Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive144

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

Noticeboard archives


Flowcube indef blocked as sockpuppet of Homey[edit]

I've indefinitely blocked Flowcube (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HOTR, you may be blocked from editing. Homey. I'm not very familiar with the case (see here), so if anyone who's more familiar with the case disagrees please don't hesitate to talk to me or reverse the block. Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There was never an arbitration case on user:Homey. The page you referred to was a subpage created for the case application comments which got very long; when the case was rejected the subpage should have been too.
Homey's current status is in doubt. Fred Bauder has argued that he should be given the chance to register an account and edit peacefully; so long as he edits peacefully he should not be "outed" or blocked. Jayjg has argued that Homey has used up his supply of second chances. Thatcher131 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Should he be unblocked, then? Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, it was "rejected" on the naive presumption that Homey had gone the way of the buffalo. Granted, the chips are a bit stale now, but somebody should toss them back on the table and pursue the fabled persona non grata dentata remedy. —freak(talk) 10:01, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)
If that's what happened, that's unfortunate. Whenever something's left in limbo like that it's hard to get going again. I don't feel particularly inclined to pursue arbitration myself, but I certainly can agree with your sentiments. Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently per Fred Bauder's talk page, Homey, Fred, SlimVirgin and Jimbo are in negotiations regarding his status. I would probably leave things at status quo (neither unblock nor block any new suspected socks) until something is worked out and they let us know. Thatcher131 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see that. Thanks a million for the help, I will follow that advice. Snoutwood (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish the arbcom would stop taking the easy way out of avoiding making a decision based on the usually faulty argument that the troublesome user has left the project, as they almost invariably come back and we have to start all over again. I seem to recall similar things having happened with Lir, Xed and Wik. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, to put it otherwise, that the decision is made regardless of the person having left. However, that does seem to be changing (cf. Giano's ArbCom case and the remedies regarding Kelly Martin after her leaving the project). I'd love to see that continue. Snoutwood (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Snoutwood, what was the evidence that Flowcube was Homey? Feel free to e-mail me instead if it's sensitive. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear :) See Special:Undelete/User talk:Flowcube, particularly [1]. Snoutwood (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't quite see what it is. You mentioned the check user and RfAr pages; was it IP evidence or editing style or something else? Again, please e-mail anything that might be sensitive, if it's no trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to Flowcube's most recent edit summary "FUCK OFF HOMEY IS BACK U WANKER", which you can see by scrolling down on the undelete page, as well as the contents of the entirely self-created talk page, which includes a number of sockpuppet templates in which Flowcube claims to be Homey. Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Snoutwood. By all means keep it blocked because it's clearly a troublemaker, but in fairness possibly not Homey. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed so, in fact, the chances are probably fairly low. But agreed that either way it should remain blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the ip behind this, and several other prank accounts. Fred Bauder 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll do a checkuser to be sure, but my own guess is that this is a troll who is just trying to stir the pot with respect to Homey. It would be very odd for Homey to do this sort of thing at the very same time that we are having a big conversation about his future status.
This example shows quite nicely why good users should never sockpuppet. And especially by users who have been involved in conflicts should never sockpuppet. Once you sockpuppet and get caught, you are an easy target for trolls to pretend to be you sockpuppeting again, just to make more people mad at you. I have no actual evidence that this is or is not homey, other than his denial and that it would seem rather a bit strange for him to do this at this time.--Jimbo Wales 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


saw the person recieve test4im on recent changes, looked at his contributions, and noticed he redirected idiot to jew. he also put {{hoax}} on the hindu article, which is why he got the warning.

links:racism (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Username blocked. --InShaneee 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) sockpuppetry[edit]

Checkuser reveals that there is a lot of abusive sockpuppetry going on here. The following are all the same person:

I hope an admin can look into this. Dmcdevit·t 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled the AfD, and Srikeit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indef'd all the socks. Presumably the socket can ask for one and only one to be unblocked if they wish to play nicely. -Splash - tk 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, they do not appear to have collaborated on any other AfDs. -Splash - tk 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but this is !@#!@# great. I had practically given up editing in articles related to Malayalam because of the sheer impossibility of getting nn articles deleted because of stray votes and "reverse-systemic bias". But stuff like this one and AfDs like this keeps me going.

I was active in the first AfD for Jitesh and a related one, but by the time I saw the second nomination, it was well on the way to keep and did not even bother to comment.

Many of us who work in the Malayalam articles "knew" that they were sockpuppets, but the way Checkuser terms are phrased, it was pretty difficult to get one done on mere suspicion. See User_talk:Ageo020/Archive_1#List_of_suspected_socks_of_User:S.Jithesh for some "new" users who appeared for the first AfD. Did Devapriya who voted in this Afd come clean ? User:Parayanali is another user who has showed a similar edit pattern (though he had made only two edits) Tintin (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems she followed my AfD votes. See her AFD votes vis-a-vis my AFD votes. I find the coincidence eerie.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And she even voted exactly as you did, even though your opinion was often in the minority. Looking at her editing pattern, you would have got a barnstar in a couple of days :) Tintin (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Well luckily I'm not a sock though my POV is generally keep except in cases of cruft or nonsense. On India-related articles, I "vote keep first, work on later". Barnstar would have been nice.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs), an anonymous IP, keeps posting a dubious bunch of "trivia" to the Republic of Texas (group) article. This has been added by other users / anons earlier, and always removed by consensus. This time, the user included an attack on others who remove the section: "Anyone who removes this section is obviously little and knows nothing" *Dan T.* 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet/troll whatever[edit]

this user moves straight away (within 6 edits) to a RFA and makes replies like this --Charlesknight 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Please block anon user [2] for blanking several article sections. Markussep 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaia Football Clubs Association[edit]

Many users at this discussion have come from the Greek Wikipedia to vote keep on Achaia Football Clubs Association. There have been many accusations of people being either meatpuppets or sockpuppets and it has gotten out of control. There have also been personal attacks on multiple users. It would help if an admin could sort this conflict out. T REXspeak 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
See my vote on the almost deleted page to view my opinions on the subject. I will do more research, if necessary. If not necessary, please let me know.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, after reflecting on the matter I've had a change of heart. See: Billy i.e.The Billster 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing this, since I was interested in the subject exactly above. I think it is kinda unfair to treat a team like that, no matter how un-notable it may be. I'll go ahead and vote, but you must admit there's a huge fuss about nothing. I also noticed several accusations about sockpuppets of the other side... •NikoSilver 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock of banned user WikiWoo (talk · contribs) being uncivil[edit]

Brampton 2006 (talk · contribs) is being uncivil, disruptive and engaging in personal attacks while editing two pages: Brampton, Ontario and Brampton municipal election, 2006. His pattern of edits and accusations that other editors (namely me) are corrupt and deliberately trying to deprive the public of information with our edits reminds me of banned used WikiWoo aka WikiRoo (talk · contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk · contribs) aka GST2006 (talk · contribs) aka (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Could an admin check into his behavior? Also, I plan on filing a checkuser request, but WikiWoo's talk page has been erased. Could someone make it available to me so I could find the diffs I need to file the reguest? Thanks. JChap2007 23:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol has taken care of this for me. JChap2007 04:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BenBurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Is recruiting people to vote in a 'deletion review'. Is this appropriate? --Tbeatty 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be problematic if the recruiter is only enlisting people who agree with him. Usually that's fairly easily dealt with by assuring that those who voted in favor of the deletion are also contacted; maybe ask him to do that himself just for the sake of WP:AGF? Even if he doesn't comply, it's easy to do on one's own.
(I'm not an admin, so those who are, please correct me if I'm wrong!) --Masamage 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
He is only recruiting "friends" as far as I can tell.--Tbeatty 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that many who originally voted for deletion are part of an organized group with an admitted agenda, and that this matter (deletion review) is noted on their noticeboard, as was the original AfD, and the subsequent DRV. 'Conspiracy' Noticeboard Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To some extent, it doesn't matter. AFD is not a vote. DVR isn't either. Repeating a weak argument doesn't make it stronger. But no, it's not appropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has also placed clearly inappropriate warnings on my talk page. See, for example, this {{npa3}} (referring, I believe, to posts on that deletion review), which may have warranted an {{agf}}, and this {{threat2}} which apparently refers to this post on his talk page. I cannot comment without escalating the issue, which I do not want to do. However, a block may be in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the warnings were a bit of stretch. I've reminded him that he is equally bound as you are to assume good faith. -- JLaTondre 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grace Note and User:Gracenotes[edit]

