delanoygabsadds 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Even though this I.P. address is blocked for 1 year, could someone please ban this I.P. indefinitely? The students at Tomball High School have persistently been using that I.P. to vandalise Wikipedia, and my school principal couldn't help stop the vandalism.--Tomballguy (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

I'd suggest an email to their IT person first, just so they know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP's first edit was only seven months ago, so it is already blocked for nearly twice as long as it has been in use by your school. Why don't we wait and see if it still belongs to your school in twelve months time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Normally we'll only {{consent block}} on request from school administrator or IT. –xeno talk 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arma virumque cano[edit]

Hi. I think that someone needs to look into Arma virumque cano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - possibly a Checkuser. They're relatively new, and their only substantive contributions seem to be !voting 'delete' at WP:AFD, because "i dont know all the keep reasons i just know the delete stuff but im learning as i go along. but most nominations are Wikipedia:Assume good faith to me" [8]. They have also supported a couple of RfAs, all with the same statement. They make their contributions very, very fast, and get through an awful lot of AfDs. I think that their conversance with Wikipedia, comments such as this, and their chosen areas of editing, suggest that something's going on.

Thanks, and hope I'm not speaking out of turn! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed speeking out of turn =( .Remember im not a crook ok I dont vote on ones I would keep because i dont know what to sayArma virumque cano (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Your edits are still concerning though, since most new editors don't usually go straight to AFD without touching an article at least once. Most new editors don't usually know about deletion rationales either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The constant repetition of "not a crook" - used about three times as a talkpage edit-summary when deleting warnings - is also worrying. Finally, note that the user is currently involved in this sockpuppetry case, something I've only just twigged! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont know all the delete reasons but im learning as i go along. And im not a puppet, i think that person is just paranoid. Notice this edit [9] where the person removed his admission of 'perhaps not' Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< And, yes, this user knows how to locate and use revision diffs, and still has around 100 edits. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Their first edit was to talk:RFA. A few edits later, they added an indefblocked template to another user's talk page. They have added an editprotected template to a template talk page, plus spam (along the lines of "hallo") to various other talk pages, including template talk pages. They have a large number of edits to AFD pages, some of which are verging on inappropriate ("this is crap and needs to be obliterated"). And I see not one article space edit. I seriously doubt this user is new to Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at today's AfD log, this user appears to procedurally be going through the articles and !voting for deletion, which leads me to figure troll. I must admit suspicious were aroused by a call for deletion on my article citing "Unsourced unreliable bad article" as the rationale. So I could be seen as bias in this matter. Nonetheless, the log seems fairly conclusive that something's up as well as the lack of article space edits. Greg Tyler (tc) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, they seem to be very expert at advanced syntax correction... ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[10] This was not vandalism, this was a legitimate addition per WP:SUBST. That is unacceptable abuse of rollback. Anyways, I had a login a very long time ago which I used mostly with reading but i forgot the login stuff hence this account. Arma virumque cano (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it's not vandalism, and I never suggested that it was. I suggested that someone who's only been editing here a short time (reading wouldn't teach wiki-syntax) wouldn't know how to do it. Nor would they probably know about WT:RFA, template-talk pages, or be self-aware enough to !vote delete in tens of AfDs. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I was refering to the revert by Exploding Boy, who also has alot of other questionable reverts too Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A lot of other questionable reverts? Then start a thread below, this section isn't about him, it's about you. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
As for the Diff thing, I followed your example on the top of this thread Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhanAthaenara 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Given the ongoing tendentious edits of this user (going through AfDs and !voting only for "delete"), plus the fact that they are a very obvious sock, though it's not clear of whom, that they are blocked or Checkusered. Any thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 10:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that having multiple accounts in itself is absolutely acceptable. A user is permitted to operate a second account (and permitted to use that account where they wish, including AfD), as long as they are not using it to manipulate consensus by arguing more than once, or otherwise violate WP:SOCK. I see no such violations here, and no potential second account named. As such, no violations of the multiple accounts policy seem to have occurred, and therefore no action can (or should) be taken. A user is permitted to only !vote delete at AfD and only contribute to that area; if you take issue with their arguments, talk to them about it. No checkuser would perform it based upon suspicion, as Checkuser is not for fishing. To sum up: either provide evidential diffs of abuse, or leave the issue alone. Cheers, – Toon(talk) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well one thing you're not allowed to do with an alternate account is "misleading others". Therefore, any editor who denies being a sockpuppet who is subsequently found by checkuser inquiry to actually be a sockpuppter is guilty of misleading others, and can for that reason be blocked without need for further evidence of misbehavior. Once you lie about being a sockpuppet, you've crossed the line.

