Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive315

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

Noticeboard archives


Violation of COI by user:Avahram[edit]

There is an ongoing mediation about the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initiated by myself hoping to reach a compromise with different parties.

Unfortunately the mediation has not gained any result since its beginning on 20 May. Since then, the article has been fully protected (except for a couple of days in last two weeks).

Today User:Omegatron unprotected the article with this reason "no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement." and then User:Avraham, himself a party of mediation and previous edit-warring, reverted the article then protected it with this reason "Ongoing mediation".

The other problem is that in my opinion the current lead is clear violation of WP:BLP and completely POV for an article about a high ranking official of a state, me and some other users tried to reach a compromise with user:Avraham by adding his own response to the allegation in the lead. But this proposal was rejected by above user with the reasoning that it doesn't belong to the lead (but of course details of the allegation belong).

I would be happy if some third party user invistigate the issues of this article. --Pejman47 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. It's distinctly less than neutral, in my opinion, but I don't think it's a reason that so egregious that it requires some kind of immediate action if there's ongoing mediation. I'm not going to offer an opinion on the utility of long-term protection like this, since I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it, and the mediation. --Haemo 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI violations require edits "in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am in no way related, either personally or professionally, with any groups whose interests are either pro- or con- the article's subject; unless Pejman is implying that because I am Jewish I am automatically considered incapable of editing the Ahmadinejad article. From my previous interactions with him, I highly doubt he meant something as insulting and ridiculous as that, so I am left to assume that referencing WP:COI was a misunderstanding on his part. Any explanation would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It means that you are an admin and you must not use your admin's previlage in an article that you edit-warred. I also told you the same thing when you edited this article when it was fully protected. (do you remember it?)--Pejman47 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Restoring the article to the stable, protected state, especially after an unauthorized unlock, is maintaining and protecting the project. The unlock should have been discussed with the locking admin, user:Riana, and the mediator user:Daniel. It was not, and was an improper use of admin tools. Restoring the stable and locked version was anything but, and I believe you know better. Omegatron, as an admin, certainly should know better. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean in here: Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17#Image, I got angry in the previous case nad also in this case (even if it seems illogical to you). But please do not use your admin's privileges' in a debate that some of the users are not admins. I hope your misunderstandings have been solved --Pejman47 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that your use of WP:COI in the title was a mistake, and you meant possible sysop priv abuse, a completely different issue. See above how protecting the project is the responsibility of the sysops and what actually may have been the abuse here, per WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse. -- Avi 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I also insist that some third party admin investigate the protection level of that article. I don't see any logic for full protection of an article for about six months. --Pejman47 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected since October 2, which is 20 days; a far cry from the six months (182 days) stated. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted too interject that if Plejman (he wasn't, i see) is implying thay your Jeiwhness is a COI, that could be a valid COI issue. (I'm Jewish too.) It would depend on what the article is about. For example, in an article about Jews for Jesus or Holocaust Denial or something Jews tend to be emotional over, I would not feel it inapropriate to site COI. Same with any ethnic or religious group. If COI doesn't mean everybody, it doesn't mean anybody. Basejumper2 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are confusing a point-of-view with a conflict-of-interest. While related, in the context of wikipedia policy and guideline they are two different things. -- Avi 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Potentially offensive comments[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to see here. Perfectly innocent comments involving the Cleveland Indians.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be reporting this but I recently saw a message from User:Sasha Callahan which could be potentially offensive to users. The message can be seen here. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you serious? I think everyone with a brain knows she is talking about the baseball teams. JuJube 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Doesn't look to me like anything worth coming to WP:ANI over...unless the comments have been changed since you posted. A "swear word" in an otherwise friendly talk page note isn't something to get worked up about. --OnoremDil 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Please tell me that this isn't in reference to her disparaging remarks about a baseball team. Please? I'm sure we all have more important things to find "potentially offensive" than that. Somewhere on that page she advocated 'kitten bonfires' and I just missed it... right? --CBD 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not reporting it because somebody may be offended by her references to the team but maybe she meant Indians as in the nationality? That is why I put potentially offensive, because I wasn't sure. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone comes to a discussion thread about baseball, sees a post saying "!@$# the Indians" and thinks they're insulting the ethnic group, they're probably not worth worrying about. I'd be more concerned about how they manage to tie their shoelaces every day. JuJube 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also really cool how you neglected to tell User:Sasha Callahan about this at all. JuJube 12:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please can everyone calm down, this was a post made in good faith by The-G-Unit and he shouldn't be taken as an oppotunity to shoot him down. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The-G-Unit-Boss, I think that in the context of the discussion it is clear she was referring to the baseball team... at least, I don't think the Red Sox lost to a bunch of guys from Kerala. :] --CBD 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess it could be interpreted that way, to someone unfamiliar with Baseball. He might not know that the "Red sox" is a baseball team and might think they are some other group of some kind. A lot of militant groups have names that sound like sports teams, such as The Tamil Tigers. It's not a stretch to think that he assumed that she was insulting the ethnic group opposed to the sports team. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the mistake that I made. I am not familiar with Baseball and so didn't realise the context of their discussion. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought the Tamil Tigers were a baseball team. Neil  16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that's what Detroit's AAA club was called before they moved to Toledo... Rdfox 76 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear JuJube, not everyone on Wikipedia is familiar with the minutiae of "Big Rounders Played by Tobacco Chewers in Pyjama's", possibly because they have the goshdarned cheek to live outside of the USA (and Japan - does any other nation play the game?), but do indeed have brains. As you might guess, I was not bowled over by your comments and think you have found yourself on a particularly sticky wicket. Toodle pip! LessHeard vanU 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A few other countries play, particularly Cuba, who have the best baseball record in the world, winning 3 of the 4 golds at the Olympics. Neil  20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I need an administrator[edit]