Grace Note has been a long time contributer here and it appears we have another long time contributor named Gracenotes here too. I think having two users with this similar a name and being as active as both are, there could be reason for one of them to change thier username. Do you think we should ask either of them to change it? semper fiMoe 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it been a problem yet? If not, I wouldn't worry too much, but you're right that it could be confusing. Rather than ask either to abandon their name, maybe we could ask them to make a note on their userpages of being different people. (Just like article disambiguation in the mainspace.) --Masamage 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I left a message at User talk:Gracenotes. He probably ought to change his user name but doesn't absolutely need to; he could leave a note on his user page instead. I saw an edit by Gracenotes in my watchlist today and thought Grace Note had changed his username. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All right. I've put this message on the top of my userpage:

This user's name is "Gracenotes". If you're looking for the user "Grace Note" go here.

If Grace Note wants to put something like that at the top of his userpage, he should feel free, or someone else could do it. Interesting, this is not an "Incident" per se. I really don't want to change my username, because it's in my e-mail adress, AIM name, Slashdot account, account on other Wikimedia things... so, the above should work. By the way, Idont Havaname, what edit did you see of mine? It's remarkable that out of this many active users you've "matched" just two. --Gracenotes T § 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Nice edit summary, Gracenotes. Classy. I almost heard film-noir music play. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There are several other pairs of well-known users on Wikipedia who have had similar user names: User:Essjay and User:Sj, User:RedWolf and User:Redwolf24, and User:RickK and User:RK. I think all of them, at some point or another, have posted messages at the top of their user pages saying that they're not the other one. The original AN/I post about Grace Note / Gracenotes came before my message did.
The edit I saw on my watchlist was to the Esperanza Members page. Most of the pages that I edit end up on my watchlist almost by default. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ral315 felt a need to add a dablink so people wouldn't confuse him with Raul654 [3] Hbdragon88 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive continuous editing in... Malakas[edit]

Sorry, to post that here, but it's just over the top with this anon! He/she repeatedly reverts all involved users, introducing their own personal etymology theory, based on an amateur unofficial site, while removing the citations from acknowledged Greek dictionaries. The edits are obvious vandalism to any Greek speaker, but this is just one point. Here are the rest:

Sorry for taking up your time with what appears to be a ...malakia of a debate, but can someone help relieve 5 or 6 users constantly reverting that obvious vandal? •NikoSilver 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: New sock User:Openware2007, broke WP:3RR, made a racial slur ("Malaka Ellina" = "You *#$%@&% Greek") and declared he WP:OWNS the article ("I created this wiki entry. So piss off, look it up" -partly in Greek).[16] •NikoSilver 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He has also been trolling the talk page [17]. In that last edit, "Poutses" is extremely vulgar language.--Tekleni 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And has created yet one more sock: User:TaMyalaStaKaggela (="brains on cage-bars" - Greek hooligan motto). [18] •NikoSilver 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I protected the article. As an aside, I don't think we should have this article in the first place. Everything that isn't original research could fit at Wiktionary. Jkelly 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Talk:Alexander the Great[edit]

I'm expanding on a comment I made above. I believe several sockpuppets are participating in a mediation on Talk:Alexander the Great. In addition to the possible troll/sockpuppet Wissahickon Creek, we have:

Could someone please investigate further? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the checkuser came back inconclusive because I am not Cretanpride and actually innocent. Akhilleus, just because certain editors oppose your views doesn't mean you have to find ways to get rid of them. Do I share similar views as Cretanpride on this issue? Sure, but then again the vast majority of Greeks do, and I am not the only one who opposes undue weight of homosexuality injected into Greco-Roman articles. Takidis 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talkcontribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Whether Takidis is Cretanpride or not (and he does take some extremely similar positions), he certainly appears to be a single-purpose account, which should be taken into consideration. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if you gave me a chance to edit on other articles before labeling me a single purpose account. I don't think this is fair. Also, as I noted above, it doesn't matter if Cretanpride and I share similar views on this subject because so do most Greeks and so do other editors who have posted. Takidis 06:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I call 'em as I see 'em. Your first edit after creating your user page, on October 13, was about the issue of homosexuality and Alexander the Great.[19] Since then, you have edited only two articles unrelated to the issue of homosexuality in ancient Greece: Tarpon Springs, Florida and, tonight, a minor edit to Cyprus. That's several weeks of editing, with essentially all edits on a single topic. Sounds like a single-purpose account to me. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You've ignored the fact that so far I have only edited on four articles total. You've also ignored the fact that I've added three paragraphs to Alexander the Great which have nothing to do with homosexuality. If it's anyone whose violated wiki policy it's those who have assumed bad faith against me by ignoring me and accusing me of sockpuppetry even after I went checkuser and even after I requested one, and we know who those are. Takidis 06:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The paragraphs you added to Alexander the Great were about his relationships with women — a response to what you argued was the undue weight being placed on his relationships with men. That's absolutely related. You jumped right into the discussion at Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece with a long screed decrying the article's POV-ness and offensiveness to modern Greeks. You are correct that you have edited only four articles — and the vast majority of those edits have been to two articles with related debates. I'm not assuming bad faith here, just using my judgment as a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator. If other adminstrators disagree with my assessment, I will re-evaluate it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm mediator in this case. I was suggested to make a statement here that I'm not a sock of anyone. You may see very well this, just be checking with CheckUser. I have no relation whatsoever with anyone from that page. My simple purpose is to have an NPOV solution to that page. Thank you. Wissahickon Creek talk 07:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek's status as assistant mediator in this case is questioned by several editors. See here and [[#Requested block for User:Wissahickon Creek for disruption|here] on this page, and here at the Mediation Cabal's coordination page. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither all users supporting Cretanpride's arguments are Cretanpride's socks, nor is it permitted to WP:BITE new users simply because one doesn't agree with them. I support most of Cretanpride's argumentation (excluding ofcourse threats etc) and find it very sound and logical; am I Cretanpride? Also, Alexander the Great is one of the first articles a Greek would obviously visit in WP. Checkuser being inconclusive is one more argument. Takidis is an apparent fresh user, and his non-one-purposeness will definitely emerge in his following edits. I would appreciate if accusing users would have real evidence to his allegged sockiness to a permabanned user, which if not substantiated, constitutes a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:BITE. Otherwise please clear this new user's name. So, any "diffs", please? •NikoSilver 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave diffs in the initial post. Aside from this "fresh user"s familiarity with processes like Checkuser, there's also the small fact that he's edited two of Cretanpride's favorite articles. On Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece he insists that the views of Robert Flaceliere and Bruce Thornton must be included; in the past Cretanpride and his many socks have argued the same thing. Somehow I don't think there are many users that would start posting long passages from these particular scholars within a few weeks of joining WP; I doubt most new users even know that Flaceliere and Thornton exist. Takidis also insists that the views of Mary Lefkowitz and Victor Davis Hanson must be included in the article; thing is, these views come from blurbs on the back of Thornton's book, which a sock of Cretanpride has quoted before. (Diffs are above in the initial post of this thread.) The stuff about Vrissimtzis is also a continuation of argument that was already in process. (see, for instance, this diff and this diff). Takidis has added a few new wrinkles like the quote from David Cohen, but this is largely a rehash of material already posted by Cretanpride's socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It sure is suspect - while I find the Apro - Malaccoas farfetched, the only thing that can be said of Takidis that if he's not Cretanpride he must be his clone, because he doesn't only imitate his pov, but also his editing style. Also, it's hard not to remember that C. is certainly still editing, and has edited less than a month ago the article Alexander the Greece through a sockpuppet.--Aldux 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, none of the above is conclusive. Anybody having enough patience to read the archives and edit history could see those things. As per his non-newbeeness, that doesn't necessarily make him CP either. Many legit users have dissappeared and reappeared under a different username. That may well be the case here, and it is not objectionable. Also, keep in mind that people may not wish to use their real username for such issues, in order not to be called 'homophobic'. I suggest we watch this user's edits (as we obviously already do) and try to find anything that really connects him to CP. Other than that, and until proven otherwise, and unless violating a policy, he cannot be "ignored" in talk-pages. So go ahead and block him for something, or I'll be seconding every single edit of his, as if it were mine. PS. Now-now, Aldux, what are our friends from FYROM going to say with your "slip-of-the-tongue..." ("...speaking the truth") in wikilinking G.A. above? :-) •NikoSilver 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Arghh - a Freudian lapsus!!! I've been discovered as a covert agent for Greece in the Mocedonist Cabal! Oh well, I can always hope they won't read this thread. ;-))))--Aldux 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen, who performed several earlier checkusers on Cretanpride and his sockpuppets, has now confirmed that Takidis is another Cretanpride sockpuppet, and has blocked him. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