As we've seen so often in real life, it's not the wrong-doing that gets you, it's the coverup. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the user continues along this line, a notice here is appropriate, to provide information to closing administrators on how much weight to give his comments. DGG (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Sinhalaa : unacceptable behaviour[edit]

the following edit summary is against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVL, and warrants an instant block to calm down in my opinion, especially given the sensitivity of the topic: "Tamils, you are now our slaves" . I am not even willing to discuss this summary with the user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talkcontribs) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks are prohibited by policy; see WP:CDB. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Left a civility warning. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool-down block hell, in light of the current military/political developments that edit summary deserves an indef. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about that, but certainly a week. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree enirely with Looie496. More to the point, "in light of the current military/political developments", everyone should be aware that topics related to this area are likely to be hit by the plague. There's nothing we can do about the external political factors, but we can and should refuse to let Wikipedia be used for war by other means. Gavia immer (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. The comment was no more acceptable than any other blatant and explicit racist claims made about any other ethnic or religious group on Wikipedia. When you say things like that, you are not welcome here and you leave the building without further delay. It violates WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, and is disruptive. If they can demonstrate an understanding that they screwed up and acknowledge and agree to abide by our policies, then the indef can be reversed, and I have no objection to anyone working with them to educate them, but lacking serious attitude adjustment we don't want them editing articles anymore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit odd that this account was aware of quite a bit of Wikijargon in his unblock request ("admin", "unblock", etc) when they only had a handful of edits. Needless to say, I support User:Georgewilliamherbert's indef block though, there should be absolutely zero tolerance to this sort of nationalist battleground nonsense here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Undoing unilateral page moves[edit]

Resolved: I took care of the non-admin stuff & Keith D moved the page back. It wouldn't hurt to have a few neutral eyes on the AfD & article though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This request involves multiple page moves, undoing unilateral improper actions by a new user who thought he could close the AfD he himself started. I might be able to do the necessary myself, but I'm not sure, and I don't want to cause further damage.

As of May 17, we had an article at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, which had been created in 2005 to accommodate more detail than could comfortably fit in the main Bush bio. You can see that text here.

A new user, ResearcherInFlorida, tagged the article for speedy deletion (while blanking the content). This was declined and the content restored. The user was directed to the AfD procedure. He began an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Then, however, he decided to implement his personal preferences. His rationale, explained on his talk page less than 15 hours after the AfD was created, was his personal interpretation of the "consensus" at the ongoing AfD. I haven't tried to wade through all the edit summaries and histories to nail down every little detail, but here's what seems to be the highlights: First, he removed a great deal of information, some of which was dubious but much of which was well-sourced and properly encyclopedic. Then he moved the article to George W. Bush alcohol use based on his personal conclusion (per his ES) that "No serious allegation of drug use has been proven against George W. Bush. Title is purely attack speculation and violates BLP." Then he removed more well-sourced material that he disliked (along with editing the AfD section to insert "merge" as the outcome). Then he redirected the page to Early life of George W. Bush, a redirect that was reverted by another editor, although the redirect of the original George W. Bush substance abuse controversy to Early life of George W. Bush remains in place. (I think it's this second redirect of the original title that prevents me from moving the article back over the redirect.)

