Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive237

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers ownership issues[edit]

There are some serious ownership issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit (suggestions for an alternative forum to raise such ownership issues welcome). Andy Mabbett 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather thought that the point' of WikiProjects was to provide some sort of "officially-sanctioned ownership" of articles in order to keep a sense of order and continuity? Maybe you can direct me to where I am mistaken? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This does not require admin intervention. Moreschi Talk 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone holding a strong opinion in that debate, you have a vested interest. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this may well be more about the attempt by Wikiproject biographies to WP:OWN every bio in existence - and stick hideous ugly standard boxes on them. But then, I could be wrong.--Docg 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Something like that. Moreschi Talk 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As indeed, you are. Regardless of the merits or problems with infoboxes, referring to another editor as a "guest" on a set of pages is unacceptable; as are other comments of a similar nature in that debate. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That much is true; there is a definite WP:OWN violation here. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not involved in the debate, and the language was certainly infelicitous, but Andy Mabbett's comments were inadvisable and needlessly contentious in the context of a project page that caters to editors with a common interest in writing about composers. Righteously bandying policy around and making accusations against other editors, impugning their motives, etc..., (many of whom have put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the various composer pages) was bound to elicit a reaction of frustration. The editors at the composer project certainly know they don't own composer articles. In its context, the comment was clearly borne out of exasperation. Taking this to ANI is somewhat inflammatory in the context of the discussion. A break from involvement in the debate might be a good idea. Eusebeus 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), he has exhibited WP:OWN issues in spades before. Not least was his repeated ad nauseum claim that WikiProject Biography shouldn't tag opera-related articles, one reason for this was that it encourages rock fans to edit them! :) I believe that a thorough examination of this editor's contribs (particularly at WIkipedia talk and user talk) would show it wasn't an isolated incident or as innocent as you think. The editor in question plainly believes that his WikiProject should have sole scope over these articles. --kingboyk 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If that is the sole instance of WP:OWN being referenced here, I take back my comment and offer an apology. My suspicion is that the accusation is intended to address the general tenor of the debate, which impugns the intent of many other editors and that is not acceptable. Eusebeus 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Please rephrase. --kingboyk 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not seeing your initial report beyond the statement: There are some serious ownership issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit. That is the comment to which my reaction was directed. Eusebeus 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought my initial report (about which you, Eusebeus, failed to AGF), was perfectly clear - there are multiple breaches of OWN, including but not limited to the one I cited. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with Eusebeus, but may I point out that no adminstrative action is, as of yet, required to address the actions of anyone, and that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion? Doubtless Kleinzach is not perfect, but then no one is, but he is a very valuable contributor who has done a huge amount of good for Wikipedia,so AGF. This is a bit of a blind alley from the real issues at hand. Moreschi Talk 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if someone might be able to explain to me whether I am to consider myself a "guest" or whether I may edit in these topic areas? Is one invited to do so or must one have an established presence in the subject? If so, then what policies are to be followed and what are not? How does one stop being a guest? Is there a test to pass or something? Must I follow the policies of the composers project when aditing articles about classical composers and related subjects? Or should I follow sitewide policy. This is very confusing and I'm not at all sure what to do now. I wrote a new article today about an Offenbach Opera that no one had done before, but I wasn't sure what to do and whether what I had done was right. Gretab 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Some clarification for you: there is no sitewide policy concerning these infoboxes. They are entirely voluntary and not mandated by anything or anyone. Moreschi Talk 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is none. His accusation was unacceptable in my eyes (as a normal editor anyway). You're within your rights to contribute -- productively -- to the discussion and make any edits you see fit provided they follow policy (and if they happen to go against consensus, should be reverted with a note as such). As for User:Kleinzach, I don't know him, but in light of the words, I am not surprised to find that he is indeed the same one who made this edit (with the resultant talk here ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the discussion has become unfocused here a bit. If Andy Mabbett's complaint is that Kleinzach referred to editors as "guests" of a body of articles, then I, and probably most others, would agree with him without reservation about ownership issues. As I understand it, though, the larger point was that a group of editors, regularly involved in Composer's bio pages, discussed the value of the boilerplate infobox that the bio group likes to put on pages and found it generally wanting with respect to specific issues pertinent to composers. The subsequent debate leans overwhelmingly in favour of not using such boxes. Because that debate largely involves people who are connected to the composer's project and because the consensus against infoboxes was formed within that community, they were accused of "owning" composer articles. That is simply not true; to bandy accusations of ownership around is disingenuous. Obviously a group of people who are actively involved in a specific area are going to have issues and viewpoints that exist simply as a function of that involvement. The slap-happy infobox taggers at the bio project should be sensitive to that. Eusebeus 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a stronger case of WP:OWN might be lodged at the door of Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Wikipedia. Might we hear his thoughts on that particular aspect of this matter? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Go look at the contribs as I suggested. The editor in question feels he has the right to prevent others from editing "his" WikiProject's articles or talk pages. That's OWNership. WikiProject Biography doesn't do that so you're way off the mark there. --kingboyk 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to echo what Eusebeus and Phil have said. WP:OWN is a much wider issue and I strongly object to projects like WP:WPBIO trying to force their poorly-designed infoboxes everywhere indiscriminately. The composer bioboxes were particularly bad as they caused basic distortions of fact. Factual accuracy is essential for an encyclopaedia, infoboxes are not. --Folantin 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, while perhaps not the original intention of this report, it does bring to light what Folatin, Eusebeus, and Phil have said in relation to WP:OWN and wikiprojects. This is something I've been noticing more of lately; members of wikiprojects at least insinuating on talkpages that they somehow have more right to edit their project topics than non-project editors or using their project numbers to stuff AfDs. It is not a helpful trend.--Isotope23 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Wikipedia.". Your accusations are unfounded (if not, cite evidence) and yorur tone unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Eusebeus, you totally misrepresent the complaint raised here. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How so? Are you stating that your problem is limited to Kleinzach's comment about guests? In which case, you will get no argument here. Or do you have a wider issue? In which case, could you link to the specific comments you find objectionable and iterate your reasons for finding them unacceptable? Eusebeus 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fightback starts here.--Docga pox on the boxes 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect that's not a very helpful statement. The issue is perceived statements of WP:OWNership. It's fine to debate and reject infoboxes, it's not fine to say "you're not editing because I don't like your edits" or, even worse, "we don't want pimply pop music fans editing our articles". If they feel that way (and I can provide a diff to show this was said (minus the "pimply" bit), they can go to another wiki! --kingboyk 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, project perceived ownership is the issue here; not infoboxes.--Isotope23 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How is this a WP:OWN problem? Show of hands: who hasn't seen stuff five times worse than that diff on an average page? "The box wars are hot" is an understatement. "We should finish the template box debate" would be nice. "People get worked up about this" is a truism. "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported. "You are a guest" is the "own" thing? Ok, so that's one person with an opinion. Other people have other opinions. Geogre 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"How is this a WP:OWN problem?" - read WP:OWN, and the cited diff.
" "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported" Hence "exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit".
