Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

ArbCom injunction violation ("banned" user editing)[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo regarding User:Hipi Zhdripi: 3) Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user. unanimously passed at 02:54, 21 October 2006.

..and: 4) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year' from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing.

As per the the article's history, Hipi Zhdripi has continued violating the injunction repeatedly under his traditional 172.... IP address. However, on 10 April. He also edited under his registered account. Besides this, he has been editing under 172. IP address quite a lot throughout all the past months. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AE. Naconkantari 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no issue here. He is banned from editing the article but he has only edited the talk page. While he could be banned from the talk page under the "disruptive editing" section of the ruling, this has not happened yet. Thatcher131 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:XColonelx[edit]

Could somebody figure out what's going on here? Corvus cornix 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And here? Corvus cornix 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Generic page-move vandalism I'd say. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The link is that these are all school kids going to Oldenburg Academy Oldenburg, Indiana.
  • Coolkristoff did nothing but vandalism and was the instigator of this mess.
  • XColonelx mixed anti-vandal reverts, stupid retorts on user talk pages, and some weird (uninformed, obviously) move page vandalism (to make a point?)
  • Patweisbrod and Lava64 did nothing good here, but nothing 'too' bad.
  • Coolkristoff has been blocked and should have been.
  • XColonelx has been blocked because of the page moves, and I won't disagree with that. (but consider unblock if asked?)
  • The rest of these could stand an additional warning about Wikipedia not being a social site.
Shenme 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice report, Shenme. Thanks. Corvus cornix 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bluefield needs a block[edit]

A content dispute over at Colin Cowherd and the show's page The Herd with Colin Cowherd has escalated, with Bluefield's frustrations boiling over and replacing the pages (and User:STS01's talk page) with a Personal Attack. He's admitted his frustration to me and says that he will not protest any block/ban on his account, and while I don't support an indef, I think he needs at least a short-term block to cool off SirFozzie 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This situation appears to be resolved for the time being. Would another admin who isn't about to start cooking dinner care to review this indefinite block? A Traintalk 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
While the user was clearly abusing editing priviledges, I erred in see it as a "vandalism only account" and have reduced the indef block I applied to 24 hours. I'll keep a watch on and reblock if necessary. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Should you have signed the block notice? I've generally seen them signed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
All entries should be signed.Rlevse 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...looking at it more closely, it appears it is signed, but the sig isn't showing up. I fixed it so the sig would show up properly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fecapedian (talk · contribs) blocked, need review[edit]

I've blocked Fecapedian (talk · contribs) indefinitely for, in addition to his username, glaring personal attacks, harassment, and incivility at various discussions related to Don Murphy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Need this one reviewed quickly, particularly given the most recent diff. --Coredesat 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Nothing productive from this user. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also endorse. Question is: whose sock did you block? Bubba hotep 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
AZJustice. --BigDT 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Viktym and RICO lawsuits[edit]

User Viktym (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting boilerplate text referencing civil RICO lawsuits claiming illegal pornography distribution and racketeering by companies such as UPS (diff), Movie Gallery ([diff]), etc. The text has obvious NPOV/undue weight/notability/reliable source problems, as I've detailed on the user's Talk page. Their latest action was to remove an old comment from an unrelated Talk page in what I assume is some sort of misguided attempt at tit-for-tat (diff). Could someone visit this user, whether as an admin action, or the sweetness and light "how to be a good Wikipedian" brigade, or adding the articles to watchlists, and take over this for me. - Quietvoice 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note and will monitor (but must shortly sign off for the evening, so someone else should as well). Newyorkbrad 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added another warning. I agree that the material and behavior are inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 05:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maxman24[edit]

Somehow i ended up looking at Special:Contributions/Maxman24, in which his first edit leads me to believe he is a sock of some kind. Not sure what/where to go, I'm posting this here. JoeSmack Talk 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since he gave away his password on his user page and invited others to use the account, I deleted the user page and blocked him indef as a vandal account. IrishGuy talk 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment and personal attacks by User:DaVoice[edit]

After heated debate on Talk:Wikipedia, DaVoice (talk · contribs) has violated WP:CIVIL and personally attacked me ([7], [8], [9] - all with a edit summary of "Refuting CloudNine's absurdities/absurd comments/absurd allegations"). He is now harassing me on my talk page, reverting to the same message each time. [10] [11]. I believe he has violated WP:NPA several times. CloudNine 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you both seem nice editors to me. Sorry for stalking you, Cloudnine, I was reading just a couple of hours ago your talk page, to check whether you replied to my last message regarding your invitation to add info at a WP alternative music page. After reading DaVoice's message, I went through Talk:Wikipedia, and I read the posts by you and him (ehm, I haven't finished yet). I would like to mediate on this matter, too bad when valid contributors waste their time in this way....--Doktor Who 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that some misunderstanding occurred between you and DaVoice: while investigating Wikipedia's policies and philosophy at Talk:Wikipedia, and joining the relevant discussion, he likely was seeking evidence that he had been misrepresented with regard to his famous link in an article. I'm sure that he didn't want to attack just you; you both should have suddenly moved your chats in a proper page. --Doktor Who 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL[edit]

Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs) is a user with a lengthy history of uncivil behaviour. Has recently lashed out with numerous personal attacks against BertieBasset on that users talk page. User is also blanking any/all warning he has received including past warnings for other policy vios. 156.34.227.198 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

user blocked by dgies.Rlevse 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nowonline[edit]

Nowonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) gone on self-destruct and applying inappropriate speedy delete tags to all his contributions, after consensus that some of his articles had major problems with WP:CSD, WP:RS and WP:COI. Tearlach 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John C. Autry was already in AfD, so I removed the author requested CSD template, because AFAIK, one WP process (CSD) cannot invalidate another in progress (AfD), unless an admin closes the debate as speedy. I assume if the article is a keep, then CSD will apply, though it is likely the article will be deleted.
As an observation, this is about the third instance of "WP policies don't apply to me, and if you won't let me do what I want, I'm going to behave wholly inappropriately" that I've seen in a week that's COI related. Would there be a way to prevent obvious COIs (and spam, for that matter) through the article creation process or by requiring a certain type of source to be cited in a new article before it is approved? MSJapan 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

141.155.10.116's continuing edit war at William S. Burroughs, etc.[edit]

This anonymous user has repeatedly altered the external links of the following articles: William S. Burroughs, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Mohamed Hamri, Bachir Attar, Frank Rynne, and other articles directly of indirectly linked to the Master Musicians of Jajouka and/or Paul Bowles. Said user claims, and I quote his own words here, that "FRANK RYNNE & JOE AMBROSE's article on Brink.com is Libelous against Paul Bowles & Living Persons. KEEP THIS OFF WIKIPEDIA". I left on a message on the user's talk page encouraging said individual to provide evidence in a public forum of said libel so that other editors and administrators can review it and decide if these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. I was ignored. He is well past the point of violating the 3 revert rule, and his continuing actions are vandalism. I gave him a level 4 warning, but it has not dissuaded him. He seems to have a grievance, and I would like, if it is possible, for there to be some kind of discussion of the matter. If this proves impossible, he needs a block to bring the vandalism to a halt. Thanks. ---Charles 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs. I don't have time to revert anything right now, though... Georgewilliamherbert 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:70.83.4.91 blanking vandalism warnings[edit]

User:70.83.4.91 has, on about eight occasions, removed vandalism and blankown warnings from his/her own talk page. This IP address has a history of vandalism on multiple pages and is attempting to hide this from others. Administrator intervention is required. Joeldl 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from their own talk page is not against policy. Naconkantari 04:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That is true, but:
  • 1. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages says that it is "frowned upon". Template:Blankown states that these edits may be viewed as disruptive; and
  • 2. More importantly, there is ample evidence that it is being done in order to facilitate further vandalism by preventing scrutiny. Knowing that somebody has previously made edits viewed as vandalism assists other editors in identifying nonsense or other inexplicable errors as vandalism. The majority of this user's edits have been of this kind. Something that is not against policy in general may well require intervention if it is done in the furtherance of something that is, such as vandalism. Joeldl 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 3. The fact that the warnings have come from multiple, independent editors makes it unlikely that any objections the user has to the warnings are founded. Joeldl 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
An administrator can check the block log before blocking to see if there have been problems from the address in the past. Simply removing the warnings from the page may be a bit disruptive in the short term, but in the long run, it's just not worth wasting time over. Naconkantari 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just ignore that guy, by reverting the warnings, you are giving him the attention he wamts. See WP:DENY. Only be concerned if he is really vandalizing articles. -- Hdt83 Chat 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo vandal update[edit]

As of this edit, this vandal is now targeting plastic surgery, I assume because drugs and prostitution, hag, Michael Prue and Cheri DiNovo are all sprotected. Natalie 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the link to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, although they might keep vandalizing it a different way. I've been thinking about the wisdom of anonblocking the IPs. Although the vandal claims to have a dynamic IP address, the same dozen addresses have been vandalizing the articles, so I think this claim is unlikely. Thoughts? Natalie 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Compliant[edit]

I'm wondering if this website is following Wikipedia's copyright status, since they have not cited Wikipedia but just copied and pasted the contents in. I don't see them as being a mirror of Wikipedia since they only copied one article, but I think this needs attention. [12] as compared to a part of the Tennis#History history. --KZ talk 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see [13] Naconkantari 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway[edit]

Link: George Galloway

The above article has been fully protected (by myself) since 22nd February 2007. The dispute revolves around a section about charges of anti-Zionism, Galloway's criticism of Israel, etc - a section which I removed from the article after protection, hoping that it would faciliate better communication on the talkpage. Quite apart from WP:BLP, Galloway is, as one editor puts it, 'notoriously litigatious', and there's a fairly real chance for the subject to bring charges against Wikipedia.