strange message[edit]

I got a message on my PDA phone stating that I edited something that I've never even heard of. Here is the link to the message I got:

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks. You can reply to me at [e-mail address removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

That lists several messages. Best to register a username if you do not wish to be subjected to these. El_C 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney[edit]

User:Bcplim has made, and reverted, a series of edits to St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, one of which apparently includes personal details about a member of staff. See [20]. It might be prudent to remove the offending edit from the article's history. Thanks. Gimboid13 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock invasion[edit]

I don't think we need checkuser here, since these are all obvious. They're all editing the same things, they're echoing each other in AfD's, they're all pushing the same POV - namely labelling certain rabbis and rabbinical institutions as practicing/condoning child molestation in total violation of BLP, and promoting certain activists and organizations that advocate against "clergy abuse". I am asking for another sysop to review these users and to indefblock the whole lot for abusive sockpuppetry and coordinated POV pushing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College. El_C 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding CrankingCraig (talk · contribs). - crz crztalk 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All indef blocked, I concur with Crz's conclusion. Obvious troll army. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Can someone please explain to Kittybrewster (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) that he cannot do cut and paste page moves. [(humorous) personal attack removed].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)


I hope admins are keeping an eye on the trolling from the oppose vote that has spiralled out of control. – Chacor 10:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


That user, Weixiang7326 was adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source in the article, Windows Vista. Please block that user. Thank you. -- 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam Gawronski (talk · contribs) misrepresentation of real life Adam Gawronski[edit]

It has come to my attention that someone has created an account using my real life name (Adam Gawronski) and proceeded to vandilise the St Pius X College article with offensive edits. Although these have since been revereted, the username (and hence my real name) still exists in the history. As you can imagine, I do not wish to have these comments under my name as they can be used against me even though I am not at fault. It appears that the same has happened under the username Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs), which is in fact the real name of a staff member at the school. As these users are both 'joke' users, obviously created exclusively with the intention of vandalising the St Pius X College article I do not believe that prior warning is required / would have any effect. This type of vandalism and misrepresentation I consider cowardly and also borderline illegal.

I would request that both Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs) and Adam Gawronski (talk · contribs) have their names changed so they are not impersonating anyone then blocked (so that their names do not appear in the history of the article, as I gather that deleting history of an article / deleting evidence of specific posts is not permitted/possible). I will then request (in the appropriate section) to have my current username (Gawronski) changed to Adam Gawronski to protect my online identity.

Gawronski 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This request should be directed to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard as only they have the power to change user names. Dragons flight 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Death threat against user[edit]

Just posted here. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Already indef blocked. --InShaneee 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131 blocked one minute after I posted. Thank you both. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I tossed a warning at the talk page, but I guess it's too late. --Masamage 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Indef block pending explanation. It looks like Theresa deleted some subpages of his (for good reason). If he has a convincing apology/reason, I'll unblock. Thatcher131 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems a little strange, but not particulaly threatening. Some kid I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to unblock him since you were the target, go ahead. I'll give him a second chance if he is willing to discuss the matter. Thatcher131 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
No I'm fine with you asking for an explanation first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not unblock anyone after a death threat, even if they say they're sorry or whatever. Even if you're okay with it, bringing them back gives them a chance to similarly harass and threaten others who might not be. I know the vast majority of them say they'd never really go through with it (etc) but that's no excuse to make it easy for the few who would. There's already been real-life murders on Myspace, and we don't need that here as well. Nobody should give their life for the privlege of editing a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Andrew. Certain edits are beyond the pale; death threats are one of those. If the person is truly contrite, they will create a new ID and edit properly from now on. If they revert to such behavior; they should be checkusered and permabanned on sight. -- Avi 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's high time we had a formal policy on Wikipedia specifically prohibiting death threats and excplicitly defining them as a bannable offense (our harassment policy mentions them in passing but is very vague). So I've started a very rough policy proposal at Wikipedia:Death threats. I welcome any additions, changes, or feedback. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just posted a CheckUser request in the IP check section asking for contact with the appropriate law enforcement agency and ISP with the results. Should this be required for every death threat posted on Wikipedia? I know that most are probably empty threats, but I am not comfortable about the possibility that someone's death threat is not an empty one. Jesse Viviano 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)