Andy Mabbett 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is about boxes? Good grief! Boxes are imminently foolish when they're applied by fools or when they are designed by fools. They are wholly inappropriate as a "must" on anything. The only truly consistent people are the dead, and I would argue that they're not consistent, either. In fact, a standardized anything works only when we are absolutely sure that all elements of the series have absolutely defined common points of importance. It's fair to have a blanket rejection of boxes for biographies (as I do), because it's fair to believe (as I do) that no two lives are alike and no two people can be reduced to any common points of importance. It's fair to tell the templateers to go away, as what they're doing is not editing the article but dressing it. Putting a decal on your bumper does not make you an automotive engineer. Geogre 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Oh, so this is about boxes? " No; it's about ownership. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, it's about conflicting OWNership, then. That's the problem. Boxes are not good or bad: they're GIGO. However, when WikiProjectX asserts control of all articles written under a particular subject matter, that is an assertion of OWNership, too. If two WP:OWN violations meet, we have problems. I think the impulse behind "we have a project that claims this article, so you must now have the following qualities placed here" causes conflicts across the project, and, of course, "I wrote it, so it's mine" does, too. The problem is that I see the edge going to the people who have worked on the content, and I regard boxes and templates as non-content contributions. Therefore, even if the content folks were ill humored and acid tongued, we're not really at the level of a WP:OWN violation -- just regular boorishness in the face of a conflict. Geogre 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"it's about conflicting OWNership, then." No. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Geogre. Bioboxes were an ill-conceived disaster from the start. Take Philidor, for instance, who was equally famous as a chess champion and a composer. Somebody has put him in the chess master biobox. Does someone now come along and add a composer biobox below? Or Ignacy Paderewski, still mercifully free from the box straitjacket. He was a composer, a concert pianist and a prime minister of Poland. Do we fill his page with three infoboxes? Or do we create a special, one-off Composer/Pianist/Premier version? Yet some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier. --Folantin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They also seem rather ill-disposed to discussion to boot. (The Paderewski example is judicious). Eusebeus 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, per Who OWNS what?, talk of "organised resistance" and "trolling" are certainly not helpful, and do not indicate a willingness to work towards consensus. Nor does talk of "BOX fascists". Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier": Do you have any evidence to support that remarkable allegation, or is it just another failure to mention breach of WP:AGF ? Andy Mabbett 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this discussion [1] between you and another user entitled "Why is persondata separate to infobox" isn't entirely irrelevant. You answer the other editor's objection "This would require every biography to have an infobox, which many editors are opposed to" by saying "I would question why they're opposed, and whether they're perhaps putting personal (aesthetic?) preferences before the convenience of users. That said, perhaps, one day, it might be possible for user preferences to include a 'do not display infoboxes" option, like the current "do not show TOCs' option". That's rather propietorial (although you do generously admit that one day it might just be possible to have a page without an obligatory biobox). Also, it's worth remembering some editors have personal preferences for things like factual accuracy. --Folantin 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand by those comments, which neither prove your earlier claim, nor your new allegation of being "propietorial". Andy Mabbett 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think planning to impose infoboxes on every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not conflicts with WP:OWN then? OK. --Folantin 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think yet another false insinuation is unhelpful - nobody is "planning to impose infoboxes" on anything, much less on "every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not". Perhaps you might kindly refrain from inventing such things? Andy Mabbett 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Woot hoot, this is actually quite funny. It doesn't matter who ownes what. Nobody is really explicitly claiming to own anything. The point is that these boxes are a joke. Again and again they have promoted inaccurate information, and such a simplified view of matters that the aura they project is misleading. I mean, check out this monster. His "associated act" was apparently the Pittsburgh Symphony. Right. This is not, by far, the only example: there are plenty worse.
This isn't about ownership. This is about inaccurate and oversimplified information being removed. Anyone can do that, WikiProject or no. I've tried to help out GretaB, so if there was any bad fallout from Kleinzach's remark, I've believe that's been dealt with. At any rate, these infoboxes, where they are inaccurate, are being removed and will continue to be removed. That is supported by consensus and, more importantly, the fact that Wikipedia must be accurate at all costs, regardless of whether the boxen make data-parsing easier or whatever. For future reference, it's not a good idea to apply boxen intended for those working within the tradition of more popular music to "classical" composers, and vice versa. Like applying a country infobox to a philosopher. You will have problems with accuracy and lack of NPOV definition. Moreschi Talk 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue is ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I believe that issue has been dealt with. I've tried to clarify matters to GretaB, and Isotope23 has left a message on Kleinzach's talk. Fair enough. It may be worth noting that he was probably referring to GretaB not quite getting the fairly deep-seated issues at hand: I've also tried to clarify that. Incidentally, several people here have expressed a distaste for the lack of consideration in the mass application of infoboxes. Is there anything else you want done? If not, I can go back to removing more misleading and useless boxes. Moreschi Talk 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Second that. Andy Mabbett's response strikes me as galling hubris. A group of editors who have committed a lot of time to improving composer and composer-related articles have concluded after open debate that the bio-project infoboxes are ineffective for composers. Andy aired his view in their forum. They disagreed, expansively explaining why. In lieu of accepting the issues raised, he instead bring the issue up - very inappropriately - as an administrative matter. Ridiculous. Eusebeus 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, you completely misrepresent me. You also ignore the other, uninvolved, editors who agree that that there have been "ownership" issues; and the fact that one of the editors concerned has acknowledged, and rightly apologised for, his inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well, so time to move on now I think. As Moreschi notes, the issue has been settled. Eusebeus 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. I'll leave the difficult task of interpreting Andy's comments and behaviour "correctly" to others if they are so inclined. There's nothing more to be said here. --Folantin 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice also that no one seems to have even informed Kleinzach that this discussion was going on. It's completely inappropriate to start talking ill of a user without telling him or her that the discussion is going on. Heimstern Läufer 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (I'm on a different timezone here). I have written to Gretab directly (also on the Composers Project page) to say that my comment about her being a "guest" was inappropriate. I've withdrawn what I said. The last thing I wanted to do was to personalize a difficult issue - not just of the problematic infoboxes - but about the way the different projects relate to each other. I had intended to avoid getting involved in the increasingly ill-tempered tail end of the Composers Project discussion, and I should have trusted my better instincts. --Kleinzach 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the note and the invitation to join the Opera project. However, in exploring the project further, I came across this comment concerning naming a category of opera in German. Could you please explain what the word "interlopers" means in this context? Who are the "interlopers" here? Gretab 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I've already explained to you directly, I didn't make this comment and I don't have anything to say about it. --Kleinzach 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear from the context that "interlopers" refers to operas rather than editors. "German Romantic opera" is a very specific category. Some well-meaning users might be tempted to add items to the category which don't belong there (merely because they are German and involve romantic love, say). GuillaumeTell, the editor who made the remark, is suggesting that calling the category "Romantischen Opern" will prevent this confusion and stop people mistakenly adding the wrong operas ("interlopers") to the category. --Folantin 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, GT, is clearly referring to operas being added to silly cateogries rather than people. Moreschi Talk 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of ink and ire spilled over box/not-box. Can't we leave it up to the editors of the individual articles to decide whether they need a box or not? Boxes work in some situations (cricketer biographies, for example, are almost always improved by a box, as it moves the stats into one place, neatly) but not others, particularly people whose "facts" are not well established or disputed. It is just as bad to insist that no article should have a box as to insist that they all must. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again: The issue was ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is not really the forum to discuss the ownership issue either, but as you brought it up, yes, you do seem to be trying to own the articles on composers by insisting that they must have an infobox, contrary to the consensus that the other editors involved in the WikiProject seem to have reached a consensus that they should not. I understand their frustration when you insist that there is "no consensus" because you hold an opposite opinion. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Which editors? The whole story started with a bunch of "project members" installing ownership and chasing editors off their (the "project") turf. So the question is: does the editors include only the owner-editors, or the rest of wikipedia have a say too? NVO (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view, this was a dispute over infoboxes that brought several ownership issues to the surface. The ownership issues are easily dealt with, but the infobox issue is not going to go away anytime soon. I will reiterate my views here:

  • Infoboxes can work well in certain contexts (even people).
  • Infoboxes should not be used as a way to store metadata for parsing.
  • Metadata should be added invisibly or otherwise generated - the visible stuff must first and foremost be readable and accurate, and be simple for editors to edit for readability and accuracy
  • Infoboxes should be an "at-a-glance" summary of the article, similar to but different to the lead section.
  • Infoboxes should summarise the key points of an article - effectively they should be a tabular form of the lead section, plus some statistical information that is too dry and boring for the article (see Earth for an example).
  • Anything controversial or difficult to explain should be explained in a footnote or left for the main text of the article to explain. This takes priority over any perceived desire to "fill in an entry" just because the entry exists in other infoboxes. Just deleting a 'difficult to explain' parameter is better than fudging the issue or over-simplifying.
  • The main text of an article will always be the primary conduit for transmitting information from the editor to the reader - infoboxes should never be more than summaries of existing information (with the 'dry' data exception pointed out above).