I am having an issue with User:Twsx and it's driving me crazy. We cannot reach a solution. I have taken this issue up before in conflicts of interest but nothing happened. In the music infoboxes for band pages we cannot agree whether the genres should have a line break or comma break. Apparently, no consensus has ever been made on this and we need one. There should be a conversation about it. I believe the line break between genres in the music infoboxes look much more ordered and that the comma break looks sloppy. We must have a consensus on this. He wants the genres in the infoboxes to look like they do in pages such as Linkin Park and I want them to look like they do in articles such as Judas Priest.Navnløs 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's highly trivial and not something that this page needs to be used for. Try requesting for a comment or posting it on some music related projects for more outside input. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Line breaks vs Comma breaks. Thats got to be one of the lamest disputes i've heard in a while. You do not need an administrator, you need Request for comment--Jac16888 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have to dispute this designation as lamest complaint ever, instead awarding that honor to the complaint about Sasha's baseball comment above. K. Scott Bailey 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually you need a life! One of you decide to let the other one win. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm ... how to say this nicely? Isn't it pretty clear I was joking, and I wasn't really trying to "win" anything against Wikidudeman? I thought it was, but evidently not... K. Scott Bailey 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Although the indentation might have suggested otherwise, I don't think that message was directed at you. --OnoremDil 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep I was talking tothe OP I indented too much. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I will let him "win" eventually, i just enjoy his desperate, incivil reactions on my talk page while they last. For the sake of the argument: I think line break seperated lists only take up much more space while they are not the least bit more informative, or "prettier" (if you will) than comma seperated, non-capitalized lists. However, a discussion about this is was made and ended up in a "useless trainwreck from which no consensus can emerge", so it is indeed trivial. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Boyling Over[edit]

I happen to have been dragged into the middle of this situation. I initially reverted the blanking of User:Tim.Boyle and protected the page to stop the edit war, and because my initial thought was that there are thousands of Tim Boyle's out there, and I knew of no reason why any one in particular would be implicated. (I went to elementary school with one.) But since there are apparently good faith suggestions of potential liability (not threats), I thought it would be best to have others weigh in as well. It's certainly possible that there's something in the user's contribs that singles out a particular Tim Boyle. I'm amenable to unprotection, blanking, whatever, so don't be afraid of stepping on my toes. Thanks for looking this over! -- But|seriously|folks  19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how this could be libeling anyone as the IP removing the tag states; it's not like this is a unique name. That said, I think a courtesy blanking of the userpage is an option if the IP stops being so demanding.--Isotope23 talk 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note, anything tying this name to a specific person has been deleted.--Isotope23 talk 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Vegas[edit]


We have a persistent-self-confessed anon vandal here. [1] Can we have semi-pp on the page please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And a short block on User: since he's also vandalising vandalism warnings and has said he'll come back! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page now being vandalised by User: . He's got to get the message --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs blocked. As the IPs keep chaning, I threw a one week protection on the article. IrishGuy talk 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


When this article gets deleted again, can somebody please salt it. See the Deletion Log. It is a non-notable website that has been deleted 3 times already, and about to be 4. The user keeps recreating it though. - Rjd0060 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the editor a specific note with a pointer to the policies that govern these types of articles and invited him to come discuss it further at the drawing board if he needs further assistance. His previous attempt to create that page seems to me to indicate a genuine effort to meet guidelines, but he doesn't seem familiar with them. Hopefully, after reading those policies, he'll either be able to create the article properly or will decide that the subject doesn't qualify per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus[edit]

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatzchatspy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Arritt is an admin, he issued that warning, and was made aware of the watchlist User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin which was set up to "Report it to the admins and let them deal with it", yet he did not do "what admins are for" within the last days.-- Matthead discuß!     O       12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Finell's suggestion to block or ban users who have removed comments of the banned User:Serafin on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus becomes clear when it is applied to Finell himself. Maybe he forgot that he, too, removed one of Serafin's comments (ie as often as I have) and one could now easily recall Finell's rhetoric about vigilance and the wikipedia community and anarchy; the only difference being that a person can only speak for their own motives and that means a lot given that Finell speaks of bad faith in deleting an opponent's comments and has deleted a then opponent's (otherwise ally) comment although he does not know or care whether it is a banned user or not. Finell also did not report the user as a possible sockpuppet of Serafin, leaving this "chore" to those he now wants to get blocked or banned if they delete Serafin's comments restored again and again by Serafin's sockpuppets that were blocked shortly afterwards. Surely, a victory of Serafin in this issue is further encouragement for him to continue ban evasions. Sciurinæ 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: Please do not misrepresent what I said; that is dishonest. I have no objection to deleting the postings or edits of a blocked or banned user. What I object to is someone deleting posts becasue of an unconfirmed (by an admin) suspicion or accusation of sockpuppetry. Finell (Talk) 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I consider your entire thread a misrepresentation and there's no honesty when I explain to someone how something might be mistaken and that someone comes to AN/I and tries to convince everybody of that this mistake was the truth. You should make clear in which way you have been misrepresented.
So what is your problem? Most of the time, the comments of the banned User:Serafin have been removed and rightly so. Should you seriously discover anytime in the future unbanned people who remove each others' comments, like you claimed, you might have a reason for a thread like this. It's a real shame that those who share Serafin's POV connive at his block evasions, but one cannot force people to do something against those they agree with. Still, you refuse to participate against (rather than for) the banned user, though I think that might be a fair chance for you to make up for this thread. The indifference of admins towards this thread at least should show you that it's not the admins alone who are going to clean up the mess of banned users. Oh, look - now that he's got his comments back in place, Serafin also wants the sock-tags removed ([2]). Sciurinæ 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't start the thread, but the problem I see is that an admin actually said he was going to block the next person who removed on-topic talk page comments. While I don't think that would be a bad policy it doesn't exist yet. So either this threat should be retracted or somebody should start writing a policy. 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


What's the denouement? Are we really forbidden to remove the posts of a banned user under pain of immediate block? I'm asking because User:Raymond arritt still has left the sharp warning on the article's talk page and still does not respond, and admin attention has obviously completely faded away within an hour of the thread's existence. Sciurinæ 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still watching. The goal was to get the disputants to discuss the matter amongst themselves. The basic point has been well stated by others: removing comments by confirmed sockpuppets of banned users is appropriate, but removing comments because someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet is not (much less simply removing comments that one doesn't agree with). Raymond Arritt 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You are still watching? What, or whom? Which ones of Serafin's dozens of sockpuppets do you expect to discuss the matter amongst themselves? You issued a First and only warning to good faith editors, and have been courteously asked [3] [4] to have a second look at the matter. You did not respond to these messages within the last days, and made only the statement above. During the last month, myself and others had tried to keep the Copernicus talk page readable, reporting numerous new suspects to User talk:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, but admins are not keeping up, there's a backlog to sort out. You jumped into this and posted your warning five days ago, but apparently you have not done anything about the real problem since. Did you overlook the links? Do you think sockpuppetry and repeated disruption is of low importance? Do you have other priorities as an admin? I ask you to start working on the sockpuppet issue, either confirming the suspects and moving them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin accordingly, or clearing them of someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet accusations. As you issued the warning, you should also put the necessary effort into the issue. -- Matthead discuß!     O       12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Serafin, there has never been any doubt whether a puppet of him was actually a real user. There may be some cases in which the banned user's comments have been removed before he has been blocked, but the puppet has been later confirmed. There would be no point in undermining one's credibility by accusing a wrong user and jeopardise Serafin's case, who is a long-term disruptive force to be reckoned with (see history of Bureaucracy). Is there any policy saying that banned users' accounts have to be blocked first before their mess is cleaned up? Sounds to me like having to wait until a vandal IP is blocked before being allowed to remove its insertion, say, of some vulgar words in an article, but then again even that is sometimes reasonable when the other person is probably still glaring at his or her computer, ready to undo should anyone revert. Many or most "comments" are simple restorations of his older comments that were removed, which would even allow removing them if genuine users have restored them (see the Everyking case). I can't criticise people for their first impressions and your warning would be suitable in other contexts like in a scenario told by Finell. Here, the warning would just deter from keeping Serafin at bay and be an encouraging victory for his guerilla revert tactic, which needs to be discouraged. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could retract it. Sciurinæ 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation protected by an admin boy[edit]