All unofficial attempts at mediation have been roundly rejected due in part to the nature of the above noted accusation, and in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be

This is a request for an impartial admin or experienced user to take part in the ongoing debate, and attempt to cool the flames, because an editor has asked me for help and I'm, quite frankly, out of my depth. The page has been locked for far too long, and consensus is nowhere in sight, mainly due to the fact that it's the same editors spinning out the same arguments. An editor new to the page and not party to the prior debates attempted to mediate with little progress. Some fresh insight into the matter would be great. After that the next step will have to be mediation (which has been rejected by some of the users), or an RfC.

Thanks, – Riana (with help from Jackbirdsong) 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It seems to be an unfortunate rule that Religion+Wikipedia=really, really sucky articles. Grr. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you'll have to rule me out of this one. I'm come across one of the main editors involved in this before: we spent a couple merry hours revert-warring. The person he was revert-warring on behalf of quickly turned out to be a sockpuppeting troll who quickly got permabanned, and the page stayed at the Right BLP-compliant Version. Hence, I don't think he'll be very pleased to see me after our last encounter, or at least not on something as contentious as this. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I will try to take a look. Baristarim 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is not whether George Galloway is anti-zionist (because he is openly supportive of Palestinians) but whether he is anti-semitic. This is quite a different issue and needs to be handled extremely sensitively, even if the subject were not inclined to take legal action we have a duty to be fair. Sam Blacketer 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious. It's not just religion, look at alternative medicine etc etc. Are there any projects that help people maintain calm? Dan Beale 11:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've just eloquently said something I've been trying to figure out how to express into words for over a year now. Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious.. That should be policy or something. Thanks for brightening my day Dan Beale! SWATJester On Belay! 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The passage has gone through numerous revisions already. All arguments were considered. I will go step by step.

  • "The use of potentially questionable sources"
    • All sources that say what Galloway has said are perfectly reliable, and there are several of them. Furthermore, a video of the interview is available online. The criticism of Galloway's comment appears either on news sites or the official websites of the critics.
  • "The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words"
    • This has already been taken care of during revisions. The passage either writes Galloway's words verbatim, or the new sources's words verbatim.
  • "The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV."
    • Every single statement relates. Every single one. --Shamir1 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Riana, you wrote, "in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be..." You are mostly correct. I have been active in the discussion, listening to others, while they all smeared me as "biased" without telling me what is wrong with the passage. I continuously asked for compromise and never stopped asking what should be done before requesting mediation. They did not reply politely and rejected any mediation, although I myself had nothing to fear in it.

Riana, most editors hardly stated any violation of policy. They simply said why they dont agree with the criticism. They said "my" sources are "driven by the agenda of demonizing critics of Israeli policy like Galloway," a smear which he has no basis for, to which I replied, "Who do you expect to criticize it? The Sierra Club? A women's rights organization?" In actuality, members of Engage are harshly critical of Israeli policy themselves. Most, if not all, of Galloway's cited comments are not critical of Israeli policies but rather of Israel. This editor further talks about Jewish critics of Israel, trying to argue why he believes the criticism is wrong rather than arguing for any WP policy. Many of them jumped to conclusions, saying that the sources labeled him an antisemite, which not a single one of them did.

As for any "violations" of policy, this is what User:Halaqah had to say: "'South African white citizens are settler in African lands' . U define the term to fit the people. U have such a narrow definition that if i said 'jews own Hollywood' i am antisemitic. Jews were part of the slave trade. Israel is a neocolonial state. Jews control the central lobbying powers in America. Now if i said this about another group it isnt necessarly racism. White people control America. Isnt racist."

I was being attacked by numerous editors, by people who refused to even discuss it or have a mediation. I could not believe the comments by Halaqah who just began an attack campaign using some of the most irrelevant and disproven myths (slave trade) about Jews in the discussion, hardly even mentioning Galloway. This is of course the same pattern of just saying why they think the criticism is wrong, without saying why it is worthy of mention. I repeat that I still asked for mediation, even from these people, but they would not participate. I was talking to a wall until User:Jackbirdsong came along. Finally someone who did not attack me or the criticisms. We did not always agree, but we often did and we certainly moved along more in those 1-2 days than in the weeks with the other editors. I wouldnt say this last passage is in need of any more heavy-duty revision. --Shamir1 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, it was actually me who wrote the part about an "unwillingness to compromise", and I feel it applies to all parties involved. I appreciate that you feel as though you were attacked for putting what you clearly see as noteworthy and legit info into an article, and I agree that some of the other editors were less than cordial with you, but you must have been aware that this info would stir up heated opinions, right? I am glad that we were able to perhaps at least get the compromise ball rolling together, but I would strongly disagree with your assertion that no more "heavy-duty revision" is needed. On the contrary, I came to Riana for help in part because I believe a revision, mediated and furthered by an objective party(s), is the only solution that resembles any form of compromise here- something that has yet to be accomplished.--Jackbirdsong 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it has yet to be accomplished. Both times I requested mediation other editors rejected. --Shamir1 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure quite how a request for mediation works, but if you like I will try to contact other involved editors and get them to participate in the discussion here.--Jackbirdsong 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The ridiculuous "anti-semitism" section that User:Shamir1 is desperate to get back into the article is one that I oppose absolutely, cheifly, as I and others have stated before it is an egregious violation of BLP (and, as I've said before as well, Galloway is famously litiginous). It also fails notability (why are the musings of Engage or a single obscure resolution by the NUS executive encyclopedic?), and appears to have been orginally included to smear Galloway. Mediation will not change either of these points.FelixFelix talk 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Legal threats from User:COFS[edit]

I request an administrator look into this Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Added_Dead_File_to_template.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More discussion and response from previously un-involved editor, at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Smee 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that the several issues raised (see below) that involve Fahrenheit451 be pulled together into one incident with subsections. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uncivil_edit_comments_from_User:Misou ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Same warning 4 times = ?[edit]

The suggestion that trouble could result from one's actions is either meant as a genuine warning or an attempt to intimidate the person being warned.

COFS could very well be right, but unless he/she mentions some specifics they could also just be raising the idea to discourage content he/she doesn't "like". The first mention of the warning and the first reiteration could be forgiven for not providing specifics. By the third or fourth they should have realized the warning was not being heeded with the information provided.

I think the line between helpful warning and ambigous legal threats is crossed by repeating a threat of legal "harm" from unknown parties without an attempt to explain one's concerns. This is especially true when the editor issuing the warning is asked for but does not give said specifics. (Those being items like court cases, diffs from here, or anything showing people getting into trouble as described by COFS in his/her warning.) Anynobody 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


User:COFS is editing my user page[edit]

I think this user is being disruptive. Please see [14].--Fahrenheit451 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he should have asked you first, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he did. Maybe you could make a user subpage for that discussion in order to keep his fingerprints off your primary user page. YechielMan 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User Fahrenheit451, several WP:NPA violations, WP:NAM and other WP:PG violations[edit]

This is a Scientology story. Fahrenheit451 started putting copyrighted material up in articles. I alerted him that this might exceed fair use which brought him (Fahrenheit451) and Smee to attack me broadly. It ended with the fact that heated accusations flew around and I got very personal attacks and "questions" which were supposed to introvert me and get me out of Wikipedia. I decided not to respond to Fahrenheit451's accusations anymore while on "Smee", well she has a long story of why she does what she does (she tries since about a week to trick me in 3RR and other such incidents, sometimes unfortunately I notice too late). My proposal is to give out a warning to each party not to go in discussion at all anymore but concentrate on editing. This is what I am going to do at least. COFS 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS, you are accusing us of the things you have done yourself. As for the questions I asked that you did not like, on both your user page and talk page you post a message that you are a scientologist and "Feel free to ask questions." I did and you got rattled. Then you vandalized my user page.--Fahrenheit451 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are tweaking the truth in your direction, once again, and I am not willing to discuss anything further with you. Your "questions", easy to see, were hidden insult. It is sick that this ended up on this board at all. COFS 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am presenting the facts and if you are not willing to discuss edits with me, then I see just future conflict. That is not good. Whatever "hidden insult" you see in my questions is your own view.--Fahrenheit451 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, COFS you have made several mistakes in this notice. The first is you haven't included any evidence (diffs or links) to:
  1. The copyrighted material which ws the origin of your dispute.
  2. The "broad attacks" against you.
  3. The introverted questions designed to get you off Wikipedia.
  4. The accusations from Fahrenheit451 you refuse to answer.
The second is WP:NAM is neither policy nor guideline, it's an essay.
The third is a violation of WP:PG has to be specified (like WP:NPA).
I am curious to know what Fahrenheit451 asked you, so could either of you provide a diff for it?
An admin will want proof, and isn't going to do the research for you because this board is very busy as you can no doubt see. Anynobody 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. My time is up for now and will have to get back to it later. You can find the questions he asked on his user page and on his user talk page (if he did not delete them from there) . Note to anyone watching: I won't have much time to pursue this before Monday. If there is any Admin working on it, please let me know what you need to follow up on the "discussion", thank you. COFS 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Background and diffs[edit]

Comment: Actually, Justanother has mixed his opinions in and called them "facts".--Fahrenheit451 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am comfortable with neutral admins/editors evaluating the veracity of my remarks. ps, please do not cut your comments into the body of mine - thanks. --Justanother 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some background facts:

  1. Fahrenheit451 created Dead File article.
  2. I (Justanother) warned him that it likely exceeded WP:Fair use. See Template talk:ScientologySeries#Added Dead File to template, 2nd post in thread. I added that policy says I should blank the page but I would wait and see if the issue was addressed.
  3. F451 mis-stated that my following policy and blanking the page would be vandalism and a discussion of copyvio legal liability followed in the thread and the following thread Template talk:ScientologySeries#Legal threat discussion.
  4. Rather than simply discuss the problem with the article and ways to improve it, Smee and F451 started attacking COFS.
  5. Smee canvasses for a block on COFS; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  6. A number of the admins/editors that Smee canvassed stated they found no blockable offense (see Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Veiled legal threats ???) and at least one came down squarely with COFS diff.
  7. Smee continues canvassing for a block on COFS here.