If the above could be written up as a guideline (maybe it already exists), and (this is the difficult bit) a culture change instituted among Wikipedia editors (or at least those that misunderstand or fail to see the above points), then the tide may start to turn. Carcharoth 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Carcharoth for providing very helpful guidelines on infobox usage. I hope that perhaps these guidelines are available in a much more visible and formal setting for the reference of other editors. I look forward to the day when there is a wider concensus on the use of infoboxes. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure...[edit]

I wasn't sure where to report this, but after some investigating of 2 users (User:E-abulous and User:Driski555), one of whom left a cryptically threatening message on my talk page (which I've deleted), I've discovered that they're using Wikipedia as a social networking site. They're friends from Wisconsin, apparently, their pages are filled with user boxes, and yet their only edits to pages, other than each other's talk pages, are almost always vandalism. I'm not sure, but I think this should probably earn them both a block, or at least a stern warning by an administrator. Fuzzform 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of specific violations. I would appreciate it if someone did something about these two. They're being disruptive to wikipedia, and they're using Wikipedia as a social networking site, rather than actually contributing anything. It would be pointless for me to leave even the most civil of comments on either of their talk pages; doing so would definitely just cause them to leave more ambiguous threats. Violations:

Civility violations; threats on my page and other users' pages - [2] User talk:MER-C/archives/13 - WP:CIVIL, WP:Harassment

User page violations - User:Driski555, User:E-abulous - WP:NOT#WEBSPACE / WP:NOT#SOCIALNET / WP:NOT#MYSPACE / WP:NOT#USER

Vandalism, from E-abulous [3] [4] - WP:vandalism

Vandalism, from Driski555 - [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - WP:vandalism

See user contributions for E-abulous [10]

See user contributions for Driski555 [11]

Fuzzform 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and restoration of List of ethnic slurs[edit]

Yesterday at 22:00, Anthony.bradbury deleted the List of ethnic slurs article with the summary "contains only racist jargon," a remarkably peculiar rationale for the removal of an article about ethnic slurs (and certainly nothing resembling a speedy deletion criterion). Evidently, this action was inspired by the insertion of the tag "{{db|It is full of racism.}}" by the well-intentioned (but inexperienced) Super World Champions at 20:52.

An anonymous user (67.171.71.96) posted a policy-based complaint on Anthony's talk page, to which Anthony responded by criticising the editor for failing to sign the message.

This article has survived four deletion debates, three of which were closed with a result of "keep":

Per the deletion policy, I've undone this obvious out-of-process deletion and informed Anthony via his talk page. —David Levy 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will accept that my message to the anonymous user was over-brusque, although it was in my view neither offensive nor rude. As to the article, I take full responsibility for its deletion; the editor tagging it merely did so in standard and correct format, and he carries no blame for any part of this affair. I will accept, if this is the view of the community, that deletion was not appropriate, although the very fact that it has gone through four deletion debates indicates that opinions exist on both sides.--Anthony.bradbury 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Anthony.
My objection to your reply to the anonymous user is that you didn't address any of his/her comments (which were civil and policy-based). Replying only to criticise him/her for neglecting to sign the post seemed rather dismissive.
I strongly agree with your comments regarding the newcomer who added the tag. I noted this fact only to avoid implying that you appeared out of the blue and deleted the article for no apparent reason.
The number of deletion nominations certainly reflects the subject's controversial nature, but keep in mind that three of the four debates ended with consensus to keep the article (and the one failure to reach consensus was due to correctable problems that subsequently were addressed, thereby enabling the following debate to reach another "keep" consensus).
Out of curiosity (and in the hope of providing constructive criticism), could you please elaborate on your speedy deletion rationale? Your summary was a bit vague (especially considering the fact that it described the subject's nature). —David Levy 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with receiving, and learning from, constructive criticism. My rationale, which I now make no further attempt to defend, was that the article contained significant racist comments without enhancing the content of the encyclopedia. But I accept that was, in the view of the community at large, a misjudgement.--Anthony.bradbury 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding and for being so receptive. Your error in judgement was not in deciding that the article was unencyclopedic (which is a reasonable opinion, regardless of whether it's held by a majority). It was in acting on this determination by speedily deleting the article (instead of following the standard deletion process).
This is the sort of decision that shouldn't be made unilaterally by users not named Jimbo. As such, it can only be reached via a community discussion leading to consensus.
With occasional common-sense exceptions, the speedy deletion criteria should be applied. One needn't always follow them to the letter, but the spirit should be observed. When in doubt, don't delete. —David Levy 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Terry Lewis (police commissioner)[edit]