None of these actions were discussed on the talk page or on WP:RM. This user appears to have no edits to any article talk page except to move it to a new title of his unilateral choosing.

Suggested fix: The most recent proper text, which incorporates the AfD notice but not any of the new user's prior or subsequent unilateral actions, is here. That text should be moved to George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and the AfD moved back to its original title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. The AfD would then proceed in normal fashion. This fix would be without prejudice to any user's right to proceed to improve the article, including through the removal of specific statements that a user thinks violate BLP, and of course other users' rights to disagree and restore the statements. I've directed the new user to WP:BRD to make clear that not all changes need to be preceded by talk page discussion but that, where there's disagreement, it's necessary to discuss the matter to try to work toward consensus. JamesMLane t c 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggested course of action is the correct one (along with warning the user in question). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already tried to explain the process issues to the new user on his talk page, but I appear not to have gotten through. I'm going to refrain from further attempts because I'm seriously ticked off and probably incapable of observing WP:BITE. JamesMLane t c 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have undone all his changes & fixed the AfD. I will leave the user a stern warning. All that is left to do is for an actual admin to move the page back to its original title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that ResearcherInFlorida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been making a large number of edits to articles related George W. Bush today, including an undiscussed move of George W. Bush military service controversy to George W. Bush National Guard service that I reversed. To be perfectly blunt, I don't disagree with what is surely his basic point - we seem to be tolerating material about Bush that we would not tolerate with regard to Barack Obama - but the way he's undertaking his edits is sure to be disruptive. Gavia immer (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right that this user exhibited a pattern, and I'm glad you took care of the military service page move. Nevertheless, I don't agree that there's an anti-Bush bias. ResearcherInFlorida, in defending his position, compared the Bush cocaine allegations with Larry Sinclair's allegations about Obama, but there's clearly no comparison in terms of the substantiality of the support and the extent of the media coverage. The valid Bush-Obama comparison would match the proposition that Bush used cocaine (which he's never denied) with the proposition that Obama was born in Kenya. Of those two, Bush's cocaine use is far more likely to be true, yet we have a whole article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. JamesMLane t c 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is a bias (which I don't believe), it's not corrected by biased editing in the other direction. This edit clearly shows that the editor is a blatant POV-pusher. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm certainly not defending that. I guess we can move from "is sure to be disruptive" to "is disruptive" now. Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should disambiguation pages be brought to AFD, MFD, or RFD? (or a new venue)[edit]

I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. –xeno talk 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what is WP:MFD. :) On the page for WP:XFD it says that MFD is for anything that doesn't fit the rest of the categories. I've never thought of disambiguations to be redirects, nor articles, so I think MFD would be the best option. Icestorm815Talk 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss at the central location, but to address your statement, at the MFD page it says Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace"). Perhaps the two pages need to be reconciled. [11]xeno talk 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)#
I've seen them brought to AFD before, and nobody really objected. I'd say either AFD or MFD would be fine. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Requesting full protection of Optics[edit]

Requesting full protection of this article. As some of the community is already aware, ScienceApologist has been working on a featured article drive for this page by drafting improvements at a sister website. Other editors have edited with him there, so there are GFDL license issues and other details to be worked out. A team of editors are currently working to coordinate the orderly import of this article, and attempts to jump the gun by certain uncollaborative individuals have created drama and setbacks (violating GFDL and leading to AE threads). One has done so repeatedly and is hostile to feedback, so please full protect the page. Posting as ScienceApologist's mentor, DurovaCharge! 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. rootology (C)(T) 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why this was posted here instead of WP:RFPP?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Because RFPP is for simple situations such as repeat vandalism and edit warring. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Faster action/complex situation? What she said. :) The actual level of warring itself isn't enough (probably) for prot, but the GFDL + AE/RFAR concerns definitely are. By the way, as always any admin can undo me with consensus etc., no need for my permission etc. rootology (C)(T) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Protecting the article while the discussion takes place is probably a good idea anyway. If the import from WikiSource goes through, any edits to the current article text will be wiped out. --Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist, the user ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is currently banned from editing Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users, it is not permitted to make edits on behalf of banned users, whether or not such edits are productive, and editors who make such edits are subject to the remedies applicable to the banned user. Is there any reason why I should not immediately block any user "importing" content written by this banned user to one of our articles?  Sandstein  19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Possiable banning of User:Shedarian[edit]