This is what happens when, rather than improve articles, and discuss how to improve articles, and discuss differences of opinion; editors try to avoid that time-consuming and proper process with the tactic of getting their opponents in trouble. Can we just give that a rest, please? It is tired. And in actual fact, the continued use of that tactic is disruptive and grounds for User RfC/ArbCom if the "victim" cares to pursue it. --Justanother 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a witch hunt but I have my share in reacting to provocations. In summary I spent half my time with "postings" rather than "edits" and this was wrong. Thanks for the reality adjustment, I'll heed it. COFS 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And I hope that F451 knocks it off as well, e.g. that. COFS 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to 2. Comment:Except that there is no evidence that fair use was violated in that article. That is your view, which seems to be parochial.--Fahrenheit451 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to 3. Comment:And the discussion was the proper course of action.--Fahrenheit451 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Superdeterminism and Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

I'd appreciate very much if some administrators could take a look at the article Archimedes Plutonium and the behaviour of Superdeterminism (talk · contribs). I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I can't research the details, but I think that a few months ago some user vandalised the Jimmy Wales article, inserting into it a request to have the Archimedes Plutonium article deleted (or perhaps corrected — I can't remember). If it had been a request made on Jimbo's talk page, I wouldn't have done anything, but it was a whole pile of irrelevant text inserted into an article about Jimbo, so I reverted. This user came to my talk page to complain, and I told him that he shouldn't have made his request in the text of an article, and told him where to go. (He was claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself.) He went there, and I think someone rolled him back. Anyway, I think he repeatedly vandalised articles by inserting something like "Please deleted the Archimedes Plutonium article" into them. There was an AfD, and I think I voted to delete. I generally feel that articles about living people should be deleted if the subject is not clearly notable, and if the article's existence is causing distress to the subject. (Obviously, if the subject is notable, the article stays.)

I wasn't heavily involved in this, but kept the article on my watchlist. Yesterday, I saw this, and reverted it as vandalism. I don't think the editor in question has the same username as the one I originally encountered, but I'm sure it's the same person. Once again, it's someone claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium. I reverted, as I saw the edit as vandalism. He then did this, which I once again reverted as vandalism. (It also looked very much like a legal threat.)

When I got up this morning, I saw this. I had been thinking about the situation in the meantime, and had seen (and fully agreed with) a post from Jkelly, on a different issue, saying that "If someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly . . . the proper response is to help them out . . . Calling their edit 'vandalism', or reverting them, is just going to escalate the situation."[15] I thought I'd have a look to see what this guy's problem is, and then maybe try to correct the problem while undoing his vandalism, so as to keep him happy and also have an article that didn't damage the appearance of the encyclopaedia. (Obviously, leaving a mainspace article with a whole pile of text about how "Wikipedia is going to be meeting my lawyer" would not be appropriate.) Before I could do that, someone else had reverted.

I don't know who this Archimedes person is, and I don't know if this eccentric editor is the same person. I can't remember what the original editor I encountered was complaining about, exactly, though it was something to do with that article. This editor, who is presumably the same, seems to object to the (sourced) phrase "known as Arky by his fans". My internet access is going to be limited today, so I'd be happy if some administrators keep an eye on the situation. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is the same editor as before, who is claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself, and is certainly editing in a style that is very similar to that of M. Plutonium, with the creation of articles such as Earth Planetary Air-Conditioner; solving Global-Warming and edits such as this.

    For the background to the dispute over nicknames, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd), where I and several editors gave an explanation about verifiability, about our desire to avoid having the long list of wholly unsourced nicknames that the article had before, and about how reliably sourced content is the antidote to such things. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79#Archimedes Plutonium for some further background.

    This editor has already made several on-wiki clear legal threats, such as this (at the bottom), this (where xe states that the legal threat will be lifted when the ability for people to edit Wikipedia is removed), and this, and continues to do so here. (There are also several off-wiki legal threats.) Xe retracted some of xyr direct personal attacks, however.

    I refrained from blocking xem for the legal threats during the AFD discussion period because I weighed the likelyhood of the threat (in light of the off-wiki discussion) against the benefit of having the article's subject involved for the entire period of the AFD discussion. I refrain from blocking xem now because I am one of the major contributors to the article. However, I ask that other uninvolved administrators take a look at the diffs above, Superdeterminism's other contributions to other articles, and the deleted articles, and consider whether allowing an editor either who is Archimedes Plutonium or who is precisely imitating Archimedes Plutonium (the end result being effectively the same as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to continue having editing privileges will be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • ElinorD, this may be what you're trying to recall. I believe these edits are from before User:Superdeterminism created their account. I've also had an entry here on this same topic for a while. Keesiewonder talk 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of stalking[edit]

False accusation of stalking, with an unacceptable edit summary, in response to a complaint about an earlier unacceptable edit summary. There have been several other recent incidents involving this editor. Andy Mabbett 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Followed up with a false accusation of trolling. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Administrative action is unnecessary at this point. If both you and Captain scarlet make an honest attempt to defuse the situation by allowing for some time to soothe each others' temper, then this conflict might resolve amicably. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but previous experience is that both my and others' efforts to discuss issues rationally and calmly with the editor concerend fall on stony ground; hence my bringing the issue here. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The place to go if dialog is failing is Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't come here because dialog is failing, I came here because of repeated acts of incivility. Andy Mabbett 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have run into some difficulty in communicating with this user, my point is that there's no dire need for administrative intervention. My advice is to give this dispute some time, and if you still feel aggrieved at a later point, attempt mediation through a different venue than AN/I. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
I left a message on his talk page so he'd be aware of this discussion. In it I mentioned that his choice of a couple of words could have been better, but otherwise what Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons did looked like good editing. Andy Mabbett you may be taking his feedback too personally, and I think that's what anetode╦╩ is saying. Anynobody 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I take false accusations that I'm a stalker and a troll - and that I'm owned - personally. Good grief! Andy Mabbett 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what does that "owned" mean?--Doktor Who 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
See owned, or better still, pwned - Alison 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing has got to use these pages as his personnal chat room, it is getting tiresome. this is I think the third instance of Pigsonthewing wasting his time on these pages by referring me. Anyone cane accuse anyone of doing anything... Like making a False accusation of stalking apparently. should I take your accusation any harder than you took mine? Look at yourself in a mirror, you don't like me, and all this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard fest won't make you any easier to work with. Damn, if I think you're stalking me, I'll tell you! thank goodness for contributions list or I owuldn't know of yet again more fun on these pages... Waste of your, my and other contributors' time Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can witness that his edits at the WikiProject Pink Floyd and related articles never bring to edit wars or other kind of disruptions or time wasting. Captain Scarlet, why do you think he doesn't like you? Likely he just doesn't agree with some of your edits.Doktor Who 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Equally, I'm not enrolled in feuds every five minutes, there seems to be a small group of people unwilling to accept comments outside of their clique (I await a referral for that comment, I'm sure it won't be appreciate for its face value), that's Projects confident of their superiority, confident no one could possibly be right and using their WP as a means to gain token voices when a vote is proposed (by the WP off course). If you really want to know what I think, I think Pigsonthewing finds it hard to see that anyone could disagree with his wisdom. My entire edits since I've met him have been a constant argument, to be honnest, I'm not into that and it is boring. No I don't accept most of what Pigsonthewing says, it's nothing against him, it's against the content. I am for an encyclopedia that has content, not tables. Pigsonthewing seems to be specialised in infoboxes and scripts, clearly against what I believe in. I have always, in good faith, removed his contributions were I sincerely deemed it a downgrades of what was already within the article, would the same type of content, or quality of content should I say, be inserted, I'd consider it with the same eyes; no exceptions and no crusade. It saddens me that Pigsonthewing has no other ways of voicing his opinions than constantly referring me (I believe this is the third, yet agian I spotted another one last night, so the tally must be four now). What has he got to gain, get me banned for life and implement his stuff? Childish. I feel stalked because wherever I edit, and articles I have specifically brought from stub to a fully fledged chapter in a book is massacred. I accept be bold and all that, I wouldn't have the contribution list I have now had I not applied that. Simple I know contribution lists and I see that edits by certain, Pigsonthewing, seem to have the purpose of antagonising me and fuelling an argument. That is what I think, explained I hope in plain non aggressive English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please see [16] and preceding comment; and [17]. Also Talk:Dore railway station. Andy Mabbett 15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point [19]. I'm supposed to work with that? I'll be accused of being the reason for global warning next. Just on and on and on Pigsonthewing, do something useful Pigsonthewing, stop wasting everyone's time, I have other things to do than to participate to this charade. You constantly accuse people of Don't be so parochial, Your slippery slope argument is fatuous. and I can make no sense of your comment. I didn't like it the first time you used that, but you're using that on other people's pages too. Now for that stalking, there is no such thing as a false accusation. I did accuse you, there was nothing false about it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I thought you were accusing me of accusing me of accusing you of accusing of stalking? You're not going to report me for breathing are you? I had a bath around 3 this afternoon, do you have a diff dirty+bath+shampoo$clean*15minutes+later. You're making a sad example of yourself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice on set of articles[edit]

I've somehow got entangled in a large set of articles — one for each episode of a couple of Disney situation comedies (for children): That's So Raven and Cory in the House (neither of which I'd heard of before, and both of which I wish I never had). See, for example Ain't Miss Bahavian, on which I've just done a lot of work, reduced from this (not the worst by a long way).