I earlier stubbed this article as it contains large amounts of negative information about a living person, and has been tagged as unsourced since June 2006. Administrator Rebecca has since twice restored the article, despite me leaving a message on her talk page after she restored it the first time. She claims blanking not justified by policy, when my stubbing was fully justified per WP:BLP. Please intervene, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 03:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on Hackey's talk page, the BLP policy requires that material be contentious before it be removed on sight. The material is not in any way in dispute, nor is it in any way speculative; it describes his very high-profile and very widely-known firing, trial and conviction. It was much reported on at the time, and is still fairly well remembered twenty years on. What this needs is someone to take the time to cite the obvious; not to trash what is a perfectly good article through overzealous misinterpretation of a policy. Rebecca 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP states Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. The article has been unsourced and tagged as unsourced since June last year, my stubbing was fully justified per policy. One Night In Hackney303 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point and misread the policy. As I've twice noted, the key word in that policy is "contentious". This material is not in any way contentious, disputed or questionable; it is just a matter-of-fact description of events which are well-known, on the public record, and easily verifiable. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate candidate for being shot on sight; perhaps instead of revert warring, your attentions could be better spent actually sourcing the article. Rebecca 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation of the policy is one which has been backed up many times, unsourced negative information is removed on sight. You caused the edit war by repeatedly violating WP:BLP and restoring the unsourced negative information to the article, so perhaps your attentions could be better spent actually sourcing the article? One Night In Hackney303 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Rebecca, I don't see a source, and untill I see it sourced in the article, I'll say 'I dont believe this'. Consider it contentious as of now. -Mask? 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the article, citing Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct from Fitzgerald Inquiry which discusses the same incident and gives basically the same details, and maybe also the two books cited in the Fitzgerald Inquiry article. One Night in Hackney could have avoided this drama by clicking on the Fitzgerald Inquiry link that was very prominent in the Lewis article and pasting the references from there into the biography. Please help keep Wikipedia running smoothly. 75.62.7.22 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because I think Rebecca could have avoided all this by sourcing the article the first time it was stubbed. One Night In Hackney303 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, you could have used a fraction of the energy you've expended here and done a 5-second google search, as I have. See below. El_C 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Invoking BLP is usually reserved for cases which are not immediately verifiable. El_C 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also count four and five reverts for ONIH and Rebecca, respectively. I'll gently remind both that I've been known to block for 3RR without an AN3 report having been filed. Let's move on & edit nicely, with common sense extended to the usefulness of reverts, too (Rebecca). Thx. El_C 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I checked AN3 just to see if a report was filed, and it was. I closed it as no action, noting, however, the 3RR violation by both parties. El_C 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And I would respectfully remind you that my reverts were covered by policy and exempt from 3RR. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for restoring negative, unsourced material about a living person. The burden of sourcing material rests on the person adding it. Frise 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The stubbing was not justified per BLP policy since the article was not controversial in tone. (It also referenced another article about the relevant incident, which was thoroughly sourced). At most, if something had to be removed, it should have been done with ordinary editing so that the stuff in the edit history could be recovered and sourced by non-admins. One Night In Hackney was the only person who treated the material as contentious, and that only after repeatedly stubbing the article with no discussion. I count two wheel warring admins, but One Night In Hackney's unwillingness to use common sense about checking out the article comes across to me as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. 75.62.7.22 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no wheel warring (definted as a revert war involving administrative —not editorial— means) to the best of my observation. El_C 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you verify that? I had thought the article had been repeatedly stubbed and unstubbed (i.e. all revisions administratively deleted and undeleted) and not just blanked (contents removed and restored by normal editing), but I may have gotten confused. As a non-admin I can see the (empty) deletion log for the article, but not for its revisions. 75.62.7.22 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no wheel warring, although there should have been at least one admin action I can think of. Frise 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, blanking is much more correct than stubbing, in a situation like this, and I'm glad there was not a wheel war. It still seems to me, however, that One Night In Hackney was disrupting to make a point. 75.62.7.22 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Negative and unsourced material about a living person has no place on Wikipedia. Sourcing is preferable to removing, but re-adding such unsourced material once it has been challenged is completely unacceptable. Frise 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically the page is still unreferenced, until the list of references is linked with citations for the actual claims involved. The page needs to be upgraded with use of the ref tag and the references/ tag. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My conclusion as the uninvolved admin attending to this is that you are not, in fact, entitled to invoke the BLP clause to violate 3RR over content which is immediately verifiable. A cursory search is expected. El_C 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I gather this being your position, but it is within my mandate to correct you in this limited instance. El_C 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The case here involved claims which are much more limited and easily verifiable. El_C 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, ONIH. Frise 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It does sound as if the BLP policy needs clarification on what 'contentious' means, since in this case two established users disagree on the meaning of the policy here. If this misunderstanding happens once, it will happen again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Consider it contentious as of now" tells me that the article got blanked before its contents were considered contentious. We really don't need more instruction creep, we need less confrontational attitudes. Edit collaboratively instead of trying to press every prerogative to the hilt. 75.62.7.22 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good luck. I had a long discussion about a user who was doing the same thing as ONH did on this area, except, on a much wider scale. Not only did I get yelled at to "Get off my ass" instead of complaining (and asking that contentious be removed from the BLP, if that's the way it's going to be enforced), another user got indefblocked (since removed) for restoring the information removed as a BLP violation. ONiH was a member of that discussion, so I'm sure he was quite sure of what the folks who inhabit WT:BLP think the policy is. If you want to see the discussion, here it is SirFozzie 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would contend that most people would think unsourced claims that a policeman accepted $700,000 in bribes to protect brothels, SP bookmakers, illegal casinos, in-line machine operators and to prevent poker machines being legally introduced in Queensland, and committed forgery were contentious. The only person that doesn't think it's contentious is the administrator who's failed to source that page for over a year, and clearly has it watchlisted. Still, I'm sure someone will try and make me look the bad guy in all this still..... One Night In Hackney303 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Rebecca edit warred and should have sourced the article. I think you should have spent a few seconds checking out the underlying claims and discussed the situation with her in a cooperative spirit, instead of using policy as a bludgeon. 75.62.7.22 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It dosen't seem that abstract. The stabbing even omitted any refernce to there being an Inquiry and so on, but the individual is already depicted in its own article. Which isn't to say that Rebecca couldn't have added a source as I did. Both users could/should have done so. El_C 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, ONiH was just applying policy as it was explained on WT:BLP. SirFozzie 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that Fitzgerald Inquiry has contained a link to the outside source for all this information since at least February, and that article has been linked from Terry Lewis (police commissioner) for at least that long as well. Yes, there should be a direct footnote in Terry Lewis, but stubbing seems dramatic overkill for statements that a) aren't in dispute, and b) are fully referenced in a closely-linked article. Both involved editors dropped the ball here, and should be chastised for choosing to get into a pissing match rather than just add the bloody reference. Why isn't WP:SENSE a policy yet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of ISOLA'd ELBA[edit]

ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs) has been indefblocked by Durova as a sockpuppet of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs). They requested to be unblocked. I investigated their contribs and was not convinced there is any connection. I emailed Durova asking for clarification and found the response well-intentioned but not persuasive. ISOLA'd ELBA gave wiki awards to several users, including Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles but other than that all I see is a user who while perhaps a little too userpage-focused, has made an effort to contribute productively. Their only mainspace contrib looked like a hoax (and they were briefly blocked by Sandstein for it) but it is actually legit. Also, there was a checkuser on Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, but did not cover ISOLA'd ELBA. I'm listing here to propose they be unblocked and to invite others to comment on whether they think this is a sock account, and Durova has been notified. —dgiestc 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporal evidence doesn't show a link either: Le Grand Roi seems to go to bed at about 6 UTC (no edits for a good 9 hours after), whereas this user appears to sleep 4 hours earlier, although lack of wide-spread contributions make it a little hard to determine. I would support an unblock. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
To outline my reasons, Isola's third edit ever was to suggest that another editor try for administratorship - not the sort of thing genuine new user usually does. Both accounts use a similarly florid prose style and it's highly unusual for a new account to give a user award to an editor who was indef blocked before the new account was created. Also note that an anonymous user spammed both the thread about Isola at my talk page and the checkuser request on le Grand Roi, similar to le Grand Roi's IP tactics when I ran an investigation and imposed a six week block last fall. Since the Isola account has made only one mainspace edit and was essentially using Wikipedia as Myspace, I'm not very optimistic about the prospects. DurovaCharge! 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Re 3rd edit: You said that before, and it seemed quite damning, but as far as I can tell this is their 3rd edit, copyring userpage design from The Transhumanist. The anon is a lot more suspect, but if I were to venture a guess I'd say the anon is Le Grand Roi trolling you over a collateral damage block. —dgiestc 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this the same guy who disrupted a bunch of AfDs as an anon user by voting speedy keep on them all? JuJube 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's news to me, diffs? —dgiestc 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad on the third edit: that must have been one of the other sockpuppets I investigated from those threads. And to Dgies, if my guess is correct this is the same user who disrupted AfD. DurovaCharge! 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, diffs for the anon? —dgiestc 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Some diffs: [12]. Some discussion here and here. 75.62.7.22 07:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel it is quite likely that Le Grand Roi is behind those anon AfD bulk votes, but I'm still not convinced of the connection between Le Grand Roi/the IPs and Isola'd. Isola'd left wiki awards on several user pages, including Le Grand Roi, and later a strong inclusionist, possibly Le Grand Roi, does cleanup work on their article to try to prevent its deletion. Also Isola'd and the inclusionist anons have different time-patterns. I just don't see enough evidence that Isola'd is a sock account, merely that a sock is interested in them. I am going to unblock ISOLA'd ELBA, but if more damning evidence comes to light please let me know. —dgiestc 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR board refuses to listen to my complaints[edit]

The 3RR board refuses to acknowledge mmy complaint even the user chazbeckett has clearily violated the 3RR rule on the List of Heroes Episodes page.annoynmous 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He was reverting your obvious vandalism, exempt. Please read WP:POINT. -Mask? 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I read this and I had to do some digging. "Obvious vandalism"? Hardly. Content dispute over fair use images, definitely, but I see no part of WP:3RR that makes content disputes regarding policy implementation exempt from the rules. There is no clear, final consensus on the use of fair use images in lists. As a matter of fact, that very matter is currently under discussion.
This is a clear-cut 3RR violation. Admins are not exempt from the rules. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There can be no dispute if they are siply not allowed, and they arent. Read the process that arrived at that here. -Mask? 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no "process that was arrived at". The discussion is ongoing. Regardless of your position on the matter, there is no Wikipedia policy document which explicity states that fair use images in lists is a violation of policy. (Or one that says it's okay, for that matter) All the existing policy documents use intentionally vague wording, such as "minimal" and "decorative". Even the Wikifoundation document uses vague language about "narrow limits".
Until such time as there is a clear, unambiguous directive or decision on the matter all "enforcement" of the no fair use in lists "policy" is edit warring based on differing interpretations of policy, not "reverting vandalism". Plenty of users, even admins have been blocked for this very thing before, and there is no reason why it should suddenly change now. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry, but you seem to be confusing that page for a debate. This is a foundation issue. That page explains our policy, it is not a debate to see what we do. Consensus does not trump legal issues. -Mask? 06:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a flat out lie. chazbeckett was the vandal who deleted fair use images then falsely claimed they weren't.
An why in the hell is he exempt. He violated the rules and therefore he should be banned. Why does he get a pass on the rules and I don't. You guys are such sticklers for policy in every other part of wikipedia, why is this any differnt
I repeat the 3RR board has refused to block chazbeckett even though he has clearily violated the rules.annoynmous 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use images in Lists of Episodes is against policy. There has been a mass removal of this from the wiki today. It is completely inappropriate and legally unstable to add them back. Cease doing it. -Mask? 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the 3RR page listing is incredibly malformed, almost to the point of incoherentness. That's probably why no action is taken. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted such on user's talk page. MSJapan 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR, and right now it seems that constantly re-adding fair use images to episode list articles qualifies. JuJube 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous: Read the instructions carefully. When making a 3RR report, you must fill it out thoroughly. You must include the diffs of at least four reverts. You included only a warning to ChazBeckett. Format the report correctly and you will at least get a response rather than having you report removed (though I don't guarantee the response will be the one you want). Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, i've blocked anonnymous for 1 week for 3RR violation of his own: he made 3 reverts, then logged out shortly after to avoid being caught for the 4th. The user has been blocked several times before for 3RR violation, and received something like a half-dozen or more warnings. SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User is on Active Leave, but has several problems with images[edit]

I just tagged Image:VelocityRunning(2).png at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and did so on his talk page. I then went to his main page and just now realized that he might be actively deployed (if I interpret his page correctly). Now i'm abit worried now, because i've also seen this image that he uploaded elsewhere that has that ominous red tag of death. And I scrambled to get fair use mantra at Image:Velocity1.jpg in place as well. Now seeing he maybe on active duty and can't really defend himself or the images, what sort of action, if any, can be done to rectify the problem with the other two images? --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No special action is needed. The deletion policy makes no exception for stuff added by users who are not currently active for whatever reason. If he wishes to contest the deletion after the fact he can start a deletion review once he comes back. --Sherool (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah ... the other thing to keep in mind is that it used to not be possible to undelete an image ... so it was extremely important that the uploader be notified. Now, though, they can be undeleted so, while we still need to notify the uploader, it isn't as big of an issue if they don't get the message in time. --BigDT 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Prankster club" setting up shop in userspace[edit]

The "main page" seems to be Melbourne DX (talk · contribs) where they have a "hit list" for pranks and all sorts of non-ensyclopedic stuff. The following user acounts are also part of this group:

User:Melbourne DX should be deleted obviously, but what if anyting should be done beyond that? My knee jerk reaction was almost to block the lot of them for inapropriate use of Wikipeida, but I don't deal with user conduct issues all that much so I figured it would be better to bring this to broader attention here rater than risking to overstep my bounds. After all if you look at each acount independently (and asuming they are different people) most of them haven't rely broken any concrete rules. --Sherool (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the userpage mentioned above. Editor had no actual edits and while there is no specific CSD for this, I think it is pretty safe to say that using userspace to coordinate real world "pranks" that may constitute criminal acts is worth a speedy; realistically there is no way this was going to survive an MfD. I'm holding off on acting against any of the individuals at this point until I have more time to review. On the surface it looks like some just need a reminder that this is not a chathost; the rest have no edits.--Isotope23 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hex Number[edit]

Okay, what the bleep is going on? I note several people mentioning some hexadecimal number in as many places as possible, and clamoring about censorship, as well as a rather contentious deletion review that is now closed. Any official word on this? No, this is not THAT number, this is just a random string I made up. >Radiant< 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is on AN [13] pschemp | talk 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[ec]Yeah, I think it is that number. EVula // talk // // 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Some anon is doing stuff to the heading of this thread - is this a bad thing? x42bn6 Talk 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it is a bit of WP:POINT.--Isotope23 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the heading with a new number. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing {{ifd}} tags.[edit]

I need some help from someone more tactful to explain User:Kogsquinge that removing {{ifd}} tags from images ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) isn't a helpful behavior. --Abu badali (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, he has uploaded an unbelievable number of promo photos. Using them in an article on the fictional character ... ok ... but they absolutely need to be removed from the actor/actress articles. --BigDT 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those are not promo photos, although User:Kogsquinge, in good faith, believed them to be. Those are images produced by CBS to enhance their site, cbs.com. And they made it clear in their terms of use that those images are not to be used in any other publication (that's the point of nominating them to ifd). But this is tangential to the matter. --Abu badali (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  •  : Blocked 48h for repeated removal of tags. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Not exactly "tactful" though... --Abu badali (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of VinceB[edit]

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[20]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[21] Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.[22]. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: [23] I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A new one: 195.56.51.196.[24] Tankred 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to post here. The fact that VinceB self-identified through an IP sockpuppet at my user page and asked other editors to run a checkuser certainly raises my eyebrow. At the very least that demonstrates he's watching the situation closely. In general, when a problem editor goes out of his or her way to solicit checkuser it's because they've set up some meatpuppets that they're certain will pass that test. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this is bullshit. I do not set up any sock or meatpuppets. No need to. I do evase ban openly, when I'm around. :) I'm checking Tankred's, Juro's and PANONIAN's edits regularly, and I always find, when they lie, or abuse references [25]. These stupid accusations above are simply harassing other editors, and are good to hide my reports. WTF are you thinking abt me? BTW it is nice, you think I have that much power. LOL. If it would be, these reports were long ago initiated, almost in first edits. This is sad. LOL. --195.56.231.222 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vince, I withdraw the offer I extended to you via e-mail. I don't do favors for people who insult me. DurovaCharge! 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda[edit]

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say [26]:

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page [27]:

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, Orthologist. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy talk 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy talk 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coelacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Wikipedia that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Wikipedia can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder if anybody who uses the handle "The way, the truth, and the light" could ever be anything but contentious. Corvus cornix 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you did remove content: see here. You were removing evidence that you blanked warnings. IrishGuy talk 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As I explained somewhere else, I was not removing evidence because I admitted that I had done it in the next reply. The way, the truth, and the light 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Good block, clear disruption after disruptive edit-warring. I would suggest that User:The way, the truth, and the light stays away from Homosexual agenda, because at the moment he's is adding nothing constructive to the article in question, nor to the talk page. Moreschi Talk 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4[edit]

Without trying to cause a conflict on the above dispute, the above page is still fully protected on grounds of a dispute, with the discussion here now closed, where are people supposed to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is over? --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further issues can be resolved on the user talk pages, or an application for unprotection can be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss my deletion of the RfC on my talk page. El_C 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully support deletion, but what's the point in keeping it undeleted if it's protected? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned, I've always kept the talk pages of deleted RfCs intact and I see no compelling reason to change that practice now. El_C 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well might I suggest removing the disputed template from the top? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following that. El_C 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So where is this dispute settled? Don't say in userspace because that's not what the tag suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's just how the tag is designed. I can modify it if it's really important to you. Anyway, the point of having it undeleted even if it is protected (which happned after undeletion) is that it can still be read by non-admins. El_C 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm really not that bothered to be honest, but it just seams a bit stupid to have a template on the page saying it's disputed with no-where to go to settle the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I modified it to read something more generic. Hope that helps. El_C 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for clarifying the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to post to that page as well, but I realised my comment was more about RfCs in general, so I posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Incidentially, while reading up on all this, I came across this, which seems to raise an important point. Where is the dividing line between blocking vandals and biting newcomers who carry out test edits? The issues of cool-off blocks (bad) and blocking test-edit 'vandals' (bad) should be made clearer, or rather it should be made clearer that those who disagree with those assessments shouldn't carry out such blocks regardeless. Having said that, it did seem to cool the situation down, and I applaud those who were blocked but didn't get upset. One day, not having a block on your block log will be seen as a sign of not having been around long enough to get an unfair block or two! :-) Carcharoth 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. The former is the talk page I meant to link above (I've now corrected it), and the latter is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Seems confusing and might be to do with an earlier page move. Should the pural "requests" talk page redirect be pointed back to the singular "request" talk page? Carcharoth 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you having a conversation with yourself? I love those. El_C 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who, me? Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, he means me! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What, are you sure? Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, I'm confused now! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's OK, I've explained everything in the edit summary! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comments is now re-redirected to Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment. -- BenTALK/HIST 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. A three-and-a-half year old mystery spotted by my typo is now solved. As this is the only "Kelly Martin" thread on ANI that seems to be still open, I suggest someone archive it quick! I suggest a puce shade of mauve. :-) Carcharoth 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, A Puce Shade of Mauve, the famous unwritten Travis McGee novel! -- BenTALK/HIST 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible death threat[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted User:219.95.37.175 twice today at Womanizer. 219.95.37.175 then made an edit which included "Remove will die" [28] as a wikilink. I also reverted that edit. There is no article and only a single unrelated Google hit on "Remove will die". PrimeHunter 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a death threat, it's just adding nonsense into the article, I'll warn the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you live in Malaysia... and I agree with Ryan, this is just silly vandalism.--Isotope23 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would wanr, but he's been blocked.... I'll speak to the blocking admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Since their vandalism kept getting removed and then they added it, I interpreted it as a threat and blocked 31 hours. —dgiestc 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's not assume our editors dont live in Malaysia but I agree that such an edit should be ignored/treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally think a warning would have been more than sufficient. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I treated it as a (admittedly improbable) threat because they kept making the same vandalism and having it removed, so it was clearly directed at the person removing vandalism. I was under the impression threats are to be treated very seriously. If you think it was overly harsh you can unblock/warn. —dgiestc 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the block was fine; I'm not a big fan of warning for the sake of having warned a user. It's obvious they had vandalism on their mind, and so AGF goes right out the window. EVula // talk // // 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that we should have a zero tolerance toward death threats. This may not be a clear threat but we should be sending a message that says death threats (however they are stated) will not be tolerated. It's s little funny and editor can get blocked faster for making a legal threat then by making a death threat. RxS 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree, we don't just block IP address's for vandalism when they haven't been warned, especially when it was simple nonsense that was being added, not a threat. I'm not unblocking, but I'm not happy about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To me, it looks like a poor-English version of "If you remove this again I will kill you". —dgiestc 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how you got that from; Victor the Great (Remove will die) - somebody must have some really bad english problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well not everyone speaks English, SqueakBox 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in Malaysia and I'm not worried about my safety. More details: I reverted two additions [29][30] of "[[Victor]] (''[[ Victor the Great ]]'')". My second edit summary was "Listings should have an article". The user then added "[[Victor the Great]] (''[[Remove will die]]'')" instead.[31] It seems impossible to me that the user thinks there is or should be such an article on a non-existant phrase, so it looked like a (strangely formatted) threat to me. A 31-hour block is OK for me. PrimeHunter 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I still see no death threat, I'm not going to be on the computer for a while so I guess I'll be getting shot down for my stance! The guy was adding nonsense into the article and that was it, something which most probably a warning would have dealt with, but I notice that despite 4 revisions throughout the day, not a single warning was given. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, generally speaking I don't think we should be forced to warn people about death threats before a block (or threats that could be interpreted as death threats). That goes beyond simple vandalism. If, after getting blocked, the editor wants to clarify his remarks then fine. But death threats should never ever be accepted (just as legal threats are not accepted). I agree that a warning sequence needs to be followed in the case of simple vandalism. RxS 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that death threats shouldn't result in an immediate block, I agree they should, what I'm saying is, this wasn't a death threat, it was simple vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's why I put in "threats that could be interpreted as death threats". This seems to qualify as several editors saw it as a possible death threat. If his less than perfect command of English got in the way of his real message, he can explain himself more fully on his talk page. I'm not trying to focus only on this block, I'm trying to make a more general point about these kinds of threats...this just happened to catch my eye. In general, I think we need a zero tolerance policy toward someone threatening an editor. You make what could be interpreted as a death threat, you get blocked. You can explain on your talk page if you'd like, and the blocking admin can bring it here for discussion...but we shouldn't accept any threats of this kind. RxS 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another IP, User:60.49.108.42 (whose only other edit is about Malaysia) has now added "[[Vicotr The Great]] (''[[!!You Remove You Die!!]]'')".[32] My revert edit summary before that said "Was that edit a death threat against me?)".[33] This looks like the answer. I have reverted for the 4th time today. I assume that's allowed here. PrimeHunter 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp says the two IP's are to:
219.95.37.175: MALAYSIA, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR, ADSL-STREAMYX-TMNET
60.49.108.42: MALAYSIA, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR, TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD
Combined with the huge similarity in edits and the second IP being used after the first was blocked, it looks like the same person to me. PrimeHunter 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Any action or comments on 60.49.108.42? English is my second language but writing "!!You Remove You Die!!" at something I had removed 3 times sounds like a threat. PrimeHunter 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Having known Malaysia, it sounds a lot like Manglish - Malaysian slang. x42bn6 Talk 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking; this block seems fine. I would have likely done the exact same thing. El_C 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme POV pushing[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 has just removed Category:Terrorism from the Proxy bomb article, then replaced it with two dubious categories, one of which does not exist. Nobody operating from a neutral point of view could possibly say that forcing an innocent member of the public to become a suicide bomber is not a terrorist act, and it certainly isn't the act of a "freedom fighter". One Night In Hackney303 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To her credit she has self revert the "freedom fighter" cat.--Vintagekits 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Only because the category doesn't exist. One Night In Hackney303 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly.--Vintagekits 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And it continues. One Night In Hackney303 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have conceded on the category because I was technically wrong. Not conceding the POV; but that's for another day. Basically my stance is that NPOV across and between articles is as, or more, important to the credibility of Wiki than NPOV within a single article. (Sarah777 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

2 articles in need of semi-protection due to homophobic and/or scatalogical vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Resolved for now? I'll see if I can help keep an eye on these. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two articles that I watch are very frequent subjects of scatalogical vandalism and/or homophobic vandalism. Thos articles are: Fudge and Jim Jones. I bvelieve that semi-protecting the pages against new users and users with accounts not older than 4 days will suffice. most of the vandalism coomes from unregistered users. It seems like every day someone vandlaizes the Fudge article and at least a few times a week with Jim Jones. Frequent reverts make it hard to do any real editing on these articles. ThanksLiPollis 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should really be made at WP:RFPP, where there will likely be a quicker response. Will (aka Wimt) 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at both articles, and there appears to be not enough recent history to warrant semi-protecting those two articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. If you say so. I hereby refuse to revert any more unconstructive edits to those articles- let somebody else take up the cause. I'm tired.LiPollis 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Military brat[edit]

Resolved: reverted the move. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody made an arbitrary decision to move Military brat (U.S. subculture) to simply Military brat. This is a huge mistake as discussed on the Military brat (U.S. subculture) talk page. The article has a definate US bias because that is where the research has been done and it would be impossible to make a global page unbiased. I need somebody to revert this move ASAP---otherwise, there will tons of criticism (and rightfully so) of the article.Balloonman 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC on expand)User in question is User:Deltabeignet. This move wasn't done right, as the talk page is still at the Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) page, and there was existing talk at [Military brat]], which seems to address the problems with this. Further, a review of the editor's history shows NO involvement on any of the related pages or talk pages, going back 500 edits, which gets back to the start of 2007. ThuranX 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In general we don't disambiguate unless necessary; disambiguating just because an article doesn't yet contain all worldwide points of view isn't the way things are generally done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As the complaintant explains, however, there is no information on the other nations. The article perhaps should've been moved and tagged as america-centric (i forget the proper tag terminology). The way this move was done left behind the talk page, and had NO consensus, and the editor moving had no involvement anywhere on the article before. ThuranX 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Two things: Wasn't this recently a featured article? Why would it be moved at that point? That's ridiculous. Secondarily, Thuran, I believe the tag is called worldview. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(That's the one, thank you.) ThuranX 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it was a featured article recently, and also per the move log: "Move log 04:51, December 1, 2006 Balloonman (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military brat to Military brat (US Subculture) (Per Military Peer Review and FAC comment) (revert)" I've therefore reverted it back. Deltabeignet clearly did not bother to check for or get consensus before moving a featured article....that's just ridiculous. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
However, its current title does not comply with Wikipedia's standard naming conventions, which are to only disambiguate if there actually is something TO disambiguate. I think the problem is that the term "Military brat" is normally used only in the US, but the concept that it describes is not necessarily so limited. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is commonly used in England, US, Canada, and Australia (and probably other English speaking countries.) But the research on the subject has been strictly done in the US (see talk page for full discussion supporting that statement.) Thus it is necessary to create a stub for just Military brat to cover the subject in a generic sense... and then a disambiguous page to cover the specific researched effects on the US phenomenon (again see talk page for discussion on why it is impractical to try to write a comprehensive global article.) Thus the disambig is used to indicate that this article is talking about the US impact of being a military brat. Anyways, I do thank you guys for fixing it... if it stayed it would have caused major problems.Balloonman 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
World view for yaRyūlóng (竜龍) 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear enough below, the stub Military brat also exists, for the "world view" aspect of it, you may want to look into adding it there too Ryulong (and now I'm REALLY going to bed). SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


I just realized that when Swatjester fixed the move made by User:Deltabeignet that he moved the article Military brat. There was a stub there that covered military brats from a more generic point of view... and having been involved with this article, that page is necessary. Can somebody restore that page? I've asked swatjester to look at it, but I don't know if he's still awake.Balloonman 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, I didn't move it, Deltabeignet had already deleted it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
NP thanksBalloonman 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, so because a Featured article only discusses the US point of view, it must have a disambiguation attached to it? why? Seems like someone is deprecating the article with the tag. If there are other views besides the US POV, add them, don't create forks for every country in the world in which the term might be used. Corvus cornix 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IP 24.255.161.9 NPA[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? Heh, didn't see this report... – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeated personal attacks... latest one here, in which he blanks my userpage to make more personal attacks.

/Blaxthos 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours by User:Luna Santin. MahangaTalk 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive fraud by administrator User:Jersyko[edit]

Resolved

Jersyko is massively blocking others, including hard blocks in order to sqaush all reasonable, NPOV edits in place of subtle POV edits. He falsely claims he’s blocking socks. He accused lawman8 yesterday (proven to be in Atlanta) then blocked sample123 claiming that that user was also in Atlanta, Georgia (abbreviated GA). Jersyko deleted (reverted) evidence proving sample1234 is in San Diego, California (thousands of miles away on the same day). If lawman8 is a sock then sample1234 is innocent because of location and IP.

  • Worse yet, Jersyko is guilty of being a sockpuppetmaster because only a guilty person would delete SSP and RFCU complaints against himself as Jersyko has. This alone should cause the banning of Jersyko.

I am not involved in any content dispute and I can prove that I am not anywhere near Atlanta (location of accused sock) or San Diego. I know that I will be blocked just because I’m exposing fraud by an administrator.

This AN/I is already too long but give me a chance and I’ll show even more of Jersyko’s fraud and deception. Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up. You should immediately and temporarily block Jersyko so that I can present evidence without being blocked by Jersyko or his accomplices.MAB1970 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, and/or links to relevant block logs, please. Grandmasterka 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say.... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Also pretty odd to be discussing adminabuse when the editor has only two prior edits, unless there were deletions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up. You should immediately and temporarily block Jersyko" - ah, nope. Not without evidence. Fraud is a pretty heavyweight word to be swinging around, unless you actually meant to accuse them of a criminal offence - Alison 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've just been looking through his deletion log, and didn't see any instances of "delete SSP and RFCU complaints against himself as Jersyko has" in it. Bad faith request I would say.--Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Beat me to it. 3rd edit and you know what SSP and RFCU are? Who's the sockpuppet now? SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
More suspicion is in the actual checkuser request for Jersyko, which has not been deleted.[34] Looks like retaliation to me. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
... also see User:MAB1971 as well as this posted to various talk pages. Nothing wrong if this person has genuine concerns, but creating sock accounts to post (as yet) unsubstantiated complaints?? Smacks of dishonesty - Alison 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what this is for. 75.62.7.22 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have block MAB1971 (talk · contribs) as a sock of MAB1970 (talk · contribs), feel free to revert my block. Gnangarra 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, right... Jersyko is committing fraud... thanks for the laugh, anon... nothing to see here, move along... Phaedriel - 09:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Chances are both of them are socks of some other blocked user. I've notified Jersyko about this thread so he might be able to indentify them for us, but I suspect he won't be around until at least daybreak in the U.S., several hours from now. (I should write on my userpage that I'm an extreme night owl.) Grandmasterka 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser says this is the banned Dereks1x. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah! What a surprise! - Alison 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Fits doesn't it? Anyway, indef blocks anyone? --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Way ahead of you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Careful Ryulong, didn't you see that you now support fraud and cover-up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"support fraud and cover-up?" That comment doesn't seeem to be very civil, Seraphimblade, so can you calm down a bit. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, time for the annual humor sensor readjustment? Try reading it in context this time... ;-) Dmcdevit·t 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh right. I was wondering about why that comment was placed, especially by Seraphimblade... Sorry. Well I better go and sob in my corner...and I still don't get the joke. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I quote MAB1970, "Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up." Ryulong blocked MAB1970. I think we have an airtight case! :-) Abecedare 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that explains it... I was searching through Ryulong's userpage trying to find any mention of fraud and cover-up... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See, that is the cherry on the "conspiracy theory" cake ... absence of evidence of fraud proves the cover up. :-) Abecedare 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How fun! That was a nice start to my morning. Thanks everyone. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly unresolved[edit]

I got targetted by two more socks after I blocked them, but I requested that a checkuser block be put in place to get this guy to give up for a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that works. However, given that I and others have hard blocked IPs that Dereks1x and his socks are known to be editing from yet more socks keep appearing and more edits continue to be made, I suspect that it might not stop him . . . · jersyko talk 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly doubt that his Arbitration request against me will be even accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't accused you of being my sock yet, as has been his MO so far. · jersyko talk 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threat again[edit]

I reported this edit yesterday under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible death threat. The edit contained "!!You Remove You Die!!", apparently aimed at me who had just removed 3 times. See the earlier discussion for context. No action was taken. Any comments? PrimeHunter 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the first reported IP was blocked for 31 hours. This edit by a new IP was reported near the end of the discussion. PrimeHunter 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It seams punitive to block the IP now, if it happens again, re-report it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As documented yesterday, the IP is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the first IP which is still blocked for threatening me. Is it really allowed, with no block, warning or any other comment, to repost a death threat with another IP after being blocked? I reported it 25 minutes after the edit. The IP only has one other edit. Ryan Postlethwaite made 7 posts arguing against the block of the first IP in the above discussion. Does somebody else want to comment? PrimeHunter 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If the guy is changing IPs then blocking the IP would serve not purpose. `HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)
As shown above, the two IP's are from different ISP's in the same city. If he has to change ISP to circumvent blocks then a second block might work. I also agree with RxS who wrote above "... we should be sending a message that says death threats (however they are stated) will not be tolerated". It seems we are sending the opposite message now. PrimeHunter 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't happened again, the incident your referring to happened almost 24 hours aago, we block for protective and not punitive reasons. As I said, if it happens again, re-report it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
On the bright side, their intended meaning is a bit more clear, this time. I'll see if I can try and keep an eye on it. May as well just block, if they pop up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

astrology.com[edit]

Looks like someone who had a beef with me subscribed my email address to a number of "newsletters" from astrology.com. This shady company does not verify the subscription request properly and does not allow me to unsubscribe from their spam. I'm reporting their unsolicited commercial email to their ISP (ivillage.com) and others, but if anyone else just got a whack of messages from this company, let me know and we'll see if we can figure out who impersonated us. --Yamla 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you unsubscribe, can you let me know what's in the forecast for Taurus this weekend? - eo 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Taurus April 20 - May 20 It's useless to sit at home and wish that a crazed masked murderer would take a welding torch and slaughter your town's sexually active teens when you own a perfectly good welder's torch yourself."[35] Sucks, Yamla. Who would have thought that astrology could be shady? · jersyko talk 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Whew, thank goodness I picked up that new welder's torch at Wal-Mart last weekend. - eo 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

El-dood (talk · contribs) and Image:Retard.jpeg[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd take this to AIV but since I can't see the image in question because I use a screen reader, I'm not completely sure about it. El-dood (talk · contribs) tried to insert Image:Retard.jpeg into mental retardation. Most of the edits of this user seem to be vandalism and the user has been blocked before. What should be done about the image and the user? It seems to be a vandalism only account judging by the contributions I can evaluate. Graham87 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for being a vandalism only account, and deleted the image. Incase you're curious, Image:Retard.jpeg was a school photo; the person in question was wearing a school uniform. I think it's pretty clear that it was meant as some form of attack. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought it'd be some kind of attack photo. It always pays to check these things though. Graham87 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD decryption key[edit]

Over on the Cornish Wiktionary, where I'm the only sysop, it seems the HD-DVD encryption key postings have spread to there too. See kw:wikt:Special:Log/protect for more details.

In one of the postings, a connection to John Bambenek seems to be possible - although it could just have been someone spamming his email address.

I'd appreciate some help with people tagging them for deletion over there, just use {{delete}} (which we've got a similar version of there), and I'll delete it right away, or add it to protected titles if there are multiple re-postings.

kw:wikt:User:SunStar Net is my username there. Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this from Digital Rights Management because it felt wrong. Can someone point at a more firm pronouncement, and is it necessary to get the revisions deleted? Notinasnaid 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, found [36] but it isn't clear if I should report the revision for deletion. Notinasnaid 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User accusing another user of vandalism over a POV dispute[edit]

Experienced User:Vintagekits keeps spamming a vandalism tag on new User:Swuekilafe's talk page for this edit which is a POV dispute with Vintagekits over whether Malvinas is an English word. Spamming vandalism tags onto new users to promote a personal POPV that is highly disputed isnt aceptable IMO. Can an admin please take a look, SqueakBox 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • More disruption from Vintagekits. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revert my monobook[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I fried it again. Rollback one edit please. --Pupster210 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it yourself. In IE: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Custom level. Then under 'Scripting' Set 'Active Scripting' to disable. Prodego talk 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! Settings restricted at school!!!! --Pupster210 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


This is the third time User:Pupster21 has accidentally locked himself out by modifying his monobook, see WP:VPT. Would somebody please revert the last edit to User:Pupster21/monobook.js? The account that posted the message on WP:VPT is also operated by Pupster and he only uses it whenever his monobook fries up. Thanks in advance. Valentinian T / C 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he beat me to posting here. It is the account mentioned directly above this post. Valentinian T / C 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He can do it himself. In IE: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Custom level. Then under 'Scripting' Set 'Active Scripting' to disable. Prodego talk 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! Settings restricted at school! --Pupster210 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am mad at javascript. All I want is a working rollback button. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Gon4z[edit]

Gon4z (talk · contribs) has a content dispute with User:Noclador about what material is currently owned by the Albanian Army. However, Gon4z now repeatedly smears Noclador on his talk page calling him "anti-Albanian" and his edits "propaganda". Gon4z has also behaved with a similar disregard for WP:CIVIL against other users lately, and a NPA warning I posted to his page was immediately removed. He rutinely threatens or smears other editors.[37], [38], [39], [40], [41] Will somebody please do something to make him stop attacking other users? Valentinian T / C 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection[edit]

Resolved

Can an admin please semi-protect Brazilian waxing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few days? A determined IP editor, using three different IPs so far, has tried three times over the past 12 hours (making several edits each time) to add material about a company to the page. Thank you. Anchoress 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to put this. You may need Requests for Page Protection --24.136.230.38 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Wow, I didn't even know that page existed. Thanks! Anchoress 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-block3}}[