I would like to report the following user User:Shedarian, i have been working on a article List of Monster Buster Club episodes and recently got information on the final episodes, sinc ethe user had asked me about them before i left them a message telling them that it be updated soon and that they would be airing in the UK and that how i got th einformation. (i have still to put the source in). However the user then either yesterday or the day before left me a message askign me to record and illegal distrbute the episode to them, i then leave a message askign them to stop or i would report them. They then done it again so i took the advice of helpdesk and ingored them. However they have done it again today so i am now reporting them for possible banning or whatever action you feel appiorate as they are trying to egage in illegal activites. Any other information required i will try provide, however it might not be until friday as i have exam on thursday so i am mostly doign studying.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for the user in question; it looks like they've approached a couple of editors looking for copies of TV shows. If it carries on, a block may be in order. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I hardly think this is serious enough an issue to warrant a banning. A short block for trying to use Wikipedia as a file dump/trading site maybe, but a full-on ban? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
Agreed; if he becomes active again with this kind of thing, I'll block short-term, but there's been no editing since the warning. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for block review[edit]

I would appreciate a review of the block I just made on (talk). Here are some links which you may find helpful:

The IP editor has repeatedly inserted "Olive is also depicted on the reverse of the Croatian 20 lipa coin, minted since 1993." into Olive from a number of different IP addresses. The editor was told by several other users that this sort of trivia was inappropriate for the article. In today's round of edit warring, several accusations and personal attacks were leveled at myself and User:JamesBWatson across all three user talk pages. I should have sought an uninvolved admin, but didn't, so I'm willing to take my lumps if I have acted improperly. Thanks —Travistalk 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that I also undid the IP's edits to Olive three times. —Travistalk 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
if he's using a number of ip addresses, what do you think can be accomplished by blocking an individual one? It might have been better to semiprotect the article. In any case, I encourage someone to create a proper article or section for olives as a emblem or symbol. I see no attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page; I'm not sure everyone would consider it inappropriate content. DGG (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
After a closer inspection of the article revision history, I believe that only this IP is involved. —Travistalk 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a week is a bit harsh, given that the edits are possibly good faith, and most of the other recent edits by the IP seem to have been constructive. I suppose there's a technical 3RR violation in there, and given the response to being asked nicely by yourself to back off, I'm not really inclined to reach for the unblock button, but I think you could have gone a bit easier, or avoided blocking altogether and just s-protected the article. I'm sure you also realise it would probably have been a better idea to let someone else actually make the block, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
After sleeping on it and digesting the above, I have unblocked the IP. Thanks for the sanity check. I'll be busy self-flagellating for the time being. —Travistalk 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb[edit]

Could someone please keep an eye on Stephen Crabb? User keeps vandalising it. Despite the fact that he's currently pretty high profile, as one of the British MPs caught up in expenses issues, the article doesn't seem to be on anyone's watchlist. (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article for 2 weeks in light of the BLP violations. Mfield (Oi!) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating the page Central Asia-Caucasus and Silk Road Studies Program[edit]

I am trying to merge the page Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program (which I cannot edit) with one that already exists entitled Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. Could you please add a redirect tab to direct the former to the later? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleheatherly (talkcontribs) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. -- Darth Mike (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC) - open proxy[edit] (talk · contribs) is evidently an open proxy unblocked in January - block log says " unblocked " (talk)" ‎ (Clearing autoblock of Pisethforever: Only port 5190 is open and inaccessible.)". We are getting vandalism from this address still and I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a shared proxy for one of the main ISPs in Cambodia, and doesn't appear to be open at this time. I would just anonblock it if you think the vandalism's overwhelming. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll take another look at the contributions. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User space redirecting/moved to article space[edit]