The articles were typically long and sprawling, often with immensely long and poorly written plot "summaries", trivia sections, poor formatting, etc. I did my best to tidy them, and met determined opposition from a few editors, one in particular – Kid1412 (talk · contribs) – getting very emotional and abusive, though calming down after the intervention of a couple of other editors, and being cooperative for now. He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series. There are no online or other sources so far as I can tell.

Now, it's not important in one sense; as with more than half the articles here, the subjects are trivial, and who cares whether the summaries are accurate, well-written, properly formatted, etc.? (The same goes for the pop-music articles that I try to clean up and defend.) From the Wikipedia point of view, though, it presumably does matter. Or does it? Is our position that the guidelines and policies are only really for proper articles, and the fanzine side of things can be safely ignored, and allowed to go its own way? There are countless articles documenting the entire outputs of minor pop singers and bands, every episode and character in minor children's television series, discographies going into obsessive detail, all breaking many if not most of the formatting guidelines in the MoS and the relevant WikoProjects, including the fair use of images.

My specific question is: what should I do about the case that I mentioned at the beginning? In theory the plot summaries should all be removed (in theory, I think, all the articles should go as being insignificant and making no claim to significance).

My general question is: are we going to pay attention to the vast mass of the Wikipedia iceberg which most editors and admins prefer to ignore — the fancruft below Wikipedia's plimsoll line? If so, then I'll just remove all the articles from my Watchlist and breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I'll need a lot more help... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be resolved unless and until a fork will throw away 99% of Category:Fictional. Compare Category:Episodes by television series and Category:Television characters by series. Another example I recently stumbled upon is our complete (and nearly completely in-universe) coverage of Judge Dredd.
As an alternative you may want o learn German and switch to dewiki.
--Pjacobi 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "keep a lid on the fancruft" Wikiproject? If not, you can start it and we could join en masse. This highlights one of the current issues with the English Wikipedia, in my opinion: The number of articles is outpacing the number of competent users and administrators to maintain them. Eventually I think we'll catch up again, but right now it's too much. I've supported our liberal precedents towards episode articles, but this may get me to rethink that... Grandmasterka 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You only need to read the "notability" and "article inclusion" pages to see that this is a much trickier discussion than it appears. Part of the problem appears to be projects that aim for "comprehensive" coverage, and pages are being maintained by fans of the subject. Fans have a different calibration for "verifiability" than un-involved people. Here's some examples: List_of_bus_routes_in_London - wikipedia is not a list of bus routes. But, it gets worse. London_buses_route_226. The London Bus Route articles are good articles, but they have no place on wikipedia. But they've survived a few AfD debates, so some of the community wants them here. Well written, interesting, articles aren't so much of a problem as stubs for non famous sports players - Dominique_Dorsey is an example. It's a problem. I search for typos, eg "proffesional" and correct them. This means that I find many poorly written stubs that should really be deleted. I attach them to a few projects and leave them for a wek or so. Then I prod them. As soon as they're prodded someone says the article should be kept, at which point I drop out, leaving the malformed article to sink into the gloom. I don't want to be a deletionist AfD warrior. :-( Dan Beale 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • this is a subject that reflect how wikipedia actually works rather than how it should, my suggestion to you is just to look the other way - it's just too much hassle to do otherwise. Any fancruft filled article will have a special interest group (we call them wikiprojects but SIG is closer to the truth) attached to it. In theory, those SIGs will be involved in keeping the cruft to a minimum and helping to produce well-source, readable articles suitable for a general readers encyclopedia, in practice, the SIGs always act as fans first rather than wikipedians. AFD is a waste of time, because "it will be cleaned up!" will be cited by members of the SIG - then the afd is defeated and the clean-up never occurs. Just look the other way and stick to factual articles, it's better for your nerves. --Fredrick day 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As one who writes "surface transit cruft", London buses route 226 doesn't look that great to me; if that's all there is to the history, it might be better as part of a larger article like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn or List of bus routes in Brooklyn. But many bus routes are "notable" enough for a separate article; two examples are Grand Concourse buses and Myrtle Avenue Line. --NE2 11:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I also recently did a mass merging with List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, starting soon after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 51 Line. Now most of them are part of a list where the history can be detailed; only the ex-streetcar lines and the one bus rapid transit route are not redirects. --NE2 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability again, in particular Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. The choice isn't a straight dichotomy between deleting the article and having individual articles. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem even exists with factual articles, as was cited above with bus routes. The best thing that could happen here is for more of those who are frustrated with fancruft and permastubs in the name of "comprehensiveness" to get involved with these, involved on AfD, all of that. Grandmasterka is right, we still can catch up-but only if more people get involved, more merges start happening (and firmly made to stick), and more in-universe/original research speculation fiction articles start to get cleaned, stubbed, or deleted (and, again, that gets firmly made to stick). In my experience, one editor coming in and bringing up such issues will be shouted down by a few fans, but several coming in and saying "Look, shall we clean and source it or head for AfD?" will actually get them helping. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several television series that have entire books devoted to detailed episode-by-episode documentation of the series. The problem is not that television episode articles don't belong. It is that only some television episode articles belong, the ones where the episodes have been already documented in depth outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Cargo Cult Article Writing leads to editors seeing one television series with individual articles for each episode, and falsely generalizing that to all television series. The only "trickiness" to the discussion is explaining to such editors that it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article, not a wholly fallacious "Article X therefore article Y." argument, and explaining that recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here.

As such, both positions, that "all articles on fiction don't belong" and that "every episode of every television series deserves an article", are wrong. Adopting the former position as a reaction to the latter position is certainly wrong.

Thus the answers to your questions are questions themselves: Do sources exist documenting the individual episodes in depth? Where did you look for sources and what did you find? Did you ask Kid1412 (talk · contribs) to go and look for sources? If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles. If the episodes are not documented in depth in sources, but are only documented as brief summaries or addressed tangentially, the individual articles should be merged into lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. If the episodes are not documented at all, then the content is unverifiable, and Wikipedia should have neither individual articles nor lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Deletion. It really is that simple.

I can understand the frustration with editors who simply won't adhere to our content policies, but hyperbolic suggestions that we give up our content policies are not the answer. Nor is nominating "poorly written stubs" for deletion with no attempt to actually do one's homework beforehand. The answer is to look for sources; to encourage other editors to look for sources, educating them on our content policies; to evaluate the depths and provenances of sources; and to remember that there is more than one tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see so much discussion; I'd been afraid that my questions would just move slowly up the page towards the great archive in the sky.
I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research.
Sources are part, but only part of the problem though. I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant, and that all of them are defended against deletion, merging, or even cleaning up by fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil. (Of course, it's true that doing something serious about the porblem would mean that Wikipedia would shrink to well below the million-article mark again — but I don't see that as a problem.)
The bus-routes issue adds another dimension to essentially the same problem, though the pop-music articles are also about factual articles. Normally, though, there is a significant difference between articles on, say, fictional and real people; the deletionists insist on much more stringent notability conditions for real people...
As for doing our homework; well, I do when I can — but really, this is like the often-seen response of editors to a request for sources: "how dare you demand sources? They're easily found on Google, just look". Well, no, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the material to provide the source; I don't work on Wikipedia as a research assistant for editors who can't be bothered to do their own work. (Maxim: If it's not worth the time looking for a source for your edit, then it's not worth making it. If it should be made, then eventually someone who's prepared to spend the time will make it.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting so this won't be as long, and apologies in advance for the length, but there are some points I've really been wanting to express on this issue. What I'm saying actually works out to be similar to what's currently in WP:EPISODE, but not exactly, and I'm also trying to provide a logical basis without reference to it, since it seems to be controversial.) I think part of the problem people have with television episode articles stems from different interpretations of what WP:NOR/WP:A actually mean. Mel, in discussing your problems with some episode articles, you said "He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series" and "I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research." You're making an assumption in those statements that the user's writing of the plot summaries was inappropriate on the grounds that it was a creation of original research. Uncle G's comment makes a similar assumption, and refers to WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR as the basis for it: "...it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article [...] recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here." My reading of the policies, though, does not lead to that assumption, and I don't mean this as Wikilawyering -- I genuinely think that what I'm about to describe is both the intent of the policy and the interpretation that's best for the Wikipedia. From WP:NOR, material counts as original research if it:

  • introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
  • defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
  • introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article;
  • introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

How does watching a TV show and writing down what happens relate to this? Well, it's clearly not violating the first three, as it doesn't theorize anything, argue any points, or invent any neologisms. But what about the fourth? One could reasonably say that it's an "explanation", and the fourth point says that such things need to be attributed to reliable sources. This leads to Uncle G's point, that "If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles." For many episodes, this is obviously going to be difficult to do in the sense that we look for such documentation on other subjects -- while the most significant episodes of a show are probably going to have articles briefly describing their plot in newspapers or magazines, many won't have any information in such sources beyond the fact that they aired. This interpretation, though, focuses on the lack of secondary sources and overlooks the fact that we always have a reliable primary source for the plot of a TV show: the show itself. WP:NOR says these three important things about primary sources:

  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. [...] Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include [...] and television programs.
  • An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
  • All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It appears to me, then, that writing a summary from watching a show is a perfectly valid use of a primary source, as television programs are specifically listed as potential primary sources, and a plot summary is only making descriptive claims that can be easily verified by anyone else by watching the same episode.

As I said before, besides thinking this is the correct interpretation of the intent of the policy on original research, I also think it's the most sensible and practical interpretation for the purposes of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Yes, it's going to be very difficult to find traditional secondary sources for plot summaries in some cases, but those summaries are necessary to write useful articles about episodes of shows. Does that lack of sources imply non-notability? Well, we have one source (the show itself), and we can undoubtedly find a source for details about the show (production info, guests, etc.) I think this is another point where there's argument, though -- some people seem to think that's not sufficient notability. It seems to me, though, that there are good reasons to consider that sufficient/have the notability of the show and its more notable episodes be "inherited" by the others. As I argued in this AfD, for very popular shows, a fair number of episodes will definitely have sufficient secondary sourcing, so we should clearly have articles on those. Having articles for only those, though, may take something away from the usability of the Wikipedia for readers, which I consider important. Imagine that you've just started watching a show, say in season three, and you want to learn what's already happened. Ideally, if there's an article for every episode, then when you go to the main page (or an episode-list page, if it's been split off) for the show, you'll click the link for the first episode, read all about that one, then follow a link in the infobox to the next episode, and in this way you can easily read through the whole history of the show. If only some episodes have articles, though, you'll either have to click each one that exists, and simply do without information about the others, or, if there is information in some sort of summary page, switch back and forth to read everything, which seems like a much less satisfying browsing experience. Having individual pages with infoboxes also provides a nice neat way to present episode-specific factual information about writers, directors, guest stars, etc. Yes, for some less-exciting episodes the pages may be a bit stubby, but the convenience of having all the articles leads me to believe we should accept that stubbiness. In addition, this avoids the inevitable conflicts over what information is worth keeping about an episode when there's a long single page or season pages, and takes the reader directly to the information about a particular episode when searching on the name of that episode instead of nowhere, or to a redirect.

No, I don't think every TV show should have a page for every episode. Shows that are over and never had many episodes may be well served by one or a few pages. Shows for which we don't currently have much information can stay in a summary page or pages until we have enough material that most will be more than stubs and someone makes the effort to create all the episode pages with appropriate infoboxes. If we go by my interpretation of TV shows as appropriate primary sources for themselves, it shouldn't be hard to create such pages for any fairly popular show. While there are people here who are "fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil" who will write, and defend, bad articles on TV shows, there are also many fanatical editors who, while only interested in a limited subject, are willing to put in the effort to make genuinely well-written, encyclopedic articles on that subject. Editors who aren't interested in that subject, but who are knowledgeable of and interested in the Wikipedia as a whole, should be happy that such people exist and are expanding coverage in areas that might otherwise go ignored. Mel, you said "I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant...." I think that's too limited of a view of what we're doing here... remember, this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Those articles aren't taking anything away from articles you care about simply by existing. Now, they could be taking something away from the project as a whole if they're badly written, but there are plenty of bad articles about historical or scientific topics and plenty of great, well-sourced articles about pop culture topics. This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value.

Ok, that probably went on longer than it should have, but I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about this.Pinball22 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for writing on every episode is continuity-- these series usually have running plot lines. As one who rarely watches most of them, when I need to understand a reference to some notable episode, I need the context. The way of doing it for WP, of course, is to have articles for chunks of the series, usually seasons, with the individual ones broken out into detail if justified (for example, if they become more than 1 or 2 paragraphs long) But is is much easier setting up such a group of articles by having a stub for each; and it is not all that easy moving the less notable ones back into articles for the season. So I see the temptation. I think the only way is to try to get them back, group by group. Some of the people at schools are trying that with respect to school districts. It might also work with radio stations. There are intermediate stages between a nondescriptive list and a separate article. But organizing the disorganized take work, and the editors who could best do the work would -- understandably--rather write new and excessive articles. DGG 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinball22, you say: "This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value." That glosses overf my point, though: the vast majority of these articles don't mee the guidelines for notability; they don't meet the relevant WikiProjects' guides for notability; they're utterly insignificant. They all, however, have a flock of fans, whose attitide to editors arriving from the main part of Wikipedia and asking for sources, MoS formatting, notability, etc., is aggressive;ly aggrieved incredulity — they've never heard of the MoS, etc., they don't care about it when it's pointed out to them, "notability" means "I like it", and an adequate and verifiable source is "I know it". For example, I recently speedily deleted Bossa Nova Hotel, an article on an album that consisted of a track listing and an infobox; no claim to significance, and a little investigation suggested that it had none to be claimed. I received this:

Hey, Buddy are you stupid????? I wasn't finished editing the page and what the hell do u do delete it!! You call yourself a editor?? i'd say you need to lay off, next time this happens i will start destroying every page u create just like u did me on this one. Which in my opinion wasn't right at all. Good Day!, Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

That's pretty much par for the course. You see, I'm not talking about articles on ephemeral pop stuff that meet the notability criteria — this isn't an attack on popular culture; I'm talking about the vast amount of stuff that doesn't come near meeting those criteria (singles that sold 350 copies, greatest-hits albums, minor characters in low-audience children's television, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1[edit]

This user, among other things, has repeatedly refused to clean up double redirects after moving pages. Can someone please advise? Thank you. --NE2 05:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted an notice here, because you are not so great of a character yourself. Admins, let me tell you about NE2. Ugh, this character is really frustrating to deal with. One of my wiki-friends spent the better part of last summer working on bus related nyct articles. He was working for transit, and he spent a lot of time looking around and taking pictures for the articles. He never reallly told people that. Then along came NE2. This character went through and systematically removed my, as well as contributions. He even accused him of becoming upset. He also accused me of nagging him to reach consensus, which is how we work around here.

This character is unreasonable and completely heartless. I can't put it any other way. He needs to be brought down to his place. Rest assured, I'm eagerly hoping that starting here, something can be done about him before it's too late. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to act in a more mature manner in your contacts with each other. WP:CIVIL applies both ways, and WP:AGF also is important. NE2, you know better. Imanumber1, further comments like "unreasonable and completely heartless" are completely inappropriate.
Treat each other like mature adults. And please clean up double redirects if you cause them. Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never meant to fall out of accordance with WP:CIVIL, and I'm sorry if I might have. I've just been caught up in a difficult situation with him for the past month, and it has got worse ever since. So right now, I've asked him to leave me alone. What else should I do? How am I supposed to treat him like a "mature adult" if he keeps on? Can you please help me?

It's not that big a deal on fixing a doub. redir. If he has caused you trouble, just avoid editing things that he edits. --KZ talk 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Tried and failed. Try dealing with him and see how much trouble he can do to any page. I have to keep an eye on him. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit involved in this myself, having been the user who spent the better part of the summer working on the bus articles. For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of incivility going both ways. Imdanumber1 filed an RfC, but there really hasn't been any meaningful result. I've been called on to intervene, but I'm a little too busy with other administrative tasks to wade into this quagmire. Coincidentally, in response to your comment, Georgewilliamherbert, not all of the parties here are adults.

To summarize the conflict for others, it is a repeated skirmish across WP:NYCS articles. It's incredibly similar every time. NE2 will implement a change, typically removing sections of an article or renaming that article (naming conventions for subway stations are not agreed upon). Others will challenge him, and he'll respond harshly (such as the comments about me). NE2 will persist, not giving any ground. Eventually the issue will boil over into a more public venue (such as this page) or will die in talk pages. Inevitably, interest will fizzle and the issue will be dormant for a week or so. Then it'll happen again. I can see that happening again now.

I'm not quite sure what the best course for Wikipedia is. Although I admire some of NE2's goals (such as removing every single piece of information without attribution), I strongly question some of the techniques he uses to achieve them. NE2 has basically taken over WP:NYCS since he started editing subway related articles. That isn't bad, but his manner tends to hurt and alienate editors like imdanumber1. I can see that happening right here. I'd really like to see these debates happen without the inevitable hurt feelings I'm seeing from imdanumber1. Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) are both great contributors, and I'd hate to see either of them leave the project.

I think both parties need a cooling off period. I sincerely hope some type of mediation can happen here, and I'm going to suggest it to both of them. Cheers, alphachimp 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I think our interests are best served by them both taking several hours off. Imdanumber1 is hitting the hay, and NE2 does not appear to be editing. I really hope this will cool things off a little. alphachimp 06:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have opened several discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, including compiling Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. I said there that I will not move any stations to what I believe to be the common names while the discussion is ongoing, and suggested that Imdanumber1 do the same. Yet he continues to "revert NE2's move rampage", and also has not fixed any of the double redirects he has created. When do we say "don't move any more pages until you fix your double redirects?" --NE2 07:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Itsnotacase (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked User:Itsnotacase. The account was created today and only had three edits but it seemed clear to me that this was a single purpose account from the edits it made. [20] [21] I would like to see if fellow Wikipedians agree with my issuing this block or whether it should be reduced. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for racism, but I'd have to say I endorse that block. Natalie 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully endorse this block. That kind of editing can not be tolerated. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Proxyorg[edit]

This user Proxyorg first started to spam Proxy_list and ignore talk and warnings using ip addresses Special:Contributions/210.17.217.161 and Special:Contributions/210.17.220.40 and now is back with username Proxyorg contribs and continue to spam and ignore talk and warnings. Graciella 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Joestella and continuing disruptive behaviour[edit]

A user User:Joestella is not getting his way in a couple of current AfDs, especially one at this link. Checking out WT:AUSPOL and also Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that he is in a minority of users on a list of subjects and has a habit of pushing controversial ideas onto the rest (he even brags about this on his user page). He tried to have a user page deleted which disagreed with him. Then a few days ago, he blanked an FA at South Australian general election, 2006 because he didn't like it (this is covered here), fought consensus and reverted/editwarred almost to the point of 3RR all the way until the page was protected (which it still is), then started work on a POV fork from it to stop it from getting deleted, and now is modifying votes on the AfD that disagreed with his. This is utterly unacceptable. DanielT5 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Annrex[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. – Michaelas10 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Annrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Possible troll. So far single-purpose account, insistently posting some off-topic rant about the Polish Wikipedia to WP:AN. User pages says on wikibreak but has only just arrived. Unacceptable licencing at Image:Coapon.JPG - "The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited to use this file and its derivatives". Can anyone shed any light on this? Block or not? --kingboyk 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a WP:POINT upload if I ever saw one. No wonder they blocked him on the other project. Part Deux 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Take him out. He started with a weird rant and turned it into a troll. --Golbez 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I endorse an indefblock. User has joined in an attempt to rant about the Polish Wikipedia, while assuming bad-faith of the administrators. Michaelas10 14:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. --kingboyk 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Davesmith33[edit]

This user is edit warring at the Top Gear (current format) article in regards to a.. wait..... dog. Dave believes that this dog is a star, but has presented no verifiable source and is in "violation" of consensus on the talk page against the addition. Secondly the user is also warring at Template:Infobox Television in regards to a redundant (disputed) parameter s/he has added with no discussion. Matthew 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked by Gwernol for 3RR violation. Matthew 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ararat arev[edit]

The sockpuppets and Ips of this banned user is causing a constant 3RR violation on the article Turkey. Which was semi-protected to stop the trouble. However he is now using sleeper accounts to cause heavy disruption and harmfully break The three revert rule daily. I suggest a WP:RFCU and a full scale community warning. I have brought this to the attention of admins as it appears to be getting full scale out of hand. Retiono Virginian 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.[edit]

I could provide a list of diffs. But it is easier if I just direct you to the current problem page: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Use the find command of your browser to look for "Humus" on the page, and check each occurrence until you find his replies to me or "Bless sins." Start with the section titled "Proposal to rename" and go down the page. It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user "Bless Sins." Here is a link to the last revision:

I invite the community to take a look at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada#Proposal to rename and below. Note how 2 problem users: Timeshifter and Bless sins are trying to impose their POV against the results of survey and against scholarly research. Using WP as a soapbox didn't help, so here we see another attempt to intimidate an opponent in content dispute. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. I don't have a POV. And there was no survey or poll. Trying to follow wikipedia guidelines is not using WP as a soapbox. You have now amply proven my point about your method of personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. And I proposed using both article names in the title in the last section of the talk page before making the incident report here. "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)." So how does that fit into your POV-smearing attempts? --Timeshifter 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Girls, girls, calm down. Keep it polite. HalfShadow 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is trolling allowed on incident boards? Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong section is it? Fail to see why this requires any admin attention. Obviously a dispute. --KZTalkContribs 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There is both a naming dispute and this incident report here concerning an admin's personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be giving as good as you get there, and this is obviously a content/naming dispute. Please don't clutter the admin board with frivolous complaints. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I and others commented on an incident reported here earlier involving you and ChrisO. So there is an obvious conflict of interest in you commenting on this incident report here involving me. Please let other admins do the commenting on this. I have not attacked the character of Humus sapiens. I have commented on the content of his remarks. Whereas Humus sapiens has attacked my character and the character of other editors on that talk page. --Timeshifter 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't compound your error by failing to assume good faith. I don't recall what you're talking about, and it's not relevant anyway. This alleged incident is a content dispute, and you are wasting the board's time. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of not assuming good faith. You have nothing to base that on. Let me refresh your memory. Here is a link to the incident report in the archives: Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. I did not bring up the naming dispute in my initial incident report. I reported on the treatment by Humus of me and another editor: "It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user 'Bless Sins'." Humus, you, and KZ focussed on the naming dispute. I did not. --Timeshifter 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay, pick your fights. Let someone else handle this one, OK? Over-reach is a terrible thing. Hornplease 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you're referring to, but the irony of your statements in this section should be obvious. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, Jay does not need to "pick fights". wiki is not a battleground nor a loudspeaker for attacks on respected admins.Bakaman 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm referring to is the fact that attacking someone using this board to complain about an admin's behaviour as 'time-wasting' is not very useful; and an attack on someone complaining about Humus might be more carefully read if it didnt come from you.
The irony is not obvious, possibly because it's been dead for years. Hornplease 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and nothing else. There is a "formal" RFM process underway. I think that additional discussion here will just confuse the issue. 6SJ7 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that a request for mediation is taking place. The participation of other editors and admins has already ameliorated the attacks on character somewhat. All I really wanted anyway with this incident report was to get some help from additional moderating elements. --Timeshifter 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of block[edit]

Quick links: Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice as requested by WP:Probation. I am blocking Zeq for 48 hours for openly defying an article ban imposed in accordance with his Arbitration ruling. More details at that page (at the end). --Zerotalk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. If he wishes to challenge an article ban, obviously editing the article is not effective as an appeal. And that log keeps growing... El_C 10:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no knowledge whatsoever of this dispute (that arbcom case is before I even joined Wikipedia), but arbcom found that you were edit warring in a dispute with Zeq (finding of fact #4). Is it appropriate for you to ban him from an article and block him for violating the same? Shouldn't an uninvolved admin make that determination? (And just to clarify, unless there is something pressing that I am missing, I don't endorse the block nor the ban and believe that you should remove both and allow an uninvolved administrator to deal with both issues.)--BigDT 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that I didn't notice. There's your challenge, then: find an uninvolved admin which has knowledge of the dispute. I, arguably, am one. El_C 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I took a look at the article history [22]. It seems that Zero0000 is in a content dispute with Isarig and Zeq. No effort whatsoever has been made to discuss the issue on the talk page. My suggestion is that (1) the block and article ban both be lifted, but Zeq be cautioned to discuss changes on the talk page rather than revert war, (2) Zero0000 be cautioned not to block or ban people with whom he is in a dispute, and (3) if desired, the article can be protected to facilitate discussion on the talk page. Any thoughts? --BigDT 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeq has been here long enough; the quality of edits such as this is too low. El_C 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Been here long enough? Are we talking about an article ban+2 day block or are we talking about an indefinite ban from the project? I think we're talking about the former. At any rate, regardless of anything else, no admin can block/ban a user with whom they are in a content dispute. Administrative privileges cannot be used in that fashion. Unless someone wants to make the case that Zero0000 is not an involved admin, the article ban is invalid and thus, so is any block arising from it. Any uninvolved admin is free to ban Zeq from that article if they have a good faith reason to, however, I would suggest that an attempt to resolve the issue should come before such an action. --BigDT 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the former. But I felt we've already passed the point where the latter could be applied months ago. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Zero0000 here, "the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator." Which, I gather, includes Zero0000. Regards, Huldra 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine that they intended for that to include someone actively involved in a dispute over the article. You can't ban someone you are currently in a dispute with from the article you are in a dispute over. That's just silly. --BigDT 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
While endorsing the block, it really needs to be someone other then Zero. When someone involved in a content dispute lays down the block, its a MeatBall:PowerAnswer that just breeds resentment. El_C, why dont you lay the block on him? -Mask? 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that the block would be enforcing an invalid ban and is thus inappropriate. The user should be immediately unblocked with any administrator free to impose the article ban. HOWEVER, given that no attempt has actually been made to resolve the content dispute, I think an article ban is premature. --BigDT 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it an English course, and if Zeq's continues to introduce & edit war over edits which are consistently of too low a quality, then imposing the arbitration remedies will continue. Sure, hopefuly not by someone cited in the RfAr, so next time, Zero should drop myself a line. For my part, I have long suggested that perhaps he tries the simple Wikipedia for a while. It is unfair of him to expect others to so extensively reconstrct his edits, which he continues to revert. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I cannot comment on the general quality of Zeq's edits (sorry, I'm too lazy to study hundreds of contributions), but there is no policy basis for a block for low-quality editing. If the opposite were the case, most Wikipedians would suffer regular blocks for poor editing. Beit Or 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a tendencious pattern of revert warring over low-quality additions, it should not be others' responsibility to reconstruct these. His exhuasting carelessness on that front has long reached the stage of disruptiveness. El_C 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) On what basis would you reblock? Zero's ban is invalid because Zero was in a revert war with Zeq at the time he issued the ban. To allow such a thing is silly. If the ban is invalid, then there is no cause for anyone to block based on that ban. --BigDT 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already answered that question above and am not inclined to repeat myself. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The original ban at 1929 Hebron massacre should have been announced here, logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and posted on Talk:1929 Hebron massacre. While the arbitration case says He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing., good practice would require that the ban at least be reviewed here, or even better requested at WP:AE much like admins should request protection at RFPP when they have edited the article. I suggest that the correct course would be to unblock and then request an article ban at WP:AE. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's being reviewed. No point in unblocking if he'll just go back to inserting that poorly-written bit. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a generally accepted principle that any administrative action, including a ban, must be made only by an uninvolved admin; thus, the original ban was absolutely inappropriate and the subsequent block only compounded the breach of WP:ADMIN. Furthermore, I believe the probation has expired by now. Usually users are placed on probation for one year; at least, this seems to have been the understanding of the original ArbCom ruling when Zeq was banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid: the ban was set to expire on March 5, 2006, one year after the arbitration decision.[23] If the original intent of the arbitrators regarding the length of Zeq's probation is unclear, let's make a request for clarification. Beit Or 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The probation has not expired, nor is there evidence that Zeq's editing practices improved. El_C 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however, that in light of objections, neither this block nor the article ban (per AC clarification a few months ago) should not count toward the 5-block-one-year-ban but any additional blocks should count it. Simply, Wikipedia is not therapy. El_C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The usual procedure is that in such a situation a block must be overturned. A block by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. Beit Or 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I can unblock and reblock for the sakes of procedure. El_C 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that a block enforcing an existing arbitration ruling (article edit ban) has to be done by an "uninvolved admin". - Crockspot 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better, nonetheless. El_C 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The block may or may not be valid; but I think it's extremely poor form for an admin involved in a content dispute to resort to his/her admin tools. The term "any" surely does not mean that the editor in question is an outlaw. --Leifern 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't enforcing an article ban imposed by the arbitration committee. If he were, this wouldn't be an issue. Rather, he was enforcing an article ban that HE HIMSELF imposed during a revert war over that very same article. I'm going to be bold here. I have a meeting coming up right now. It will be over in an hour or an hour and a half or so (so around 22:00-22:30). If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by then, I intend to unblock Zeq. The article ban was imposed by an admin in a content dispute and the block was made enforcing that improper article ban. If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by the time I get out of my meeting, I intend to undo the block as it is patently improper. I consider myself neutral and uninvolved. I have never edited articles in this topic area nor, that I can recall off hand, interacted with Zeq, Zero0000, nor El C. As such, I consider myself uninvolved in the dispute and have seen no justification for the article ban and ensuing block. If any uninvolved admin objects, I will, of course, defer to their judgment. --BigDT 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I object. El_C 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Overturn the block if you want but there should also be an independent review of the article ban, which should be reimposed if it is justified. Then if Zeq violates the article ban imposed by a neutral admin, he gets blocked again. I will do this myself after I get back from an errand. Thatcher131 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No, disregard that; don't overturn it. I object. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may chime in for a moment, does the fact that Zeq is alleging that Zero's motives are racially motivated (see this section ("most likley based on discrimination") of the talk page, as well as his revert of my comment on the matter) have any bearing here? Seems like a rather serious accusation to level at someone, esp an admin. Tarc 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To echo the section above, it is a serious accusation, regardless of the accused in an admin or not. But I'm not seeing it. Can you quote? El_C 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I will raise it with Zeq. El_C 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that Thatcher131 ignored my objection and unblocked. It looks like a questionable unblock (certainly as much as the preceding block). El_C 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like he read Tarc's comment above, so I'll strike that bit out. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(Crossposted from my talk page) :I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I disagree, but it is within your discetion. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Tarc's comment, I did see it briefly, but comments are flying all over the place faster than I can keep up. I view the original block as improper as stated above. If, in responding to the block, Zeq made inappropriate comments or allegations that deserve a block for civility or something, then do so. As I said above, this may strike some as overly procedural, but I believe it is the best way to proceed. Thatcher131 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It dosen't look like there's been five blocks, so I would not be blocking for a year as noting on Zeq's talk page. I'll still give him one last chance to respond (so far it dosen't look promising). If there is a block, it will count toward the one year ban, however. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, with all due respect, I don't believe that you should be the one to impose a block of Zeq other than for obvious situations. From your comments on his talk page, you seem to have significant history there. I just got out of my meeting. Had Thatcher131 not already unblocked him, I would have. Please understand that it is important to stay well away from the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you or Zero have an issue with something Zeq does, the best response is to bring the issue here and allow it to be reviewed by a completely uninvolved admin. I am well aware that purely taking an administrative action doesn't make you involved, but even if you in good faith consider yourself uninvolved, it doesn't look that way from the outside. --BigDT 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have asked the AC about this last time and they deemed me uninvolved, administrative history notwithstanding. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think an accusation of discrimination —unless retracted— goes beyond mere civility. El_C 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I say what if the accusations are true? IF somebody makes an accusation that is then substantiated but was originally had up for making the accusation isn't that allowing the problem through blind cover?--Lucy-marie 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeq was invited to substantiate the accusation. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion to offer on the rightness or wrongness of Zeq's edits, but I'm disappointed that the conversation seems to have veered away from an administrator blocking an editor he was in a revert war with (in order, perhaps, to cut down on the number of editors on the page he had to revert). This is precisely what admins are not supposed to do with their powers. Was the block of Zeq justified? Let's say, for argument's sake, it was. It's a simple matter to come to this board and ask if any admins out there agree. If the case is so obvious, the block would be in place within minutes. That Zero failed to do this is extraordinarily troubling. More troubling still is that there are so few admins in his thread troubled by it. IronDuke 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for these comments and observations. I entirely agree that it would have been preferable for someone completely uninvolved, rather than me, to have taken action against Zeq. My feeling about it, right or wrong, is that it is not a "content dispute" as usually defined but rather a serious behavior problem on the part of Zeq. Nor is it, really, just a matter concerning this one article. The fact is, as anyone can verify with a few clicks, that a very large fraction of Zeq's edits are tendentious, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, he has been here a long time and knows perfectly well what is allowed and what isn't. He knows that it is not permitted to insert the claim of one side of a historical dispute into the second sentence of an article without qualification as if it is an accepted fact. He knows it, yet he did it repeatedly. That is how he usually behaves and it has to stop. Concerning this particular article: I just now reconnected to WP to see all this discussion and am confused about who is banned or not or blocked or not, but if other admins are willing to take over the resolution of this problem that would make me happy indeed. Undoing the block and reimposing the article ban, as Thatcher131 suggested (already did?) is fine with me. The only thing that would not be fine is for Zeq's disruption to continue. --Zerotalk 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I banned him for one month. I watch WP:AE and am certainly prepared to reblock if needed, or reimpose the ban if he resumes disruption after the month is up. As I told somone else regarding Ombudsman, with a user already found to be disruptive, you don't have to wait for the situation to become intolerable before requesting an article ban. There are still 1.5 million plus articles he can edit. Thatcher131 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. El C has reimposed the block. I'm sick of dealing with this garbage. We don't block people with whom we are in a dispute. We don't make punative blocks. If that's not a concept we can all agree on, then I'm done here. --BigDT 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BigDT seems to be taking too lightly the fact that I've given Zeq many hours to either retract or substantiate the charges of "discrimintaion." El_C 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So? You should not have blocked Zeq because you are in a personal dispute with him/her. If you have an issue that you think merits blocking, bring it here for an uninvolved administrator review and execute. --Iamunknown 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This board seems to be losing from its usefulness in this case, so I'd rather defer to the AC (the block was noted in Rfar log). I am not in a dispute with Zeq, although he wishes to present it that way. He could have even said, 'let me collect the evidence and get back to you in a few days,' but no, he said "that is my answer" and to this BigDT says "this is a joke. He complains about a patently incorrect block and then you block him for it?" as if I blocked him for merely 'complaining' ("excuse," he says) against a block, which although I felt should have stayed in place (for other reasons), I too took issue with. How is that helpful? I also note that the unblocking admin was aware of this situation and left it to my discretion. I don't have much to say beyond this. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, BigDT, and Iamunknown have all accused El C of involvement in the dispute, but have provided no reasoning at all for this strong accusation. Clearly, he was not part of the edit war. If it's about what he has said in this thread, that's not involvement, any more than yours or mine. Please offer some reasoning, as it's not immediately obvious to me at all. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, deserves more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page [24]. Note also the same behavior at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.

At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are meant to uphold policy, not violate it. Based on this presentation, it is difficult not to conclude that Zero0000 should be desysoped.
What has happened? Zero's ban of Zeq has stuck, and his block has been restored. I have no strong opinion about Zeq's editing, but there is the strong appearance of a double standard. To wit:
Zero2000 1) has edit warred, and 2) abused blocks and admin rollback to prosecute this edit war.
Zeq 1) has edit warred and 2) um...well, that's it.Proabivouac 09:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's it? Er, that's quite enough. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree strongly with what Dmcdevit writes regarding Zeq, and I thank him for both his research and level-headedness. I also concur with him, having examined the full array of evidence he provides, that Zero's conduct as an admin has certainly been problematic. While I'm inclined to give him one last chance (perhaps impose some immediate restrictions), I'll state my bias upfront, having had a positive editing relationship with him for nearly three years, as well as a great admiration for his skills as a ME scholar whom I share many views with. El_C 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
In the light of his comment, I must agree with Dmcdevit on Zero. In terms of the procedure, the only way of forcibly desysopping someone is to go to the ArbCom; however, as a community, we can ask Zero to voluntarily surrender his admin privileges in order to spare the trouble of an arbitration. Based on his comments above, I believe that he understands that his actions were not right. Beit Or 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq. I have admitted above that it would have been better to ask someone else to take the action that the ruling permits "any administrator" to take, but that is the limit of what I admit. Throughout this affair I have acted in absolute good faith. Thank you for the suggestion that I fall on my sword without sufficient reason, but I'll pass. --Zerotalk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not regard the criticism of my behaviour here to be justified. (1) I use Talk pages more than most editors: 37% of my last 200 edits were in talk pages and I'll be happy to have my use of talk pages compared to any other editor. (2) The list of reverts which Dmcdevit gives are not a counterexample. In each case the issue is very simple and my long edit summaries are quite sufficient to explain why I was making the edit. This might not have been the case if Zeq was a newbie or good-faith editor, but he is not. That's the whole point: when edits are being deliberately made in order to disrupt and destroy an article, the obligation to start a long discussion over it is questionable. And I mean long: Take the example of this edit and the following 14 edits (notice how Zeq produced a single web link that contains one sentence on an irrelevant subject, while Doron and I produced academic sources to show how he is mistaken); then started again by Zeq as if nothing had been said at this edit and 10 of the following 12 edits, plus a whole article on the subject written by Doron and I from the latest archaelogical sources. After all this effort, Zeq comes back weeks later with exactly the same claim, still totally ignoring the sources presented. This is what it means to "discuss the issue on the Talk page with Zeq"; I submit that it is well beyond the call of duty. (3) I dispute that this incident is similar to two similar incidents. In those cases the Arbitration Committee had not put the other user on probation and provided a remedy that "any administrator" can use to prevent further disruption. This makes the present case fundamentally different. --Zerotalk 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with the position Zero found himself in. He should definitely follow my advise and agree to immediately adhere to the following restriction: no use of sysop tools on Zeq under any circumstance. I don't agree with desysoping over this (at least not if recent issues are limited to Zeq), but in fairness to Dcmdevit, at least he's also arging to ban Zeq. Whereas Beit-Or, BigDT, IronDuke, and Leifern all found reasons to ignore Zeq's role and only comment on Zero, which does not seem even-handed on their part. El_C 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree to not use blocks or bans against Zeq again. That's for sure. But the issue may become moot as I am probably going to leave altogether. The task that I really enjoy, writing articles on the basis of the very best sources, is nearly impossible in the mideast section of Wikipedia. As you know from your own experience, very few good editors last there more than a few months before they can't take it any more. It is bad for my health and I've forgotten what the point is. --Zerotalk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Zero, the prohibition against admin action when involved is absolute. ArbCom often doesn't feel the need to specify that, just like WP:BP doesn't add that it is only for uninvolved admins in every sentence. Your claims about Zeq's poor behavior, even if correct, merely demonstrate that you chose to respond in kind with sterile revert warring rather than to seek a resolution, it seems. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
But I did try to seek a resolution - the one that the ArbCom prescribed. I didn't do a good job of it, for sure, but I did try. --Zerotalk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I need to expand on this. The problem is, Dmc, if the arbcom ruling didn't actually mean that any admin could issue the block, then what was the ruling trying to say? I read this ruling some weeks ago via AoIa, and have to say I distinctly remember sharing Zero's reading. You may think this is incorrect, but there are in fact two very important reasons why: 1.) If the ruling was not actually to expedite the blocking process with Zeq, then what was it trying to do? I thought this was the whole point: while normally bad behavior has to be taken to an outside admin for action, due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him. Basically saying to Zeq: we'll let you go, but even if you're off editing in some far-off obscure corner of Wikipedia with just one admin around, if you get out of hand, that admin can block you, and without going for outside help. And why did I think that? Because 2.) If that's not what the policy was saying, then why did it specifically use the phrase "any admin"? While you're right, of course, that every comment in every rule doesn't state every caveat every time, that's rather different from language specifically going out of its way to say "any admin." That language sticks out like a sore thumb. Honestly, if you saw that in a policy, would you not immediately add "any uninvolved admin" or "any admin not involved in the dispute?" Clearly one would, since that is exactly what the general probation policy does. My understanding, then, by the failure of this to do so, was that it was specifically stating that this general rule did not apply in this case, for the reason stated above.
Should Zero have consulted another admin? Yes, at this point, that seems pretty clear. Was his reading of the ruling unfounded? No, I don't think it was. Is this the case for some type of harsh sanction? I really don't think so. Mackan79 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, in my opinion, on the basis of past experience, ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct. It is a substantial misrepresentation to say it is going out of its way to specify that involved admins may act; it uses that language because it is an admin action not specified in general policy. Also, "due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him" makes no sense whatsoever: blocking while involved is prohibited because admins acting out of a conflict of interest will always be acting under judgment impaired by personal and content concerns. That doesn't change because of the other editors' intransigence. Probation is not "to expedite the blocking process" but to allow an editor who is otherwise productive to remain as long as they remain within certain bounds. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Dmc. At the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we see a note from Will Beback that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." Perhaps ArbCom could clarify this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the point isn't that the CoI goes away, but that Zeq has lost his right to this safeguard. While you suggest probation isn't to expedite the blocking process, I think this also misses that arbcom was presumably doing something special in this case beyond ordinary probation. In that regard, expediting the process seems like a very reasonable purpose to me, considering the stress and disruption that seem to have instigated the case (and seemed likely to possibly continue).
This is all really ancillary, though, to what the ruling said, which clearly was that "any admin" could encorce it. I'm simply saying, Zero may well have reasonably taken this at face value, and there are reasons why he would have done so. I agree with Sjakkalle that a clarification seems most appropriate. Mackan79 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't special; as I said, it's the norm. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'll put it more simply. Did no one notice that I was one of the arbitrators that came to that decision? When I say "ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct" it is on the basis of the fact that I wrote many such rulings myself as an arbitraor, and that's what it means. And that's what the vast majority of administrators for years have understood it as. That is your clarification. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think you should have alerted the ArbCom that you have a personal interest in defending the wording of Zeq's ruling? I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but the principle of full disclosure is there for a reason. Will you alert them now? As for your "clarification", I read it like this: "there is an unwritten shared understanding that everyone is supposed to have, and anyone who somehow misses out on this shared understanding deserves to be beaten up." --Zerotalk 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Alert ArbCom of what? I don't understand what you are getting at. But, yes, there is an "unwritten shared understanding" of adminship, in that we expect admins to have good judgment, since policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Admins who demonstrate poor judgment in that respect are invited to be full-fledged eitors without those tools. It isn't being beaten up, though. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month[edit]

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an uninvolved admin I have come to the conclusion that Zeq has edited the article disruptively as specified by his probation; I have banned him from editing the article for one month. He is not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University[edit]

As to be expected, the entry on Capella University is currently being vandalized again after having been locked due to edit wars caused by Capella University users in the past. At the moment, Capella University's Financial Aid Director is being investigated for received kickbacks from a student loan company for which he served on the board, in addition to his employment by the university. It appears as if the same user (who uses the name "Pizzaman" and involved in previous edit wars is now vandalizing the current entry. Pizzaman and other users from Capella University have been previously warned for TOS violations. It might be wise to restrict edits again in light of this individual's past.

No sooner had I corrected [Pizzaman0000] and [Pizzaman6233] vandalism (while I was creating this post) and he has again vandalized the page and continues to engage in name calling and personal attacks.Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be better off posting this to AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article though... --KZTalkContribs 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll post this request on AIV too. Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A new user [ElKevbo] is now blanking the article. In addition, take a look at bottom of ElKevbo Talk Page - note the personal attacks by an annonymous user - more than likely [Pizzaman0000] or [Pizzaman6233]? Shac1 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo (talk · contribs) is hardly a "new user". Corvus cornix 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Shac1 for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on this article, but it seems that other editors are also editing in an unproductive way. User:Shac1 has asked for an unblock. I invite review of thsi block, note the report on WP:AN/3. DES (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Shac1 has evaded his/her block as ShacOne (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have posted elsewhere, i don't think that ShacOne is a puppet of Shac1. ShacOne deleted content that Shac1 have been reinserting as part of his 3RR violation. However, i do rather suspect that Arla364 (talk · contribs) is a puppet of Shac1. Anothe admin has blocked ShacOne (talk · contribs). This is gettign messy. DES (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it may be getting messier (even disregarding Shac1's messages below). Two more new editors,