Please check the last dozen or so edits on this talk page. No edit war was there, warranting protection. Nishkid a Hindu fanatic supporting ultra rightist politics in India just desires to keep the insinuations on Sonia Gandhi. 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed as nothing but personal attacks. Corvus cornix 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, there was no edit war - there was a SINGLE edit (as four section edits, uninterrupted) and a SINGLE revert (as a series of undos). I haven't even so much as looked at the content of the section and I can tell the protection isn't warranted yet. I'll note, also, that WP:BLP says These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. (emphasis mine), and one of the edit summaries appears to be asserting this is not the case. —Random832 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I like how "admin boy" isn't a red flag at all that this is trolling. EVula // talk // // 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I like how claiming you're just innocently asking if there's any truth to it gives people carte blanche to post unsourced negative speculation. Regardless of who this 59 is, or what his intentions are, that section (and its reinsertion) were blatantly inappropriate. —Random832 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked further and can see that this user is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned troll as was stated by the protecting admin - however, the one section that I linked the diff for should still not be kept on the talk page per WP:BLP (the others that he removed don't seem to be the same sort of thing, and can probably be kept) —Random832 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. Unprotection and excision soon, please. Relata refero 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the semi-protection was unwarranted anymore - just that the particular section I linked to should not be kept. —Random832 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Does Admin Boy wear a cape? What are his powers? Neil  21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
He's the sidekick to B'cratman ;^). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Throwing block-erangs, I think. shoy 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric / Éric Cantona[edit]

As I am probably now involved, can an uninvolved admin step in and stop two French users changing all the instances of Eric in the Eric Cantona article to Éric? On one side we have prior consensus, Wikipedia policy (WP:UE), and all relevant reliable sources in English and French([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) saying it's "Eric" , on the other we have a French user who insists it should be "Éric" because that's how he spells his name, and the other citing the French Wikipedia (not reliable). It's too lame for RFC and as I've edited now, I shouldn't do anything more about it personally. Neil  21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In English we spell Montreal thusly, not as Montréal. Raymond Arritt 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is getting silly. At one point some joker changed the word "maverick" deep in the article to "mavÉrick", which was reverted to "mavErick". It required an uninvolved editor to fix that edit. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think someone was using "find and replace". Badly. Neil  10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A curious case[edit]

User:KXS-KXS has declared that they are a "secret user", and appear to have no intention of ever editing articles. Instead, they seem to be planning some kind of social networking activity called the "brown monster club" (possibly involving giving prizes to editors for treasure-hunting?), and are constructing numerous templates for that purpose.

I've invited them twice to come and join the encyclopedia project, and it's clear from their replies that they have no intention of doing so. What to do now? -- The Anome 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hide him in your pocket for seeecret eeeeating. JuJube 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Surreptitiously slip in a WP:NOT#MYSPACE warning. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. -- The Anome 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And of course, point out to him that every 'sekrit page' of his is available in his Contribs. Poor dear. --Thespian 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but I'd be inclined to block the account (at least until s/he voices some interest in building the encyclopedia) and delete everything seen here without looking back. MastCell Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, it should all be deleted right away, and the user indef blocked. It may seem harsh, it doesn't seem like they plan on doing any real editing, see this edit, [12] totally ignored the message, and showing no sign of stopping.--Jac16888 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocking and deleting. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Done, with help from MastCell. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a general subgroup of users creating "secret" pages (which aren't secret to anyone who knows Special:Prefixindex) and "autograph books" (where people can parade around huge signatures that violate WP:SIG). I think some of these people need a serious reminder that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Maybe the autograph books and secret pages aren't intrinsically harmful, but they're a waste of time and database space for those who actually want to use this site as an encyclopedia. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Autograph books have already tasted the blood of wikibattle. Keegantalk 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales would disagree with you, Elkman. This is a widely known quote of his about autograph pages (don't believe he made it? Ask him), which is shown below:
--FastLizard4 (TalkLinksSign) 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo may feel that way about autographs books, but i doubt he would agree with what User:KXS-KXS was doing, which was taking it way to far. I can see how elkman can not like them as they can open the floodgates for editors like KXS-KXS--Jac16888 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wtimrock second notice[edit]


Unfortunately this is the second time I am reporting this user User_talk:Wtimrock, as his behavior has not changed since the last time.

Recreated a deleted article, again [13] - this article has been deleted twice and the same user reposted it twice as well as being the original author.

Removed maintenance tags [14] - including the CSD repost tag and a news release tag.