User not only violated 3RR (I didn't, because only 3 of my edits there are reverts), but reverted and protected the article to his ideal version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Steel359 for three hours for edit warring on Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. The protecting to his preferred version aside (that's territory for RFC and/or WP:RFAR), administrators should be expected to know better than to edit war on articles. He continued edit warring on the article after several users tried to contact him concerning his protection of the article, so I blocked to get him to discuss these instead of continuing this unproductive editing. Feel free to review this block, of course. Cowman109Talk 00:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Support this block based on the evidence presented here. Protecting to a preferred version while in a content dispute is also not done. Hopefully just an aberration though. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The block should be for 24 hours. I've never seen anyone blocked for less than 24 hours for 3RR before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Eight hour blocks are not uncommon. —Centrxtalk • 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Centrx. I see 8 hours used a lot for 3RR with experienced editors. Daniel.Bryant 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, having very obviously broken the spirit of 3RR, A Link to the Past should be very wary of asking for blocks of admins with whom he has been edit-warring, to be extended. Guy 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Supporting similarly to Lar, though Link has a point. I don't support changing the block length now that it's set, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The blocker said he did three hours to try to get Steel to engage in discussion, but he doesn't seem to have been interested in discussing it. So I think the block should be increased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) his block log has a good record, no previous blocks, and this block is in my view intended to get his attention and get him talking. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this block does the trick, why would a longer one be a good thing? I've given blocks as short as 15 minutes just to get people to stop and think about what they are doing. 3 hours seems right. Also, i'd rather we not establish the precedent of one of the parties to a dispute arguing about how long a block is for, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Admins should be blocked for longer than, say, a long-time regular user. They got the position, and if they violate a policy that could lead to a block, they s hould know better than to do such a thing. It's almost like special treatment to NOT block him for 24 hours. I got blocked for it, and my 3RR wasn't as nearly as bad as his 3RR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
All revert wars are bad. There is no such thing as "my reverts weren't as bad as his". Three hours is fine. Support block and block length. – Chacor 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
However, you've got quite a history. --InShaneee 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive; they are deterrent, preventive, and recording. In this case, the blocking administrator thinks that a 3-hour block will be sufficient to deter the user from future disruptive behavior. This could be because the blocking administrator has prior knowledge of the user, where otherwise he might give a default longer block, but that is not favoritism. —Centrxtalk • 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
InShaneee: I've been blocked twice before that blocked, and had them lifted. Also, what can be deterred? "Oh, three hours? Better take a nap/watch a movie/clean house!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
They can do whatever they like during the duration of thier block off-wiki. The point is to stop thier disruptive behavior on wiki. semper fiMoe 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109 just directed me to this discussion. I filed a report at WP:AN3 before realizing that a three-hour block already was in place. Had I noticed Steel359's 3RR violation before I became involved in the American/British spelling dispute, I would have placed a 24-hour block myself. If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than other users. It's true that 3RR blocks aren't punitive, but Steel359 reverted the page six times in a 14-hour period (during which he protected the page to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). He could use a 24-hour break to cool down. —David Levy 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the initial block does not do the trick, I would support a longer block. I don't see any sign of discussion on Steel's talk page... so not sure how it would play out, let us wait and see. But again, I don't see a party to a 3rr (Link) having any standing to comment on who got how much blockage. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's my belief that any user in good standing (including one with involvement) is entitled to comment on an issue (with others taking all of the facts into account). I obviously was not entitled to issue a block myself, of course. —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll take a break. I've been really moody for a while and I'm surprised it took so long for something like this to happen. Some important things in RL are coming up and I'd rather not be dealing with this at the same time. I don't intend to start a huge discussion on ANI when there are more suitable places, but I'm going to vent a little. The content dispute itself is about vgcharts - a site of videogame sales figures. This site (apparently) uses shipping figures to estimate a game's sales, and ALTTP has been removing these in good faith on the grounds that they're misleading. The text in the article makes it explicitely clear that they're estimates, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, when removing the sales info, ALTTP carelessly left sentence fragments lying around (see the third line here), and then later removed content unrelated to the dispute when reverting me [22]. As for the spelling, the article was almost totally rewritten during the process of taking it to FA. There was no conscious effort to change the style. But seeing as along the way it did change, I can't see why so much effort is being put into changing it from one version which isn't inconsistent to another version which also isn't inconsistent [23]. When I was reverted, I was pointed to the manual of style. The first bullet point there says: "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.". It was unconsciously changed from one to another as huge chunks of text were removed and new chunks were written (by me) from scratch, and the end product did use the same style throughout.
Like I said, sorry to moan about article stuff on ANI. I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia lately, and formal logic isn't going to revise itself, so this is quite a convenient point to take a break. I worked really hard on MGS3 to get it to FA, and suddenly people are parading in and making all these changes without a whisper on the talk page. And I'm going to stop there before someone accuses me of WP:OWN. -- Steel 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel, no. Just saying that it's an estimate does not cut it. Wouldn't you do the same if you saw a featured article saying "according to false information, Pocky & Rocky sold 800,000 copies"? Because that's what it is. I know the person who owns the site; on the forum that he posts on he's constantly plugging his site. It got so bad that VGCharts was banned from all sales discussions at NeoGAF. The owner of the web site, ioi, is not a professional by any definition of the word. In fact, I get review copies from various developers in the industry to review on a site I work on, so I am actually more connected to the industry than he is, because he has absolutely no connections. Just because you specify that the source is an unprofessional estimater does not make the numbers any less bogus. Additionally, just because I unintentionally reverted something, yes, but that could have easily been added back without reverting the VGCharts information back, so don't claim I did it when you did it as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, your decision to take a break is a wise one. As I commented at WP:AN3, it was obvious to me that you were under a great deal of stress. (In our one prior interaction, you seemed quite reasonable.)
Regarding the dialect switch, I believe you when you say that this was unconscious, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improper. American spellings (such as "organization" and "humor") had been in use in the article since February 2005 (when the first dialect-specific spelling was introduced). You recently substituted British spellings, thereby creating inconsistency that remained until an anonymous user changed the heading "localization" to "localisation" a few days ago. When someone switched it back, you twice reverted (the first time with no explanation) on the basis that the article used British spellings.
Quoth the portions of the MoS to which I was referring:
"If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)"
"Follow the dialect of the first contributor."
"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."
I don't doubt that your conversion from American to British spellings was innocent, and I never ascribed malice; I simply restored the English variety originally used in the article. I've done the same thing with articles that were improperly changed from British English to American English.
In any event, I wish you the best of luck in your personal matters (and your wiki matters upon your return). —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The way I've always understood it is that the first contributor thing should be brought into play when there's an inconsistency. At the time you changed the style, there was no inconsistency, and so no need to revert to American spellings. Anyway, consider that my last message, I'm off now. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The "first contributor" rule takes effect when there's a dispute regarding which variety of English to use and no other valid reason to select one in particular. Otherwise, we would be inviting users to deliberately change established articles to their preferred dialects (citing the fact that this results in "no inconsistency, and so no need to revert"), thereby sparking massive edit wars. The fact that the article existed in consistent British English for two days (as opposed to the 1 ½ years in which it was written in consistent American English) didn't somehow render that particular status quo sacrosanct. —David Levy 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
However, if there were no dispute, such as if someone were to re-write a dormant article, the "first contributor" rule is irrelevant. —Centrxtalk • 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A message I received[edit]

If he'd said that about someone else he would probably be blocked (by me) by now. I really don't appreciate being talked about in that way and consider it exceptionally insulting. This isn't a "go and block him for me" request, but I'd be grateful if in my absence someone could remind him to AGF or something. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment that was unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I'd support a strongly-worded warning. – Chacor 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is true that you did 3RR, plus protected a page you were deeply to keep it at your preferred version and was only blocked for three hours. I mean, it wasn't as if you violated a petty policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An unfair case[edit]

Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of Chinese people and was blocked indefinitely. The reason given to me is a sock puppet case. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. The computer I used is one at my university computer lab, which is shared by all students. I think the administrator's action is totally unfair. I took a look at the sock puppet case and didn't see many similarity among those blocked editors. Most of them are just temporary accounts people use for the purpose of not revealing IP address. The accused user SNLE was indefinitely blocked only for sock puppet. I don't think sock puppet is justifiable for indefinitely block, as indicated in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page. Anyway, I think the administor is too arbitrary in making his decision in case of shared IP address. I wonder if some outsider could come and solve this case or at least ask the administrator to stop blocking people on unjustified bases. Thanks.User68732 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

" This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.

I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"— Preceding unsigned comment added by User68732 (talkcontribs)

Hello! For a person who are not claiming to be User:Snle, you seem to be awfully concerned about him/her. If you have checked the facts of the case, you would know very well that Snle and his/her sock puppets have not only engaged in disruptive edits and repeated violations of WP:3RR, but also made abusive edits and restored those edits when they were deleted. It is a pretty solid case, to say the least. Besides, I'm not sure this is the right venue to appeal a decision.--Niohe 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at SNLE's talk page. There is only a warning of possible 3RR. I don't think violation of 3RR deserves to be indefinitely blocked. I also see that SNLE engaged in discussion on the talk page. There is no disruptive edits. People just have different ideas. User68732 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle has engaged in massive sockpuppetry, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Snle. Khoikhoi 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the reason for you to decide whether SNLE has sockpuppeted is on a shared IP address. That will be wrong, because many of the accused editors don't share any similarities at all. User68732 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What examples are you asking? I used a shared IP address and got indefinitely blocked. Is it enought. I'm accusing you of misusing administrative power. I think it is better for you to keep out of this. User68732 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. --Masamage 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cerebral Warrior and the userpage saga[edit]

People keep reverting this editors userpage. While I don't think much of the content being reverted, agreement appears to have been reached (and concensus) on the users talk page, yet evern editors involved in that formal request to User:Cerebral Warrior.