I'm not sure exactly the best way to unwind this or deal with the user, so I thought this would be the best venue to get some help. User:Trance0175 has redirected their user page to an article, The Beat Live, and has moved their user talk page to the talk page for the article. As a result, the article talk page is now filled with welcome to WP messages, image rationale tags, and speedy deletion messages. I'm assuming there's a CoI problem here, but it seems larger than that. Mlaffs (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved talk page back (supressed redirect), blanked the CNR from the userpage. No comment on the other issues. Thanks for pointing this out. –xeno talk 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Mlaffs, it's not uncommon that editors accidentally move their talk page along with the article they developed on their userpage. That's where the redirect came from. Amalthea 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that page move in the article history. That's disappointingly suspicious of me ... Mlaffs (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (ignoring the potential notability issues with the article), the user has uploaded File:Thebeatlivenew.jpg and File:TheBeatID.jpg with two different licenses (both are free but still). Someone should try to explain the difference and make sure the uploader is actually the copyright holder (then it's COI concerns). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find the right forum for a discussion[edit]

I don't want to resolve an issue here, I just want advice on where to discuss it so that a definitive resolution can be reached. Let me sketch the issue: The National Institutes of Health have funded a project to form a neuroinformatics database -- we have articles about the project, NeuroLex and Neuroscience Information Framework. Part of their mandate is to link the database together with Wikipedia. After a slightly rocky start because the people involved were not very familiar with Wikipedia, this issue was discussed extensively at WT:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, and the outcome was that the best approach is to put links to the database into various infoboxes. The people associated with the project, mainly Jgrethe (talk · contribs) and Nifcurator (talk · contribs), have been energetically proceeding with the plan. Now, however, Arcadian (talk · contribs) is objecting that the added links violate WP:EL, and saying that this should have been discussed at WT:EL. I don't think any of us objects to further discussion, but it's not desirable to have to keep discussing this over and over again, and it isn't clear to me that WT:EL is really the right place -- in fact I've never even looked at that page and don't know whether the people who contribute there are reflective of the community. So the question is, where to have a decisive discussion? Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is an accurate summary. Please see the discussion at User talk:Jgrethe#External links, and see firsthand the links that were added. --Arcadian (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest one of the Village Pumps. Depending on how far along the collaboration is, it might be appropriate to lay out the relevant advantages and concerns at the proposals forum.  Skomorokh  09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request relating to a block[edit]