I last reported it here on AN/I but no action was taken then. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted and a stern warning was given...if this continues, let me know. — Scientizzle 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs) has issued a block... — Scientizzle 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually whilst you were doing that I was giving him an attention grabbing block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Hope it works! — Scientizzle 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!! His refusal to respond has been the most frustrating part of cleaning up after him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: He contacted me by email. I explaned what he was doing wrong and unblocked him. Hopefully he will now take heed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin. blank a User Page?[edit]

I'm new to wikipedia rules and would like to know if Admins are allowed to blank a user page. I'd like to hear from various people. Thanks. Lookzar42 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what is on the page and whether the user is a regular contributor or a dead account, blanking it may be the right way to deal with inappropriate content. What user page do you have in mind? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at controversial articles for COI and POV, and I followed back to this user user:Shia1. The original page, I restored. Before my restoration, I found the page had been blanked. It's not a lot of blanking, but it seemed suspiscious to me as it was blanked by the same person the user had been in conflict with further down in the edit histories. It didn't seem to me the message on the user page was specific enough to warrant this action. Basejumper2 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked userpages an many occasions and have deleted them too if they are being used innapropriately (not for the good of the encylopedia). However admins do not go around blanking userpages willy nilly. . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this is a tricky one. Normally I'd say people who get banned for sockpuppeteering lose any right to say anthing on a userpage. However on closer inspection I see that the account was not blocked, no sockpuppets were named and no evidence posted. All we have is the admin in question's say so. I'll ask him to comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That admin has been gone since August so you may wish to try email. Asking via a vandalism template [15], seems suspect, however. El_C 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked User:IZAK as he was the one to remove the ranting. Agreed that using a vandalism template looks a bit dodgy but will assumr good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty sophomorically provocational. El_C 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
When part of the user's goodbye message is that the "harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement," I see nothing wrong with denying them that indefinite soapbox. I'd probably be in favor of removing the sock tag also if no evidence has been presented. --OnoremDil 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we need WP:NOT#ESCHATOLOGY? Raymond Arritt 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with departing users soapboxing. No one reads their userpages anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with removing the text from User:Shia1, if that user has actually left WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I found it worth puting the lightest vandelism template up specifically because the blanking appeared to me to have been done by an individual the user had been in conflict with. Basejumper2 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What made you think it was vandalism? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And then you re-added it after an admin (moi) reverted it as vandalism? It doesn't add up. El_C 03:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It made me think it was vandalism because it appeared needless and personally motivated by the conflict I just mentioned. Frankly the message seems silly to me, and I can’t see why it would NEED to be erased.

If you go to the users talk page, you'll notice he complains about the admin in question banning his friends who use his computer as his sock puppets. There's no evidence or trial for those sock puppets that I could find; but earlier in the user page personal discussions with another user mention user:Shia1 is going to have a friend named Yoeli at his house.

Further down, user:Shia1 is temporarily blocked for using sockpuppets by the admin in question, one of those sockpuppets he’s accused of using if you click on the sockpuppet tag is called Yoel23. No evidence was presented. He rants wildly about the unfairness, but, again, seems to be given no opportunity to defend himself.

The user then left that final message on his user page. Then the admin the message evidently refers to blanks it. That's why I felt it was vandalism. I felt it was most likely motivated by personal conflict and not an administrative necessity. The language of the message just didn't seem harsh enough to warrant a blanking of it.

So I checked to see if the user was banned, thinking that banned users pages are blanked. I saw that he wasn't. That's when I decided it was probably vandelism. So I went and looked for the lightest vandalism tag I could find, and left a message on the admins page asking if he had done it by mistake.

El C, I don’t understand your question. Perhaps use more words. Doesn’t add up to what? When we discussed this, you seemed unaware the reason for the tag, and felt I had added it because of the sockpuppet tag, and were unaware of the blanking. But the reason I added the tag back, after it was removed is because I went to the page to see if there had been a response to my question. Instead both the tag and the question had been erased, so I re-added it hoping to get a responseBasejumper2 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case it appears that I followed the tabs in the history page wron and it was IZAK that balnked the page, so I apologize to the vandelism tag. Basejumper2 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightening comments. (Also, I was the anonymous restorer of his user page. I just hadn't signed in while surfing.) Point of fact, however, User:Shia1 is not banned as a sockpupet or sockpupeteer, so there's no worry about giving a banned user the last word. Also, his statement is silly and jeuvenile, but not particularly offensive, certainly not vulgar, and doesn't name anybody so as to be damaging in that regard. It's his user page, and if he wants to return, it should be left intact as he left it.

I'm very curious as to why he was ever tagged, however, seeing as his explenation that he used a shared computer is evidenced by his discussion page where at least one of the sockpuppets is referenced as a seperate individual in a personal conversation on that page. Also he makes the claim that none of the accounts listed as his sockpuppet are ever used together on pages during a dispute? Is this true? Is there a way to confirm this? Is it normal to block someone as a sockpuppet without a sockpuppetry trial or evidence being presented such as in the link presented above,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th)? If there is no reason to believe he is a sockpupet/eer, I think the tag should be removed. If the same goes for the accounts listed as his sockpuppets, they should be reinstated as its very possible they were legitimate users who got booted out of wikipedia without being able to present evidence. .Basejumper2 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I just spent some time going through the history that user:Shia1 posted on his talk page to defend himself. If he posted it truthfully, he only edited a single article with user:Tumblerumble and user:Yoel23. They seem to argue with each other, and nobody else except the banned sockpuppet of Daniel575 is involved in the discussion. Basejumper2 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Basejumper: As for the broader questions you ask about who, what, when, how and why any pages are or should be tagged or untagged by admins I leave that for the others to decide and I shall not get into that policy debate because I honestly have not given it any significant thought, and I don't intend to. The only reason I removed User:Shia1's silly remark, is that having coming out of a heated set of discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and then bumped into identical comments at a page that seemed to be a "guilt by association" user page with curses such as "... judged in the final Judgement" it deserved to be removed in my view. I still think those hateful comments should go, but if you like them, keep them. I am honestly very puzzled why you even care. It makes no difference to me, honestly as I cannot recall having a single exchange with User:Shia1. However, the fact that banned User:Daniel575 hails him as a buddy that he knows personally (see User talk:Shia1#Hi [19]) was enough to convince me that these are two "birds of feather" that it is best not to allow to "flock together" on Wikipedia for they shall only join up for WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. That's my take on things, and I don't really have much more to add. Sincerely, IZAK 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. To be truthful, I added the vandalism tag only because I thought blanking a page was always vandalism. In the course of our discussion here, however, I think we've uncovered something larger which is a user types that he left due to harassment, we find an accusation of sockpuppetry, no evidence of the accounts having been used as sockpuppets even if they were the same person's account, and evidence that almost certainly one of them wasn't. That's what keeps me interested beyond just saying, "Sorry, I misunderstood what vandalism is." I want to know why this user was tagged without a similar process to this,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th), and I want to know if his rantings and ravings about politically motivated harrassment against him were true, because wikipedia is not the place for that, if there is a place for that. Basejumper2 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see: The user has left. The person who tagged him as a sock has left. So there is no what on Earth that you can peronally know anything more about why he was tagged so. End of mate! Move on, this one is in the past and done with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only User Jayjg (talk · contribs) could answer all those questions and as you have been told, he is presently on leave. May I remind you that while you are spouting all sorts of rules here, there is another dimension to Wikipedia governance, such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules whereby even an admin who is confronted by a complex situation and has been privy to all sorts of matters decides in good conscience that he may take action as he sees fit. This action is further reinforced by the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding" and finally see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "... Until the beginning of 2004, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. Wales wrote: 'The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004. To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The Arbitration policy details the rules and procedures involved." May I also draw your attention to my critiques and warnings at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet? and at User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke. Thank you for your close attention to these matters. IZAK 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ashtoman3333[edit]