It appears that there is an edit war of sorts on that page, where people come along and revert it, and others (myself included - twice at least lol) have reverted it back to the users version (as disagreeable as I find it), because there is a WP disclaimer at the top of the page, and it is for the editor to remove on request if required, not other editors. In my understanding, the only other people that should be taking direct action on an actual userpage are admins, pending refusal to comply with the rules or formal consensus requests (a formal request and apparent agreementof sorts being in evidence on this users talk).

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at the situation and take appropriate action to put an end to ths issue before it escalates further? thanks, --Crimsone 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user's talk page suggests there has been some kind of agreement and things are cooling off. If that is the case, I am reluctant to stir things up. Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that only admins should edit another person's userpage. All Wikipedia pages, including userpages, refeclect on Wikipedia's reputation IMO. We are here to write an encylopedia, not stir up hate or state our political opinions.If he wants to do that let him get a website - it's very easy nowdays. I believe that the userpage should go. I don't know if the consensus is with me on this, I will not act at the moment. However I urge those who are reverting the deleters to simply stop. No one has the right to say whatever they like on thier userpage, anything that inhibits conversation and compromise on articles is bad for wikipedia and hate speech does just that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on this. There are so many restictions on userpages already, we may as well do away with them. So let's phase them out. The next logical step in this process is to outlaw "Vanity pics". We are, indeed, here to write..not to advertise what a "cute kitty" or "bitchin car" I gotz duude. We have a firm concensus now against vanity articles, why not vanity images as well?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I meant - his userpage should go, not all of them. I think userpages can help bring a sense of community, but it's important to remember that they are given to wikipedians as a favor not a right. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Userpages only give the illusion of community and help create a false impression of what we're really here for. Policing them for inappropriate material is a drain on time and resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't MySpace. But even if userpages stay, vanity pics need to go.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I should mention though that in this case, the disclaimer was added per the talk page agreement with an administrator. I happily accept what you say as the norm, but surely after administrator agreement, the both sides of the dispute should drop the issue usually? The thing is, as disagreeable as I find it, I can't bring myself to define what's currently there as hate speech. A fine line is being tread with it undoubtedly, but in the context of the disclaimer, it's not really reflecting directly on wikipedia so much either. I believe the agreement on the talk page was twofold in this respect.

Not that I'm intending to ask for views on the content that is (though undoubtedly a part of this situatition), but rather, on the disruption surrounding the issue--Crimsone 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think such issues can (or should) cleanly be seperated from the nature of the dispute and its solution. Commenting on the dispute itself, users do not own their userpage, and anything divisive enough, no matter what disclaimers are on it, tends to go. --Improv 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. While I strongly approve of users making their POV known, I think this goes beyond what is acceptable. Unfortunately, Cerebral Warrior now believes that: "After extensive discussion, a compromise has been reached-I can put what I want on my userpage, provided I agree to a disclaimer stating that my views do not reflect those of the community. The disclaimer is prominently displayed, as is the content I see fit to put on my userpage.", which seems iffy to me. The editor continues to post to areas where his user page will continue to give offence ([25] for example) and has somewhat misrepresented my intervention ([26]). I feel it may be time for someone else to intervene, if anyone agrees with me that this content is unencyclopedic and inflammatory. --Guinnog 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
User:crazyeddie ahs created what amounts to a mini-rfc on each controversial element of the userpage on Cerebral Warriors talk page While a good idea in principle, I was wondering if a sysop might move the section to a subpage (or a different namespace) and run a history merge as appropriate before it all gets a little messy?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard [edit]

User:NuclearUmpf has decided to make this AfD an attack page on the nominator and myself. I attempted to remove these comments. [27] I then attempted to remove these comments to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard and stated that I was going to start an AfD on his behavior. User:NuclearUmpf has restored these comments. I don't want to get in a long edit war with this user. Travb (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Me and this user has a past history, please ask Thatcher131 for information regarding the past, including harassment, edit warring, bating, off wiki contacting of people I have disputes with, and now voting to delete a noticeboard I am involved with. The AfD in question accuses the participants of votestacking, Travb's example is actually an article that the nominator added himself. Anyway please see the MfD page and please direct questiosn to Thatcher131, as they are familiar with every aspect of this and can give you a run down of this users history. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have posted on Thatcher131's page requesting assistance in the matter. User_talk:Thatcher131#Travb_again --NuclearZer0 12:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO both of you need to stop, sit back and think about your actions. And probably both avoid that page, and each other, for a while. WP:RPA is not a guideline or policy, so it should only be used sparingly, and certainly not if there's been such a history of conflict. – Chacor 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear and I have some of the same interests (political articles), and I have actively avoided editing any articles which he has edited. The Afds, on the other hand, where everyone can "vote" does not disrupt Nuclear's editing. I had not mentioned Nuclear at all on this AfD, he began attacking me. I am not familar with AfDs, but long attacks on other users, I would think are not only irrelevant to the AfD, but against WP:NPA.
Thatcher131 is indeed familar with both of our history's, including NuclearUmpf own sordid history, which I won't go into here.
User:Chacor wrote: "probably both avoid that page, and each other, for a while" I agree, thanks for the great advice Charcor. If User:NuclearUmpf will avoid editing the page, so will I, despite his attacks still being on the page.
Anyway, I am now logging off now for several hours. I would appreciate an admin who has not been involved with either of us before, looking over the AfD. I would like these attack comments removed please. Travb (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but tell you that you are violating WP:AGF by calling a large group of editors to be votestackers, then to remove proof that you indeed do vote in the same manor, in an article you complained about the votestacking at, is far from a personal attack. Further pointing out the nominator's block 3 days before for vandalizing that page and disruption as well as WP:POINT violation, is certaintly relevant to the discussion. Your arguement that people who follow that noticeboard are votetacking is quite obsurd when faced with the fact that you have voted in a similar fashion. I would like to point out that he removed also a listing of who voted how on the article he was complaining about, showing his voting in step with the majority of editors on that noticeboard, however also showing that they did not all vote alike. The truth hurts I guess. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you didn't seem to catch the message above, I'll reiterate: you're both in the wrong here, and you both need to start avoiding each other for a while before you both get yourselves blocked. --InShaneee 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think you understand, they posted on an MfD for a noticeboard I participate on. I cannot avoid this user if they are seeking me out. To threaten both of us makes little sense in this case. Should I not participate in MfD's for things I am a part of, that this user is aware I am a part of? Please do not make blanket comments, perhaps there needs to be a resolution here instead of admins saying simply play nice, its apparently that won't happen with them shadowing me. --NuclearZer0 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider this your last warning; language like that you just used is not acceptable. You two are antagonizing each other, and it needs to stop. --InShaneee 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking briefly at this current dispute, we have Travb refactoring comments on the MfD (not just Nuclear's) and deleting Nuclear's explanation of his !vote and replacing it with a simple signature. We also have NuclearUmpf personalizing his response to Travb rather than just focusing on the matter at hand. I would advise Travb not to refactor comments on XfDs (admins are generally not dummies about double votes) and especially not to refactor or edit comments made by someone with whom he is in frequent dispute. Nuclear should stick to the matter at hand and not discuss motivations or behaviors of other editors. (Fair to point out the nominator's history regarding the page; unhelpful to accuse Travb of violating AGF.)
Since you guys seem to generate the most friction over XfDs, I think the next step would be Wikipedia:Community probation banning both of you from all XfD discussions for some period of time (2 weeks, a month?). Nuclear's arbitration probation allows him to be banned from pages he disrupts, but I don't think it would be equitable to ban only Nuclear from XfD since this seems to be a mutual thing. (There's probably enough crap just in the AN/I archives to file a new RFAR, which neither of you wants; Nuclear for obvious reasons, but I doubt Travb would be treated like an innocent victim.) Thatcher131 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again Thatcher131, I appreciate you actually looking into the disputes to see what the issue is. I apologize for my accusation of AGF to Travb. But the truth is this constant bumping heads with him is starting to annoy me, and worse that fact that admins simply do not want to deal with it. I am tired of being poked and prodded and would prefer not to edit Wikipedia anonymously, but it seems this issue will keep coming up as long as Travb has a name to attach me to. I will start logging my interactions with him now on as I do not see an a RFAr too far off in the future and I feel I am being constantly baited and threatened by this user. --NuclearZer0 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Whats an xfD? I would be happy to abide by anything Thatcher wants, voluntarily.
User:NuclearUmpf makes a lot of accusations, which I will not waste anyone's time with responding here.
My only comment is that I find it ironic of User:NuclearUmpf reaccuring talking point, he always yells, "I am a victim" when a quick, casual look at his talk page and edit behavior shows that their are dozens of editors which he has or is currently butting heads with, not just me.
Again, I will volutnarily abide by anything that Thatcher says, with or without Nuclears cooperation.
But before I can, it would help if someone could explain what an Xfd is, because the XFD wikiarticle seems wildly off topic.
{5 minutes later} Found my answer: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes "Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes." I won't edit any XfDs until November 30, 2006, one month from today, as Thatcher131 suggests.
I would appreciate an editor deleting Nuclear's irrelevant attacks on me and the nominator on the AfD. I ask Nuclear too do this as a courteousy, but he removed my message again from his talk page.[28] Travb (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We were asked not to post on eachothers talk pages, please abide by that. --NuclearZer0 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
X is a common denominator for a variable, in this case X means any of the deletion type pages, MfD, AfD, CfD etc. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to complain about the actions and behavior of NuclearZer0 and also GabrielF in this MfD. I have brought forth what I consider VERY serious charges, that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda. I complied a list of editors, and how they voted in a particular AfD. 2 editors listed, including Nuclear, inserted comments which many might consider not only trolling, but as vandalism, as the comments destroyed the formatting of the list.