Getting right to it... EyeSerene blocked user 1027E for a week for numerous reasons; the block was upheld by FisherQueen after a review. Following this, DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. Due to a history of support between DGG, 1027E, and the article 1027E primarily edits (and which DGG subsequently placed under full protection), it looks to me that DGG wasn't the most impartial admin to have stepped in like this. Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this and either uphold or reinstate the block on 1027E if he/she so chooses?  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not intervene to remove a block. I commented to the blocking administrator that the length of the block was an over-reaction. I shortened it at the suggestion of the blocking administrator to the length xe suggested. . Ditto about the full protection. Not my idea, though a good one. I distrust both parties objectivity in editing about equally, though one knows more about our practices than the other; I have no intention of judging between them, nor of intervening further, and have asked Hoary to refrain similarly. I would however regard a reblock as inappropriate. The edit war has stopped, and that's the purpose of blocking. I have notified EyeSerene, but he's in a very different time zone. DGG (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for the block extended well beyond edit warring, as EyeSerene's reason for the block fully explained. If you choose not to see that, you choose not to see that. I came here only to ask for an outside opinion.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The ANI thread mentioned by EyeSerene is now archived here. The sock case about 1027E is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1027E/Archive. There was also User talk:Jpgordon#Errol Sawyer Article, where 1027E was alleging racism by other editors. (Always a winning strategy here on Wikipedia). Article was the subject of a COI complaint in January. Was deleted by WP:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer. Userfied as User:1027E/Errol Sawyer by DGG on 27 February. Probably restored to main space on 20 April with DGG's help.
1027E has had some trouble coming up the learning curve w.r.t. Wikipedia policy. Some fairly sharp debate regarding COI occurred in this section of Talk:Christie Brinkley, involving an editor named Efsawyer, who also made charges of racial bias by other editors. We know that Efsawyer claimed on Talk to be the real Errol Sawyer and there has been a suggestion on Talk that 1027E is a relative. I think it is reasonable to assume that 1027E is a COI-affected editor regarding the Errol Sawyer article so we should maintain our usual alertness re any promotional editing. I don't object to DGG's shortening this block to 24 hours but the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, after getting many months of policy explanation. The problems with this editor are probably not over. I think a topic ban from the article should be considered if this continues. The Errol Sawyer article I think is now in reasonable shape and if 1027E would just leave it alone, it might be fine. We could certainly get along without the constant turmoil on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ed that a topic ban should be considered if necessary--and probably of Mbinebri also. Actually, I think a short block earlier would have been helpful in preventing it getting to the present state-- in a sense it is our general fault as admins that we didn't intervene earlier. I will say that this editor has caused me and others a remarkable amount of trouble--I find it no easier to explain things to the ed. than anyone else here. DGG (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no misgivings about the reduced block and article locking - I think DGG has nailed it when he says that admin intervention should probably have come sooner, but we have to deal with the situation as it is and a week was harsh for a first shot across the bows. I've left a frankly-worded note on 1027's talk page in response to their latest comment (which doesn't appear to be promising much, as far as I can parse it); I believe that unless they start to demonstrate some clue fairly rapidly, a topic-ban should be the minimum response. EyeSerenetalk 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. I said that DGG understated the issues and I do not retract this. However, this comment of mine was about a comment of his. I didn't question, and don't question, his shortening of the block. DGG neither acted nor wrote as I would have done, but this fact seems very humdrum and doesn't trouble me at all. I don't at all want to criticize DGG, with whom I'm in considerable agreement. -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed to close RfC.[edit]

Hi folks, The RfC at the top of WP:NOT's talk page is still in need of being closed. Comments have basically stopped and we are past the 30 days by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

COI User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

I was directed here by user:auburnpilot Here: [12]

Hi my name is Christian Hejnal. I have been accused of sock puppetry by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . [13] I have stated over and over that I am who I say I am and this is the only name I log in under. The Conclusion: "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically."

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a destructive editor and is now editing my article, after he/she accused me. [14] [15] & [16] and has made a point of editing articles that have anything to do with my wife or myself. I suspect this user has a strong COI of interest with anything concerning my wife Jessicka, our band Scarling. and myself.

I have addressed this user several times on his or her talk page in good faith only to be ignored.

And most recently

I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. All I ask is for this user to allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. I truly believe that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is gaming the system in order to discredit any articles having to do with my wife Jessicka, myself (Christian Hejnal), our band Scarling. or our close friends. Again, I do not edit these articles because I know I have a clear COI. I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia but while I've been here I have not been a destructive user. I will happily take this off wiki- via email but this person is ignoring my requests.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just been alerted to the fact that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz makes these edits from a library a few miles away from my home. I am freaked out. Any assistance or advice on this matter would be beyond appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A few notes. The sockpuppetry investigation was closed by two others, and I think further attempts light on evidence should result in a warning. Second, while I'm seeing a bias, that's not a conflict of interest. He seems to be attempt to remove information he's doesn't consider relevant, while others (right now, namely User: at your page) are reverting. That's a content dispute and the solution is for both parties to stop playing on the articles and instead to use the discussion pages. I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the reason Xtian1313 was accused of being a sock. I'll have my own computer in a few days. Though if I'm in the same area, not sure if it will be a new IP??? I am not a sock. I am a person. I like the work of the people who's articles I edit. I do not know Clint Catalyst. I was not asked to fix these articles, I do it because I want to. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz doesn't try to expand articles, he's too concerned with blanking sections rather then actually doing the research it takes to find references. I am constructive. I add ref links. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is the reason I have not created an actual account. He's a bully. There I said it. I can't find the page where he threatened to have me blocked because I reverted edits with ref links.