  • User:Ashtoman3333 has been engaged in some fairly inexplicable behavior since mid-September, including overwriting articles like Cheers and Me, Myself, and I and creating quite a list of articles without context or sourcing (see his deleted contributions in particular at Special:Contributions/Ashtoman3333). His userpage, deleted on October 21st by User:Pascal.Tesson, was itself an elaborate musician bio that was apparently fictitious. On the 20th of October, I asked him to explain his purpose in creating these articles and that biography, but he did not respond to my question any more than he has responded to the warnings he has received on his talk page. He was blocked on October 21st and immediately upon return recreated his most recently deleted article, JAMM Band, which still sources to a non-existent Myspace page. It does not seem that this editor is interested in seriously contributing to the encyclopedia. Given my long history of addressing his behavior, I would appreciate other evaluation here. I have informed the editor of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there's a long term pattern of vandalism / creating inappropriate pages. Maybe a final warning that the next time he steps over the line he'll be blocked? --Bfigura (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pitching in. I hope he'll listen to your warning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastren07 deleting material[edit]

Eastren07 (talk · contribs) has been deleting material from the article on British government minister Jim Murphy, and deleting related discussions from the talk page. Eastren07 uses no edit summaries and has not responded to warnings or to requests to discuss any concerns about the article.

Two other points:

So far as I can see, Eastren07 is a SPA with a possible COI, who has refused all requests to discuss concerns. Please can someone either block this user now, or issue a further warning and monitor for further misconduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The editor appears to have stopped (for now). If this behavior keeps up, report it on WP:AIV and reference this discussion. Thanks, Caknuck 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The editor's pattern of contributions has consistently been to perform a batch of content deletions within minutes of each other, and then to do nothing until the another day. So it doesn't seem quite right describe him/her as having "stopped", just as having finished that day's deletions.
    But you're right, I should have taken to this to WP:AIV, and I'll take there if/when the deletions resume. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Onideus - blatant troll violating WP:BLP[edit]


User:Onideus has just left a nasty little note for me on my Talk Page because I speedy deleted the Onideus Mad Hatter article as an attack article. The little gift on my Talk Page doesn't bother me much except that he seems to be a single purpose account whose purpose is clearly trolling and violating WP:BLP.

I'm torn between trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him and just asking someone to block him as a SPA.

Since I'm now the target of his attack, I think it's best that I just report him here and let a neutral, uninvolved admin deal with him.


--Richard 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of his contribs will indicate that blocking is clearly called for here. --Richard 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked by User:Gogo Dodo. Hut 8.5 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


The Torchwood Institute does not exist. Lots of Wikipedia articles write as though it should exist. It is a fantasy. So why write it does? When I tried to fix it they said I was being a vandal. I'm not. I put the template {{bad}} on it, but they took it off and deleted it. Why is everyone out to get me? There's a conspiracy! I am not commiting acts of vandalism, I am correcting errors in an otherwise rather useful encyclopedia. your information on Torchwood-related articles is rather rubbishy and could do with a good cleanup. I say, don't you know? Der loewe schlaft nie!

--Blickmaestro 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[24] - You remove just the Torchwood point.
[25] - You remove Torchwood, but leave the very similar Doctor Who point.
[26] - Again, just Torchwood
[27] - Again, leaving Torchwood, but keeping the two Doctor Who points
[28] - Just Torchwood
[29] - Just Torchwood.
Now, here's the kicker - Torchwood is made up. It is just the fantasy of Russell T. Davies on a 15-32 inch screen once every week. So you're not doing a service to the Institute, it's fictional. Either remove all the trivia or none at all. Because they way it looks right now, it seems you're on a systematic campaign to suppress any mention of them. Will (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith here, Blick, then I think you are suggesting that the articles are written in an in-universe fashion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) may be of interest. Typically, articles or sections you feel are written in an in-universe manner should be tagged with {{in-universe}}. Neil  09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is plain from the very first line of the Torchwood Institute article that it's a fictional organisationor is it?. Anyone reading other articles referring to it, if not aware of this, can follow the link to the main article. That is, assuming Wikipedia readers are not so gullible as to believe everything they read. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also many of the examples removed such as this one are explicitly fictional. This looks to me more like someone who isn't a fan of Torchwood than anythign else. To be clear, Blick whether or not one likes a given spin-off or fictional organization is not connected to whether or not it should be mentioned anywhere. If that sort of thing did matter, I'd probably delete all the articles related to Powerpuff girls. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd[edit]

Revert war going on at this page, the image in question is being removed with claims of BLP breaches. The image contains Labor Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, 23-year old Nicholas Rudd, federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and Grace Grace, Labor MP for Brisbane Central, at Labour Day 2007. I believe it to be completely relevant to the article of Kevin Rudd. I would appreciate assistance and clarification of why this user should be able to remove this fully legitimate image added in good faith? Timeshift 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's in 3RR territory now, it looks to me that the issue is fundamentally a content dispute - you want to keep the picture, and Brendan doesn't. Have you considered starting an RfC?  Folic_Acid | talk  12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We'll see how common sense and community consensus goes first. The Australian political editors and admins are all more or less aware of this issue. Timeshift 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Brendan is clearing his talk page including the AN/I and 3RR tags. Timeshift 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Point being? As admin User:Sarah told you here, "Brendan can remove messages from his talk page if he wants to. They remain in the history as a record, so there really isn't a problem with him removing them from his page. In fact, removing messages confirms that you have received them, so the editor cannot claim later that they never saw the warning. If you guys want to continue ... discussing this, I advise you take it to your own pages." --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Per talk page. Timeshift 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Macdonald/User:[edit]