Please see Example One (note that NU made two edits to his unhelpful comments) Example Two. Their actions and tone indicate that they're not taking this seriousely. What is the next step in the escalation process? I would like to have several POLITICALLY NEUTRAL Admins look into these serious charges. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF please, the following are innappropriate:
  • "that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda."
Also MfD is not the place to wage your charges. I will not this in the MfD. I objected to being classified into a list and labeled, this user ignored that even though its against the spirit of Wikipedia and so I added a joke, I would like to be removed from the list as I am not a member of any board, not even at the company at which I work, and labeling people is disruptive and hurtful to everything Wikipedia stands for. --NuclearZer0 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiona Mont article[edit]

Could a kindly admin put this article on their watchlist. I have been an editor on the article but came across it by hitting the random button. It appears the last few days have seen numerous attempts by interested parties (indeed Fiona Mount appears to be editing the article herself) to edit the article to provide a more "favourable" view of events. I am particularly concerned with edits such as this, which wouls appear to me to be libelious.

--Charlesknight 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be Graham Hesketh (Mont's husband) is involved as well. See User: --Guinnog 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wedge (TV show) / User:Shaggy9872004[edit]

Persists in removing the 'criticism' section of The Wedge (TV show), requiring users to revert the article on at least a daily basis. Has never given a valid reason for doing so, and is aware that nobody agrees with their actions. Also fraudulently posed as a Wikipedia authority early on, threatening "Please do not move/edit. By order of Wikipedia. YOU WILL BE CAUGHT". 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on their Talk page, and will keep an eye out. Remember, you can always try to discuss with the editor or on the article Talk page before taking something here. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account[edit]

Hi folks. I know this isn't normally the proper place to report vandalism, but WP:AIV is only for recent vandalism that needs immediate stopping, and I can't find any other place to report this. Apologies in advance, and I'd appreciate direction to the proper place for future reference. Anyway, my issue is with UB16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), an account whose sole purpose is to blatantly vandalise the Doug Flutie article. I warned him with {{bv-n}} on 21 October but he started up again (at a much slower rate) a couple of days later. Every single one of his edits is to Doug Flutie and every single one is vandalism. I seem to recall a precedent for blocking vandalism-only accounts, so I believe that's what needs to be done here. Powers T 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Discuss it with the editor or on the article Talk page. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If this and this represent a content dispute, I'm Ann Widdecombe. Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In the future, accounts that have vandalised over a period of time can generally be reported at AIV - basically, anything that merits an obvious block after cursory investigation can be reported there. There's no 'statute of limitations' on accounts in the same way that there is on IPs - we ask for recent warnings/vandalism on IPs as otherwise we might block unrelated people, but with accounts we know for certain it's the same guy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I would have posted some diffs as evidence, but it would basically have been a copy-and-paste of his contributions log. Powers T 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They're back[edit]

They're back. [29] 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Devon Werkheiser[edit]

  • Just a heads up, if some people want to watchlist Devon Werkheiser, it's been the target of a really strange vandalism campaign the last few days where the vandals add information on his "death" (the guy is most certainly not dead) from a variety of causes. The anti-vandal bots and a few other users have been getting them so far, but I just thought I'd add it here. Thanks! -- Chabuk 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User: and Samurai stubs[edit]

An IP user User: has put {{db-copyvio}} tags on a huge mess of samurai-related stubs, mostly with titles starting with A. From what I can tell, none of those articles are actually copied from the source ( [30]), but the text is, in many cases, derivative. I unfortunately can't finish the job of de-speedying all of those right now. Could someone pick this up? Also, some kind of process should probably be opened to discuss those articles: while each one is distinct from the source (and has been from the start), the number of these articles all with derived text from the same source is worrying. (All the articles in question were created by the same user, too, Darin Fidika (talk · contribs).) Mangojuicetalk 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

These articles need to be looked at for copyright violation - the source material is clearly cited within the copyvio tag. In all cases, the content of the text is identical with minor rewording. This has been discussed at great length at Lord Ameth's Talk page. The end result was a call to "take whatever actions we deem necessary", so I have gone through and looked at the original source material on the Samurai archives, and have included the direct links in the copyvio tag. The tags I put in should not be removed without first taking a look at the source - the only source - used for these areticles. The definition of copyright violation needs to be discussed, then, however taking a paragraph and changing a few words around but keeping the meaning and idea the same probably should constitute copyright infringement. If someone had noticed this issue 10 months ago, it would not have become such a large job. I was trying to help out all of us contributors by taking care of this. There are well over 100 articles copied from the source website with minor rewording. As has been brought up on the lordameth page, a simply reworded copy of an article probably constitutes copyright violation. Furthermore, that aside, it shows poor scholarship, as these articles can not be verified. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
I'm in the process of removing all these speedy tags. May I suggest to User: (and I will do so on his/her talk page) that he/she do a global AFD nomination for these. I understand the copyright concerns, but I'm not going to unilaterally speedy-delete several dozen articles when the copyright violation is not perfectly clear. NawlinWiki 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Along with what Nawlin says and what is at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems, these aren't blatant copyright violations copied from a website with a clear copyright notice. Therefore, these are not a canidates for speedy deletion. WP:PRODing or taking these to WP:AfD would be the best solution. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A mass AfD has been started up now on the issue, in case anyone was curious. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Katsuyoshi. Mangojuicetalk 06:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted links to possible attack pages[edit]

I reverted a couple of links to what may have been attack pages against John Pugh, a Member of Parliament for Southport in the UK. (diff 1, diff 2) It's a contentious situation (from a user whom I know from other contexts), so I wanted to have an admin "check over my shoulder" to make sure I didn't jump too fast. Justin Eiler 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're well within the recommendations of WP:LIVING. Jkelly 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested block for User:Wissahickon Creek for disruption[edit]

Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) has not heeded warnings to cease disrupting Wikipedia, most recently with disruptive pagemoves despite having been asked not to move pages without proper discussion. He has also recently been warned about the scope of his contributions and has ignored advice here and on his talk page[31]. His behavior is consistently disruptive and he has shown a great capability to make discussions less productive, cf WT:RFA, Talk:Alexander the Great, Template talk:Countries of Europe. --Keitei (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of things, he hasn't done much, or am I missing something? He only moved that page in question once, and has not done so since these warnings. Cowman109Talk 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read this discussion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Cowman, If you dig a little you'll see that none of his pagemoves have had consensus. His attitude and personal attacks on people make it particularly difficult for anyone to work with this editor. Someone should be keeping an eye on his behaviour for sure, but it hasn't gotten to the point of needing a block yet. pschemp | talk 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keitei don't you think you react to harsh? You don't assume good faith I suppose. Wissahickon Creek talk 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Imposters Mycroft.Holmz, Hemto[edit]

Mycroft.Holmz (talk · contribs), already blocked due to username, is in a content dispute with established account Mycroft.Holmes (talk · contribs). [32] [33] "Holmz" has another imposter sock Hemto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), obviously of me, Femto 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Need some assistance with a user who insists on pumping an article about a car[edit]

There is a user (User:Voritecorp) who has repeatedly moved the article HSV Holden to the top of the Wikipedia:Peer review list despite warnings on his Talk Page and in edit summaries. This behavior has occurred at least 5 times and has been reverted each time. I have not been involved in this edit warring but have noticed it happening via my watchlist. As far as I can tell it's not a violation of WP:3RR but it surely violates Wikipedia rules involving commercial promotion. Based on a Google search, Vorite Corporation appears to be related to the sale of cars.

I would like an admin to drop a note on his Talk Page explaining the issue and warning him that he can be blocked for continuing such behavior (if I am correct that this is blockable behavior).

--Richard 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The username is disallowed as it is the name of a company that he has been active in promoting on wikipedia. As such that is advertising. Userblocked per username policy. pschemp | talk 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker insists on citing a mirror to make a point[edit]

I've tried very hard to communicate with him, however he refuses to reply to any message. On the Aiden article, he insists on citing (a listed mirror) to verify a piece of negative criticism. I'm not against the criticism if it can be verified, but there are no sources to cite to support the criticism. User:Deathrocker has been very difficult in the matter and refuses to discuss. He would rather revert-without-comment any edit that gets in the way of his agenda. Please help. --EndlessVince 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Deathrocker has violated his revert parole imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker by reverting the disputed source 5 times in the last 6 days (he is limited to one revert per day and two per week). I could block him. But I am not inclined to do that because no one has discussed this issue on the article talk page. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this kind of content dispute. You're both going about it the wrong way, so I'm not going to drop the block hammer on him just yet. Bring it up on the article talk page, explain why it is a non-reliable source, and if he continues to revert, report it here or at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't see why posting on the articles talk would make a difference, sure it could get wider input, but the user has tried to bring this up directly and (without checking) he apparently has chosen to ignore it. As far as I am aware there is no rule which says "thou shalt use the article talk page rather than approaching an editor directly to resolve an issue", and if there were such a rule, I'd certainly ignore it as being ridiculous. --pgk 07:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Revert warring without discussion is bad whether the reverts are rapid or slow. Over the period of time where this citation has been inserted and removed there was no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. Still, you have the same block button I do, and if you see it differently then drop a block on Deathrocker per his arbitration. Thatcher131 12:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss the point (or I miss the point). I read the above comment as being I'm not going to act because you didn't follow some "correct form" of posting on the articles discussion page. Indeed on Deathrockers talk your comment comes across (to me) as suggesting that EndlessVince is in part to blame for Deathrockers actions, by putting him in a situation where he could easily archive the comments without responding. If EndlessVince has made a good faith effort to resolve the situation that should be recognised, and there should be no excuse for Deathrocker ignoring that (regardless of Arbcom sanctions or not). Elsewhere anyone saying you didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's would be pointed towards wikilawyering or not a bureacracy. In this case by the word of the arbcom ruling Deathrocker is in the wrong without any discussion on any page being required. Now I haven't looked into the situation and I'm quite prepared to accept that this situation may be resolvable without resorting to a block, but that is different from saying I'm not going to do it because you didn't follow the correct form. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but that's how it came across to me. --pgk 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

EndlessVince requested a source, so I provided one. Which he blanked because he "likes the band". I have made a compromise edit however,[34] putting a "cite" tag inplace of the mentioned source is it is somehow consider "disputable". - Deathrocker 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source if you wish to be afforded encyclopedic consideration. El_C 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If he insists on a citation, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the edit, and it can be removed until you do. Plus you still violated your revert parole. Please be more careful. Thatcher131 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not really important but I've stated 3+ times that I've never even listened to the band. --EndlessVince 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari Improper closing of an AfD with deletion without consensus[edit]