I'd like to keep editing here but I don't want false accusations made about Xtian1313 because I don't want to be outed nor do I want User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz to be breathing down my neck. (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtian1313/Archive, you will see that User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg chose to ignore it. Our policies allow anyone to begin a report but unless it looks like enough to the right people, it will be ignored. One reasonable concern is not everything that's exists deserves to be here, and asking people to find sources that fit policy is appropriate and removal until they are found is too. As I just told you, for example, attending a wedding isn't worth including. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky be fair. You said the article didn't mention Catalyst and it did. I answered you and showed you the quote and the ref. link. User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg ignored it maybe because I'm not destructive? I explained why I added the wedding section. I just don't want anybody to be blamed for something I am doing. Wikipedia is about being BOLD, right. I'm trying! (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, attending a wedding, even as best man, and giving a speech, even if quoted in the LA Times, in my view probably isn't worth including. However, like everything else, we can discuss it. As to your other point, I'm not going to speculate why Nathan and Jake chose not to go further. Most likely simply because they didn't find enough enough evidence. You can ask them if you'd like. There is more than being BOLD here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
please show me where I should discuss the wedding issue and I will.

I don't need to ask Nathan and Jake as long as they know I am a person and not Xtian1313. = O) (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Clint_Catalyst#Jessicka_and_Christian_Hejnal_wedding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Clerk_team, user:Jake Wartenberg are both user:Nathan trainee clerks --PBS (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have now had a stern talking to by all parties involved. I plan on making a screen name with my new IP address, as soon I get one and will make sure everybody knows I was user "".

I am now taking my thoughts to the discussion page. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great." We can all agree that he has a bias? Is anybody here willing to have a talk with User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz??? If not I'm afraid this kind of thing is going to continue to happen as his approach is not only abrasive but off putting to a lot of users. (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Staying on point[edit]

Ok, the actual point. There is an allegation from a living person that he is concerned about another editor who, in real-life, may live a few miles away. Does anyone have any actual evidence of this, beyond mere speculation? This is some serious allegation. Can we drop that argument? Second, if opposition to the inclusion of attendance at a wedding is what qualifies someones as having a COI against an individual, put me on that list. However, a conflict of interest means an actual conflict of interest, not merely "you don't seem to like what I'm doing or who I am" and unless someone has some evidence of this, I would like the approval to warn and knock people out for making baseless claims as a pretext to edit war. Anyone have any suggestions, other than probably go to WP:OTRS and write tickets? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, I do not have any problem with the attendance/ wedding issue being left out of the article in question. It doesn't need to be brought here to confuse the issues at hand. I don't believe you have a COI, perhaps a bias since you have stated you live in LA [20] know who some of the people in question are and find them ridiculous, that's your opinion. You have not been aggressively editing every article that has anything to do with Christian Hejnal like User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has. Anytime this person is confronted they just simply ignore. I believe strongly that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does have a COI. And if he edits miles away from these people's homes and work place, that's scary. Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article? Come on? I'm new but I'm not that new. As far as the other allegation hopefully Xtian1313 can come up with some evidence to support his case. (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reengaged this article because i stumbled across this COI allegation here or somewhere else in the past few days. Poked around and found that i'd been accused of being wolfowitz' sockpuppet and/or had a COI by one of the SPAs there (here [21]) without being notified (I hadn't edited the article in about 2 weeks at that point). Am I pissed? You bet. These COI allegations by the SPA's on this article and the other fine flowers in their walled garden have been tossed casually around for over a month now and i ask some admin to tell these folks to put up or shut up: Either come forward with some reliable evidence of an honest-to-goodness conflict of interest or be told that they'll be given a nice, long block the next time the allegation is made.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I edit miles away from these people too, probably. Los Angeles is HUGE. Again, what makes everyone see a COI? Is it just "he's 'destroying' these articles"? And read my comment here again: I wasn't saying the people are ridiculous. I don't know any of them personally. I was saying that your description of a wedding, as is the description of a lot of the actions of these individuals, borders on ridiculous. It's a matter of perspective, and frankly, I'm not seeing how a guy who also is "destroying" John Dunbar so clearly has some vague COI that everyone is claiming. Fine, if you want to claim I have a COI too, go ahead. That makes this fitting. Someone else uninvolved, please offer an opinion. This is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rickey please read this. I do not think you have a COI. You are not User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, right? LA- we aren't talking miles- we are talking blocks there's a difference and you know it. I agree 100% It's a matter of perspective,and I say that this person has a COI with at least the article Christian Hejnal. See below: "Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article?" Why do that? Seriously? That's all I am saying. It sure smells like COI to me and a jerk move to boot.