Resolved (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is consistently vandalising the Ken Macdonald article, often cliaming to be the subject's son, or writing about the supposed son e.g. [30][31]. Some of this vandalism has been quite sneaky, e.g. [32], changing the article subject's middlename, which took quite a bit of checking to determinethat the original was actually correct. However, it tends to be hit and run vandalism, with a few days between each attack, so despite 2 reports by me to WP:AIAV, the IP has not been blocked. The contribution pattern convices me that only one user is contributing from this address (no useful contributions have been made), the address is assigned to blueyonder, so is probably at least semi-static. One previous 24hr block has been made at the start of the month, but the block was probably over before the user attempted to edit again. In addition to Ken Macdonald, the user has also made repeat attacks on Impetigo and Alan Dicks. Is there any chance of a block of 5 days to a week, which should actually prevent the next attempt, and maybe make the user get bored? David Underdown 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually since it's been going on for a month at least I put a month long block on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Theresa, I seemed to be the only one watching the Ken macdonald article so it was getting a little frustrating. David Underdown 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration[edit]

FYI, a user has been waiting for approval on this list for more than 24 hours. The list appears to be only sporadically monitored. Will somebody please add it to their watchlist? Thank you. The Transhumanist    10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks question[edit]

I asked a question recently about User:Cyborg Ninja's personal attacks and stalking of me. As a result, she was issued a warning by an admin:

Cyborg Ninja disputted the warning, so the admin issued a further explanation:

However, Cyborg Ninja continues her personal attacks on me on her talk page. In response to an editor's suggestion that she have a "Fresh start", she replies by repeating the personal attacks on me.

Is this allowed? It is her talk page, but she is continuing the stalking for which she was given a warning. Thanks, --Mattisse 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't read like personal attacks to me. Neil  12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
More like sour grapes on the part of the complainer here, imo. --Martin Wisse 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess you mean me. Sour grapes for what? Yesterday she was warned by admin for stalking me and posting personal attacks on me on others talk pages and discussion pages, but the links above indicate she is still stalking me. Maybe you are saying that I am being oversensitive. It is just that she already did a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 over one incident that received no support whatsoever. I do wish she would stop stalking me. However, the talk page complaints indicate she still is stalking me. That is my problem. But I will try to be less sensitive. Thanks! Mattisse 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should be happy that I am so darn interesting to someone that they bother to stalk me! In my real life, I do not command such interest! Mattisse 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this please[edit]

I am supposed to be writing my thesis so I dont have time to keep any eye on him: [36]. Thanks. ViridaeTalk 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thats unusal, perhaps a username block is necessary, name matching what they added suggests a role account.--Jac16888 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I found it unsual that there was only one post, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they though fys may have been interested...? ViridaeTalk 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, i din't mean they should be blocked straight away, it was just a suggestion for if they continued, could some form of soapboxing. Now get back to your thesis--Jac16888 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Visca el Barca's userpage[edit]


Can someone please pay attention to the userpage of Visca el barca (talk · contribs); there are several statements which are outright derrogatory, and several which are pure trolling, and explain him what Wikipedia is about. As I was involved in several disputes with him, I would rather not leave an impression of impropriety. Duja 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is all that junk on that page? I think this could actually be a violation of home-land security laws in the United States as the message clearly supports a well known terrorist. Plus, it's extremely inflammatory, and trust me, I'm very hard to inflame. That rubbish doesn't need to be in any respectable encyclopedia and I encourage it be deleted due to obvious trolling. 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with above, that is not something we want on Wikipedia. I think we should do a checkuser (just to be safe and see where this person is, be it some kid at a school or an adult) and delete the userpage outright. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. Very blatant trolling, IMHO. I support the page-blanking.  Folic_Acid | talk  13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User's been blocked indef, obviously (not by me, I got beaten to the block). Apart from the junk on his userpage his edits consisted almost entirely of POV-pushing via edit-warring on Bosnia-related articles, and goodness knows we don't need more disruptive, tendentious editors in that corner of the encyclopedia. Moreschi Talk 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this, I was about to do the same, but it would have been kinda lame 7 days after; thanks to the rouge colleagues for stepping in anyway. Duja 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The slogan goes like "Visca el Barça!! Visca Catalunya!!. I thought the user was a Catalan nationalist until i realized it was not the case. So from the username you can understand that this is a troll. At least if i were a Catalan i'd have protested against my favorite rite being used as a trolling tool. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

State Flags on Radio Market Templates[edit]


User:Rfc1394 is adding animated state flags to radio market templates in several states. These appear to be good faith edits, but they flags are against rules. I will do my best to revert, but if someone could, please, give me a hand, I would greatly appericate it. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness - he's been busy. Yeah, I can help out.  Folic_Acid | talk  13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer T:C 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. :)  Folic_Acid | talk  14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban IP[edit]


This IP (Special:Contributions/ a long history of vandalism according to his contibutions page. Can he be banned, we had to revert his changes several times yesterday on the Woody Guthrie page. Dannygutters 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a school so the vandalism is highly unlikely to be by the same user. I'll put an anon block on it for 6 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc frivolous 3RR warnings[edit]

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

Ombudsman banned[edit]

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- Folic_Acid | talk  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:
It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righteous block. Restoring links to harassment has zero tolerance. This is a very direct and clear message. Don't link to harassment. Especially don't restore links to harassment or revert those who are deleting them. It's unfortunate that editors want to soften written policy on this when in practice it is not soft and should not be tolerated. --DHeyward 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no consensus for WP:BADSITES or anything similar. This is at this point well-established. The reason this was a good block was because it was linking to the site to harass, not because it was a link to an OH-NOS BADSITE. JoshuaZ 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template[edit]