I strongly believe that this admin based his decision on his PERSONAL opinion of the article rather than the consensus of the editors involved in the AfD for Andy_Stephenson because that was what his ending comments say he did. I believe this was an abuse of administrator's powers because; 1. There was no consensus, not even close. 2. The rules do not allow for personal opinions in that role. 3. The article absolutely met WP:NOT and WP:BIO. Finally, this AfD was launched for political reasons because the subject of this article is an embarrassment for certain groups of American Ultra-conservatives. Please investigate this matter, especially as regard to whether the rules were followed by the closing admin. BenBurch 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what the deletion review endorsing the deletion was supposed to deal with. In other words, there are many editors who don't agree with you. (As I believe I was one of them, I won't comment on the issue itself.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to his closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson, Naconkantari closed the AfD based on the guideline WP:BIO, not based on his personal opinion. "The rules", as you call them, actually allow for administrators to use discretion in closing AfDs, and indeed to close against the numbers if the policy based arguments are stronger on that side. AfD is not a majority vote. As for whether the closing admin followed the rules, the rules are that closing admins should call 'em as they see 'em. If you disagree with a closing, that's what WP:DRV is for. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought admins weren't better than regular users? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, admins aren't "better". They are, however, trusted to do things like closing controversial AfDs with an understanding of the complementary roles of policy and consensus at Wikipedia. Naconkantari seems to me to be doing good work in that department. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
They don't have any more rights, if that's what you mean? They have extra responsibilities, one of which is to exercise judgement and discretion when closing AFDs. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not really an extra responsibility. An admin could easily have a no consensus result go in that admin's favor - technically, their input can be enough to cancel out enough keep or delete votes to make it a consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That AFD was a pretty clear delete. The majority of the keep votes were done by blatant sockpuppets anyway. This really isn't the place to discuss this, though. Take this to RFC, not here. ANI is filled with enough improper stuff as it is. Cowman109Talk 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I counted all votes not from sockpuppets or those spammed - 24 delete, 21 keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The number of votes isn't really supossed to matter, the points made are, right? If the people voting Delete were making more logical sense than the Keeps, then the result was Delete (or vice versa).--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Deletion Review is over here. This has no place on WP:AN/I. Thank you, that is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This just came off of DRV. Aiee. —Cryptic 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been deleted, been through deletion review and through a speedy delete of recreated material. Three different admins closed these three items. Move on. It's gone as it should be. --Tbeatty 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, take it to RFC if you want to complain about the administrators. Please, don't reply to this thread any further as this is not the place. Cowman109Talk 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in with one comment. User:Naconkantari did not explain his rationale and how he arrvived at concluding that consensus had been met. His summation was 'failed WP:BIO' This was not an appropriate statement of finding in light of the fact that dozens of editors hotly contested this AfD, and spent HOURS debating - pro and con. IMHO his inaction of not explaining his reasoning was lacking in content to the point of negligence, and totally unacceptable for an Admin. Here is a fantastic job by a admin. example one -- here was his nacon's UNacceptable. I would also like to know if he picked this AfD to mediate, or it was assigned to him. I see that he himself has edited on the Conspiracy Noticeboard which could call into question his impartiality. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • FAAFA, I don't believe you're familiar with the way things work on Wikipedia. I would suggest you hang around for a few months and learn the ropes before accusing people of impropriety. What Naconkantari did was appropriate. Take care. --Improv 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Looking at the page in question, arguing consensus seems hard. If the AfD was closed for any other reasons, that needs a clear and conspicious explanation. I see nothing in WP:BIO that forces the deletion of this article (and indeed, it is only a guideline). The place to assess notability is the AfD. It may very well be that User:Naconkantari had good reasons for his decision and acted in good faith. But then it is his duty to commincate these reasons. Wikipedia is run by the community of editors, not by admins. See the Simon Pulsifer case.--Stephan Schulz 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a common problem when 'consensus judging' becomes 'process judging'. Naconkantari closed it as a delete not due to consensus, but for 'failure to meet WP:BIO'... but many respondents to the AFD argued that it did meet WP:BIO - and many argued that it did not. At which point Naconkantari decided whether or not HE thought it met the WP:BIO standards and that's the way the AFD went. Essentially, his opinion alone. I tend to think in situations where there is a disagreement about how policy applies to something that's where we need to look to consensus... rather than saying 'this view of policy is correct and therefor consensus is irrelevant'. The latter seems to get used for alot of controversial closes. It makes me nervous when we start doing things that don't have consensus because 'this is the right decision'. That essentially makes consensus subservient to the personal opinions of admins. We trust admins to interpret consensus, but does that extend to saying that 'we trust admins to interpret policy regardless of consensus'? Obviously, I've got a 'dog in this hunt' as I created the page. At the time, an ArbCom member said we needed to have it. Now it is described (by some) in rather less positive terms. :] Opinions shift over time and vary by individual... which is why I thought we had consensus as the standard for decision making. --CBD 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't consensus the main body behind the AFD?? --SunStar Net 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not voting - it's discussion based on arguments, and it is judged by the closing admin. Judging it as if it were a vote is a far greater wrong than using individual judgement -- the latter is what is supposed to happen. --Improv 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not a process, it's a state, and, in my understanding, a state where a large majority agrees on something, and few if any substantial counterarguments are still upheld. If you see this state in this case, you have very different eyesight from me. --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, if an article fails Wikipedia notability standards, it will be deleted, even if every single member of Wikipedia advises "Keep" on the AfD. AfD is not a vote, and consensus does not over-ride policy standards. Justin Eiler 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That determination is part of the AfD, not a task for the closing admin. In fact, I would say that determining notability is the main purpose of AfD. Copyvios or violation of WP:BLP are something that usually can reasonably be decided by an admin. It's much less a matter of opinion. Notability cannot so easily be decided by one person alone, and luckily it does not have to be decided by one person alone. There is no urgency in that case. To quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: " the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus" (emphasis by me). What do you think is the purpose of having AfD as a consensus process?--Stephan Schulz 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent} Stephen, you said "That determination is part of the AfD, not a task for the closing admin." This is partially incorrect: while notability can be argued in AfD, admins are not only required, but empowered, to make decisions regarding notability, verifiability, and reliability of sources. They can be overturned by deletion review (or by ArbCom if it comes to that)--but this case was reviewed by DRV, and the decision to close and delete was upheld--not by Naconkantari, but by a different admin. Then when the article was re-created, it was speedied by yet another admin.

Stephan, Andy's death was a tragedy--I completely and totally agree with that. Andy is remembered by his friends and co-workers, and I respect not only that memory but the grief of those who lost a friend and loved one. But these are emotional considerations--Wikipedia cannot be swayed by emotional considerations, no matter how convincing such arguments seem to be when those emotions are running high. Naconkantari was required to decide whether or not Andy Stephenson met the requirements of WP:BIO--and in his best judgement, he did not. DRV concurred. While Andy's friends and family will grieve, Within the context of Wikipedia the issue is over and done. Justin Eiler 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. To make my position clear: I do not argue that the article should be recreated. In fact, I have not heard about Andy Stephenson outside this discussion - if he is notable, the notability has not reached my side of the pond. As you can probably deduce from that, I don't forward the argument that he was (or is) notable myself. What I do complain about is an admin disregarding (my interpretation of) reasonable policy. It's not the result I'm concerned about, it's the process (or lack of the same). If we follow your argument, we don't need AfD at all. Just delete, and shoot it to WP:DRV. But of course, as "no consensus" means "maintain the status quo", a controversial delete will not be undone at DRV. Our policy up to now has been "if in doubt, let's keep it" and I think that's reasonable. Having a non-notable article is not a serious problem. In fact, add a million of them, and Wikipedia will still be nearly as useful and as valuable resource as it is now. Deleting a notable article lowers the value of Wikipedia (deleting a millon will do so in a very noticable way). --Stephan Schulz 19:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying your position.
As far as "disregarding reasonable policy," that is an unfortunate effect of the guideline that AfD is not a "vote." Admins must exercise judgement on these issues ... and unfortunately, such judgement is subjective, because like regular editors, admins are only human. Naconkantari is of course no better than you or I, but he is more experienced in Wikipedia policies than I am. In his judgement, the article's lack of notability over-rode the results of the specific AfD discussion.
Stephan, any subjective judgement made is not going to please all people involved or interested in that particular decision. The only other solution, however, is to make the AfD process entirely objective--but that would reduce the AfD process to a simple vote, complete with the ballot-box stuffing and sock-puppet brigades that have been seen in some of the more contentious AfD debates. If your issue with this particular deletion is the process by which it was undertaken, I can only tell you that I feel it is the better of the two alternatives.
I quite agree that the AfD process is an absolute mess. The only reason this particular process is used is it's less of a mess than the other alternatives. Justin Eiler 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Justin -- judgement calls have to be made, and a simple vote is far worse than admins, who understand and respect project goals, reading the AfD comments and judge based on that. If anything, we've seen far too little of what Naconkantari has done. Our policies mean nothing if we ignore them whenever enough people show up, without even giving much reason, and "vote" against them in the specific case. Good judgement and discussion is what we need, not simple voting. --Improv 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that judgement calls have to me made does not imply that they are beyond criticism. It's the only way we can hope to improve the judgement of people who have bad judgement. And at least in this case, I'd say the closing admin displayed very bad judgement. Contrary to your claim, I don't see this as appropriate, and as far as I can tell, this is not " the way things work on Wikipedia".--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's beyond criticism - it's a matter for Deletion review. --Improv 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Using the Administrators' Noticeboard as a means to do an end-run on a completed AfD and DR as well as an ongoing DR strikes me as inappropriate. This is a matter for dispute resolution, in my mind. Process has been followed here, and the incidents noticeboard is not for making appeals on policy or process.--Rosicrucian 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably a good suggestion, yes.--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There did not appear to be a consensus in either direction at the close of the deletion debate. What would be most helpful is if the closing administrator would explain why this fails WP:BIO so that future editors can address those concerns. I am willing to lend a hand if this article is given a chance at a fresh start. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 1 November 2006

Request for Clarification[edit]

WP:TGS/WP:GUS/WP:UBM was suppose to be a solution for all the userbox wars and deletions. Let users do as they want in their userspace (WP:JOU). So, here's the question. Admin User:Centrx has deleted