And why isn't anybody talking to this person. Rather then freak out, throw policy around, threaten a nice long block, couldn't a simple conversation fix this issue???

I'm being ganged up on here and I/m presenting a simple solution. A solution you suggested before all of this garbage. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Your words, it's a good plan. Can somebody just do it? (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "solution" you're presenting is to remove an editor who has a different perspective than you from an article based on your vague and innapropriate allegation (without a shred of evidence). I promise you this "solution" will not be agreed to, though I understand why the rest of us just giving you what you want would be agreeable to you. Also, these claims that his cohabitation with you (whoever you are) in LA is "scary" is not only absurd, but a personal attack (i can think of view attacks more vile than implying that someone was going to try to stalk you/harm you in real life). IP -- if you make one more unsubstantiated allegation against anyone, I'll kick this up to higher traffic forums.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I being vague? Please re-read what I wrote. I am asking that somebody other then Ricky81682 (per his suggestion) "talk" to this editor not "remove" them. Block me, kick me up, just because I don't agree with you? Bali, You are pissed about something that has nothing to do with me or what I'm saying here. (here [22]). All of these different issues are now becoming blurred because the people in the articles in question know each other in real life. Unlike you I don't have the power to threaten to block people when they don't agree with me so I'm doing the best I can to come to a simple solution. Is there such a thing as a neutral third party? (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To talk to him about what? You want someone else to tell him not to edit those articles because you think he lives somewhere and that makes you afraid? Because you think he has a conflict but you can not or will not explain it any further than that? We are not going to ask him to tell us who he is and prove he doesn't have a conflict. Otherwise, someone else is always free to talk to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)'

You are the one who suggested somebody talk to him. I'm not afraid of anybody. That user wouldn't have any idea who I was if I was walking down the street right in front of him. Why wouldn't somebody ask him, do you have a COI with these articles? Do you have any idea why people might think you do? Why is that so out of line? I have explained why "I" think he has a conflict over and over. Nobody is asking you to out this person. This is ridiculous. (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question was asked. His answer was "no" i have no conflict of interest. You've offered no evidence to contradict this. Repeatedly makign unsupported accusations poisons the editing environment and will, ultimately, earn you blocks. So, now, If you "ask" the question again, i'll seek support for sanctions against you. I'd much prefer you'd just drop it, and focus on content. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


I have a suggestion. It's simple. Why doesn't somebody other then myself, Xtian1313, and Ricky81682 talk to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz??? Will it kill him to lay off these articles until it is proven whether he is editing from a close neighborhood library or has a COI? I got my butt handed to me last night, why won't anybody talk to this user? Rickey is there a admin. that can be neutraland is up for the job? I really think it can be that simple? (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should he? What has he done wrong? He's removed content, told everyone to read the policies, they've ignored them, edit warred to put it back and accuse him of a COI. Period. Everyone else comes here, nobody else seems to care, and we all move on. He's been notified of these discussion a few times and as he has said, he has no clue what the claim is. I've asked him, he says he doesn't know what's going on, so how about the people making the accusation actually give us something to work with be