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply: C'mon, that's disingenuous. Wikipedia is, by definition, a work in process. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, what's disingenuous is you bypassing my question. I repeat, show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content/context get a pass because you think other people will expand on them someday. JuJube 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Please show how the text was a copyright violation. Also, the notability of the group in question cannot be ascertained in the first hour of a topic's appearance in an outline form. No? Thank you. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The original article consisted of four sentences. One was copied verbatim from this page. Another was taken from part of a sentence but had two words changed. The remaining sentences were copied verbatim from a single sentence in the source, but split into two sentences with a few words added to one of them. That's a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As I explained in the discussion page before you deleted it, the description of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was NOT taken from the website you cite. The website you site is a DIRECTORY full of such summary descriptions of related and allied groups. The text I posted was taken directly from the source: the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper website itself and was modified for NPOV and in other ways I deemed appropriate at the time for the very early stages, the first stages, of fleshing a completely new topic. I was only a few minutes into my work when you, sir, deleted my work in progress, with no explanation, no warning, and apparently, without ANY wider community oversight. You have been repeatedly accused of heavy handedness. I find your behavior boorish and not quite in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Do you know what I did this morning? I had to completely re-trace and redo my work because of YOUR BOORISH and ARBITRARY and INSTANTANEOUS application of power. There was no historical record of my work that I could find, and I have little recourse other than, in my utter frustration, to face a plethora of roused admins that you summoned from this very page. Please, STOP THE BULLYING. I have spent far more time defending this article's right to exist than I have spent actually contributing. Does anyone else find that warped? StevenBlack 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
ALSO: One of the so-called "copyright infringements" was (I assume -- I have access to no records) the line "Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is led by President and environmental lawyer, Mark Mattson and vice president, Krystyn Tully." That is a simple statement of fact in an article that was, at the time, barely minutes old. Can you please explain to me how this justifies your unilateral actions, Butseriouslyfolks? StevenBlack 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(link, since none has been provided before now.) Any particular reason not to take Chunk Rice's advice from 6.5 hours ago and userfy? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? --barneca (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People: If you have problems with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at this stage, less than a day old, then why not the same flak for San Francisco Baykeeper?? What about Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper?? What about most of those listed under "United States" in List of environmental organizations?? Is this, in fact, ?? What's really going on here?? StevenBlack 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that should not be here. We're working on it. Feel free to help out and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's disingenuous. Please stay on topic. The acid test here is, sir: does Butseriouslyfolks have the rectitude, and the courage of his convictions, to fight for the deletion of the San Francisco Baykeeper article, or is Butseriouslyfolks a wiki admin "bully" who is picking on a new article for petty reasons? See, in Wikepedia we have corporations documented down to the minutest detail in some cases. We have consumer-society products and excesses documented in minute detail. But is there no place in Wikipedia to document established, registered and active groups of people who speak for waterfront and the environment? I argue that there is PLENTY of scope for this in Wikipedia. Clearly you disagree. Butseriouslyfolks, plain and simple, put up, or knock it off. I wager that if you were to apply your logic to San Francisco Baykeeper, you would be soundly defeated and, in my view, rightfully so. StevenBlack 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly relevant to the topic. The existence or non-existence of other similar articles doesn't give any article the right to make an end-run around policy. (Also, this is wiki.en, as in English. We have plenty of articles about things outside of the United States, as indeed we should.) shoy 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Steven, AFD'd articles must remain up for discussion for at least five days - this gives you at least five days to ensure the article becomes suitable for Wikipedia. It's not doomed as soon as it is tagged. Many of our best articles are ones which were rescued from the AFD process. Neil  10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the article is deleted that you ask any one of many admins willing to recreate material in userspace to do just that, and work on the article in your userspace until you are certain it will pass an AfD. That's what I've learned to do with my drafts, many of which are just random collections of links and notes... users with long positive contribution histories are given wide latitude to draft articles in their userspace, free of worry about whether the item already shows notability or not, as it's clear that the article is a work in progress. Just don't add it to articlespace categories or use articlespace specific templates that do that, till you are ready. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired of the personal attacks here[edit]

This diff is way over the top.--SarekOfVulcan 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given Steven a final warning. Neil  12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How much abuse do I have to take before I'm allowed to reciprocate in kind? -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
He's still at it. [38]. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is never appropriate to respond in kind to inappropriate comments. It is appropriate to seek third party intervention. Since I don't know either of you from Adam, let me take a look... GRBerry 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked for 24 hours by Neil. GRBerry 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

Later Addition[edit]

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me that the discussion here is not relevant at all. I apologize to Artie-poo, for falsely accusing him of smearing Mr. Archimedes Plutonium. He was not doing any such thing, and his comments were not libelous in any way. He was just politically well aware, through discussions with other administrators and as part of the Wikipedia aristocracy, that it was a foregone conclusion that the page was to disappear. As such, he was just trying to dissuade me from writing the page, by providing antagonistic pressure. I suggest that he could have done it in a way which was less liable to misinterpretation on my part.
I am very sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I am writing this here so that it is clear that I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. I only regret that I cannot erase my numerous contributions to date.Likebox 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to apologize to Ed Johnston, who also was in on the game.Likebox 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the old discussion[edit]

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious[original research?][dubious ]). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[39] [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.
For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.
The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.
The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.
In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.
For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put [original research?][dubious ] tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the [dubious ]). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got [original research?][dubious ] to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was at 3RR, so could only tag, rather than revert and modify to a correct statement. I'd consider the suggested change a revert. Perhaps I chose the wrong tag. Do we have a NPOV-word tag? Thinking back over it, that would have been better than {{or}}, and {{dubious}} was inappropriate because the word "specious" doesn't have a clear meaning. I don't recall the "nobody suspects him of any involvement", but that seems biased in context, as it appears he really was a suspect at the time (at least, we have no evidence to the contrary). That one, I probably should have just corrected to: "the case is closed and he is not considered to have been involved." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think your 3RR explanation is honest [original research?][dubious ] and convincing[original research?][dubious ]. I think that other adminstrators should take your [dubious ] word here and not do the [original research?] to check the deleted history logs and see for themselves.02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It also pains me that you can't bring yourself to say "The case is closed and he was not involved", even after all this.Likebox 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Suggestions[edit]

I have had some time to calm down, I am sorry I lost my temper. But I didn't sleep because I was worried those tags would show up again, and Plutonium would lose his job again or God knows what. I am still not going to contribute to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, but I thought that it leaves everyone with a bad feeling if there is no resolution to disputes, and if all the comments are of a destructive nature.

So here are my editing suggestions, you administrative folks can do what you will:

  1. The tags [original research?][dubious ] have got to go. They are tools of lazy editing, used in place of a thoughtful rewrite. I think there is a (very slight) possibility it just didn't occur to Rubin that tags can change meaning so drastically, even after I repeatedly tried to explain. If somebody wants to edit the page, let them edit the page by thinking and writing a sentence.
  2. Recognize that any description, even a neutral encyclopedic one, involves some original reinterpretation in order to be coherent. It is ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia will be cobbled together from sentences and sentence fragments in scattered sources. Recognize that the editing process is political, and choose the political tools carefully. I think this is already recognized, and the policies in place are by and large sensible ones. But be careful to not whip out "original research" for something which does not involve a radically new idea, or a radically new synthesis of ideas. Be careful with the OR accusation, and use it for idea-units (paragraphs) and not individual sentences or words. The individual sentences or words should just be rewritten back and forth until they settle down.
  3. Require edits to be made using a username. This will also cut down on vandalism. There is no reason that someone can't log in to make an edit, and there is no reason that someone can't make a new username if they want to edit anonymously. This is just to cut down on the chance of someone inserting tag-libel or other subtle vandalism.

And here are my political suggestions:

  1. Get rid of the tools of brownnosing, those stupid (but well intentioned) barnstars that anyone can give to themselves and friends.
  2. Do not select administrators by a vote of previous administrators. That's how aristocracies are made and perpetuated. It creates tiers of administrators and lackeys, who are vying for power. Recognize that wikipedia administration is a political office, and expand it slowly by some sort of vote restricted to non-administrators. Create separation of power, and make sure there are ombudsmen to control abuses of power.
  3. In order to attract mathematical talent, it is essential that the people who contribute do not feel exploited. Writing a mathematical argument requires about ten times the effort of writing a usual exposition, and the work is underappreciated. You have to check and double check and yes, horrors of horrors, do original research. Otherwise your mathematical discussion will be shitty. In order to encourage mathematical contributors, you must assure them that their work will not get tagged into oblivion, and will be evaluated carefully. Fortunately for wikipedia, for the time being none of the current contributors can understand any math so the stuff all stays no matter how original and how good it is.
  4. Do not allow academics to serve in any administrative capacity. They have an interest in perpetuating certain ideas and marginalizing others because that's how they eat. They should only contribute content. I do not have a PhD nor a serious academic position, so I can be fair to everybody. There is no reason that a layperson can't decide what is a competent exposition and what is not. But an academic administrator can just punish his academic competitors on a whim.
  5. Be expansive in the topics you cover. I know there is a debate between the "restrictionists" and the "expansionists", but the debate is dumb. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (as you say) and there should be no debate. All the "restrictionists" are people who want to keep something marginalized.

End of comments. I will know that someone is listening when the Archimedes Plutonium page is back up. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon rereading this I realized that point 3 could be misread as a bid for administratorship on my part. It's not. I would like to have an academic position in the future.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Libellous material on AFD[edit]

An AFD has been started on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) by User:SpigotMap and User:EvanCarroll (possibly a sockpuppet since they're both from Houston) to get the article PlaneShift (computer game) deleted, but the nominators have been using the AFD as a way to defame the director, Luca Pancallo, and his open source project [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Not much of what they say here in the above diffs can be backed up, and I don't appreciate their defamatory personal attacks against Luca—who has also edited Wikipedia [55]—or his project. A closer look into SpigotMap's very first edits on Wikipedia will reveal his conflict of interest: He has played the game under the pseudonym Link and has been banned from the game for quite a while [56] [57] [58] (for over five years to my knowledge), and he only registered a Wikipedia account to make sure this article gets deleted. SpigotMap aka Link is also the only reason Freenode staffer SportChick is in your IRC channel. Tuxide 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: Removing Christel since that person is no longer on the channel Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the diffs you link appear to be innocuous. Statements like "the license is authoritarian", "It is a luke warm game", "proprietary junk", "I hope this project dies", are clearly not libelous or defamatory under United States law. Any suit based on those statements would be dismissed instantly. The first diff, with reference to "normal Luca lying about the project", is the closest thing, and it is obviously an expression of opinion (ie, protected) - not to mention that it's difficult to see how Mr. Pancallo could prove that it materially damaged his reputation! IANAL, but this kind of silliness is wasting everyone's time. Admins are not going to block anyone for saying mean things about your favorite person or project. <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Luca Pancallo has made it quite clear that this can be sued over, since he has no way to back up his statements, and the only reason such a case would not be accepted is that his project is not-for-profit. I have no reason to assume good faith in SpigotMap due to his first edits on Wikipedia and because I know him well enough. Furthermore, there really is no point to blocking anyone—he is already well known for ban evasion among Freenode staff, so it would be impossible to ban him here. My reason for bringing this up on AN/I is to address this to the closing admin. Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Mr. Pantallo is incorrect. Libel is defined as a defamatory falsehood - that is, a knowingly untrue statement of fact which places the subject in a negative light. Statements of opinion, on the other hand, are protected speech under the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements you refer to are statements of opinion and thus are not actionable libel. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've studied media law extensively.) FCYTravis 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Minor correction: He can sue; he just doesn't have any chance of winning, for the reasons that Travis states. I'd also advise Mr. Pantallo to stop talking about suing people for on-Wikipedia statements, or else the IP from which he's making those edits could end up being blocked per WP:NLT. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, to clarify, Luca Pancallo has never made a legal threat on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I've seen him make claims of libel elsewhere for remarks like these made outside of Wikipedia, however. Second, my issue is not whether this can be sued over, but that you wouldn't see claims like the ones SpigotMap and EvanCarroll have made in the article namespace—such claims would just get reverted as libel unless they really can be cited appropriately. Thus, I don't see why they should be present in the project namespace either. Furthermore, if Mr. Pancallo does have a reason to sue—and I highly doubt he will—it would probably be to find out who these people are and move on. Which really makes it no different than the Skutt Catholic lawsuit (which I clearly know all about). Tuxide 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham and Birmingham, United Kingdom[edit]

A rename and revert by a new user has left the Birmingham article without an edit history. The edit history is now at Birmingham, United Kingdom. Could someone do the appropriate delete and moves to fix it please? Ta. Mr Stephen 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BrumBoy1234 moved Birmingham to Birmingham, United Kingdom, did a cut and paste move of the content of the article to Birmingham, then blanked Birmingham, United Kingdom and put a speedy delete tag on it. I have reverted the speedy delete tag, would somebody please move it back? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. – Steel 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mr Stephen 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear - looks like Birmingham redirects to itself, and Birmingham, UK redirects to Birmingham. And the content is nowhere to be found. Am I missing something here? NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am just getting redirects to each other and i can't find the article history anywhere. Did you edit conf with Maxim, Steel? Woodym555 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit history was in Birmingham, United Kingdom, but it now seems to have gotten lost. Corvus cornix 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Maxim went and re-broke everything after I fixed it. Joy. – Steel 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[thousand edit conflicts] And now a third admin has fixed it. – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been to Birmingham. I doubt if I'm alone in rejoicing its disappearance, even for a few minutes. Only in Wikipedia! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I can empathise with that :PSteel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back. :) Corvus cornix 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I used to live in Birmingham!. Brummies will unite ;) It has been fixed now. The logs look a mess though! Woodym555 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately only 6 people attended to this meet-up. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of thousand people set off - but they ended up in Alabama ;-) B1atv 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There were seven at this one, the trend is heading upwards. If and when we have one in Chester, I may finally have no exuse for not coming. Neil  07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could he have been trying to get the history deleted? See also this vandalism from earlier: [59]Random832 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting Website[edit]

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (