Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive316

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

Noticeboard archives


Question about merging without concensus[edit]

I cannot find all the relevant diffs. However the issue is the following. I suddenly found one day than an article I was working on, zaojing, had been redirected to another article name Caisson (Asian architecture), without any warning or discussion. The editor had copied material and its associated references from zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) which he had been working on and redirected zaojing to his. I inquired on ANI, asking what do to.

  • Orignial ANI complaint:[1]. An admin posted on User:PalaceGuard008 talk page that a MERGE process was the method if informal discussion did not reach agreement. He has removed this message from his talk page so I cannot give a diff.

A third party I contacted said that each article name was equally valid and he could not recommend one over the other. He suggested involving other opinions or drawing straws. That message is also removed from PalaceGuard008's talk page so I cannot give a diff. The zaojing article information is focused on a much earlier time frame. Meanwhile, both the other editor and I have been working on our articles, his with the material and references copied from the one I am working on. I researched the article name question and suggested a merge of his article with Coffer as being more appropriate.

Meanwhile, I was distracted by User:Cyborg Ninja who stalked me to the article talk page and entered into the discussion. Cyborg Ninja has since been warned for stalking and personal attacks regarding me, including these posting on the talk page of Caisson (Asian architecture):

Now I find that PalaceGuard008 seems to have responded to Cyborg Ninja's advice and has kept the material and associated references from zaojing incorporated in the article he is working on and removed the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 responded by saying I said the issue was closed. I did not. I was referring to the advice from ANI to use a MERGE, so that issue was closed as the merge templates were in place:

So despite my arguments to the contrary on the article talk page including the suggested merge of his article with Coffer, the material and references copied from zaojing remain where palaceGuard008 copied them. I have asked the Architectural portal for advice on correct terminology. The article I was working on zaojing is actually part of a larger article on Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. Not only is the material copied from this article and placed into the one he is working on, but the references he copied are incorrect for the purpose and time frame he is using them for. I reverted the page back to the original status before the incorporation of zaojing material and references and including the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 has reverted to the version including material and references copied from zaojing.

Please advise on how to handle this situation. I would like to get the Architecture portals input as coffer, cupola and other terms are very similar and we need a common understanding. The Wiki Commons also uses the term "round ceiling" and "caisson" interchangeably.

Hope I am stating the situation clearly. Thanks! --Mattisse 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified PalaceGuard008 of this ANI posting on his talk page. --Mattisse 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anothr forum I should take this problem to? I don't care anymore about the redirect. I just don't want the copied text and references there. Mattisse 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merges (or unmerges) are best discussed on the talk page of the destination article. If the content should come out because it doesn't make the destination article a better article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article it is in. If you want it removed because you were the original author, you should read the GFDL and realize that it ceased being solely yours the instant you pressed the "save" button; see also WP:OWN, and what is needed is 1) in the history of the merged to article an edit summary indicating that material was merged from the original source and 2) {{R from merge}} on the redirect. If you just need a third opinion, use the WP:3O or WP:RFC processes to gain ourside comment. GRBerry 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse seems to be forum shopping. I'm waiting for fuller input on policy at Village Pump (policy). As I have exhaustively listed the issues in this and related disputes on the same article here on AN/I and elsewhere, I won't repeat myself.
Suffice to say that I think Mattisse does not understand the collaborationist nature of Wikipedia and the GFDL licence.
One specific point: he says I removed the 3rd party user's comment in support of my view that the two articles are identical in subject matter - I did no such thing, and why would I? It's right there on my talk page, and if Mattisse can't find it, it is only because he insists on opening multiple threads on my talk page (and elsewhere) every time he posts a message, cluttering up these talk pages.
I am still waiting for Mattisse to return to the content discussion on the article talk page. No luck so far after asking him about 5 times to respond to my comments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee (From COI/N & BLP/N)[edit]

Copied as posted to BLP/N, where it was referred from COI/N.

Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article[6]. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Wikipedia, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit[7] by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further still, there is an IP into the mix now who seems to self-identify as Mactographer, but who can sometimes be bothered to sign in, and other times not. I'm Assuming AGF, and posting this here for ease of reading the releveant sections. I don't hink he's seriously trying any SOCK-ing with that, but that 24.6 IP is his.

I brign this here because although it got reviewing support at COI/N, BLP/N has been silent, and I'd like to cut this off fast. Extortionistic behvaiors like 'you better keep that other page the way I say, or I'll do what I want here' is NOT how we do things. Beyond that, I think the evidence above is quite clear. ThuranX 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had some good discussions with ThuranX and I seem to get along fine with him/her. However, I think the statements suggested here and the organized cabal is a bit of a stretch at this time. I was part of the discussion and I read the "extortionistic" behavior completely different and did not take it that way at all. I'm not saying that ThuranX is wrong, perhaps (s)he's had more experience with picking out such behavior but I'm just not seeing it yet. Morphh (talk) 2:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Active CANVASsing off-wiki to force POV edits into an article by getting new editors to constitute a new consensus is a problem. Demanding that I personally assure the state of another article, or else he'll do stuff to the Huckabee article? That reads like an extortion attempt to me. It's a stupid and crass attempt, one without teeth or credibility, but all the same, nothing like that should be alloweed to stand, and no editor should take it, nor any article be vulnerable to it.
More to the point, this campaign will continue, and Admins need to jump in now to help protect articles from such POV warriors. ThuranX 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any force POV edits and I haven't seen any force for a new consensus. I see a blog that is concerned about the neutrality of the article and discussing it, with a couple of editors working to address what they believe is bias. This is how many contributors start in Wikipedia, via articles of interest. I don't see any extortion. He didn't demand the article stay any particular way or that ThuranX keep it that way. He only stated that if a justification was used to remove an image on several articles, that if that justification was invalid on the other article, he would revert the removal on the discussed article. I'm wondering who the POV warriors really are... Morphh (talk) 3:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Huckabee08 was banned today for blanking parts of the article and general pro-huckabee vandalism to it, and negative vandalism to those of other candidates. Maybe it's amazing coincidence, or part of the same campaign. Either way, review of this would be good. ThuranX 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote[edit]

In a sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ANI is the place to discuss this. I think, however, I will give my comment and let someone else moive this discussion to the proper location.
I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met:
  1. There is a single place to discuss all the pages.
  2. It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages.
  3. They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created.
As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just split this article off to a seperate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you indeed. IZAK 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

help please--unwarranted[edit]


Dear administrators, The entry for Michael Talbot contains a very discouraging and unwarranted red box about "notability." This seems like a very overbearing use of administration powers. Please see discussion. Thanks very much for your kind attention. 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I've checked and confirmed notability of this author. His book is published by Harper and has a respectable sales ranking on Amazon. I've removed the notability template on the article. It's still a stub and needs work but there's no need for that particular template. --Parsifal Hello 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with admins? The user who put the notability tag on the page, User:bsnowball, isn't an admin, and there was nothing that needed to be done by an admin. Corvus cornix 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Parsifal. sorry for bothering you with this issue, I'm very new to wiki 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pusher who is suspected sock puppet of banned neo-Nazi[edit]

On October 7, 2007 I requested an IP check for User:Sviatoslav86, a suspected sock puppet of a permanently-banned individual. My request was dismissed out of hand because a particular administrator didn't want to make the effort. Subsequently on the administrator's talk page, that person was very unhelpful and wouldn't tell me what actions I should take. Sviatoslav86 is a disruptive editor who adds uncited and factually inaccurate content to articles related to skinheads and the far right racist movement. His edits are almost identical to those of the permanently-banned sock puppet accounts User:Laderov, User:ProudAryan, User:AryeitskiySaldat and User:EuropeanLynx (as well as several sock puppet IPs). Please take the appropriate actions to prevent Sviatoslav86 from adding false claims to articles and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia.Spylab 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Deskana did say what actions you should take, which is: to link to the diffs on your RFCU request. Since there's only a handful of users who can run checkusers, and that page is heavily backlogged right now, it helps them out tremendously if you do the legwork of getting all the evidence in one place. Then they just examine your evidence and act accordingly. Deskana's comment about "no time" was not meant to be dismissive IMHO, but a factual statement of the state of their situation. Arakunem 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deskana said I posted in the "wrong section" but did not tell me what the right section is. If administrators are too busy to fulfill requests and give concrete advice, they should leave those requests for other administrators instead of throwing them out. I have requested many IP checks before, and all of them have been fulfilled within days without any roadblocks. I am not sure why this case is any different. Pretty much every single edit in the edit histories of the above suspected sock puppets are very similar, in that they post uncited opinions posing as fact, and in that they promote a neo-Nazi agenda. With very little effort, one can click on any random edits in their edit histories to see that.Spylab 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav86 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt (talk · contribs)[edit]

Another suspected sock of Laderov (talk · contribs) is Anstatt (talk · contribs) who continues to harrass and disrupt the talk page on British National Party. If anyone wants diffs then pick any random edit by Anstatt on that talk page and compare them to the reason Laderov was banned. Anstatt appeared on that talk page immediately after Sviatoslav86 was blocked. Since Anstatt is an obvious POV pushing SPA (he only edits that talk page) and stepped right into a heated debate with full knowledge of how things work on Wikipedia I honestly don't think we even need a checkuser to deal with this. Deskana may be busy and need more obvious evidence than what was presented but this needs to be dealt with. EconomicsGuy 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reason why admins are so busy, is because they are working on civility issues, 3RR, and yes I know, its one of the core policies, but it pales in comparason to this type of problem that needs more attention. So what that someone was called an idiot, or rude. Yes, it's not nice, but these types of editors and editing is the bigger problem, as it breaks all the core policies and is difficult for others to assume good faith, and much more unpleasant atmosphere than calling someone a silly name. "sticks and stones". Jeeny (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)



Mormonboy74 (talk · contribs) seems to have been spending the last year adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. At least, he has entered data which can not be verified by reliable sources. Two of his articles are now up for AfD because of the lack of verifiability. Just a heads up to keep an eye on his edits. Corvus cornix 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs (and his deleted contribs), this is pretty clearly a serial hoaxer. I've indefinitely blocked the account. MastCell Talk 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


An anonymous user put a Possible Copyright Violation notice on the Talk:AOL page on September 13, 2007, leaving no reasons why s/he did this. There's no listing on the September 13 copyright problems archive page, either. The IP address of the user is Dr. Cash 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No copyvio there. That user basically screwed up the talk page. I was able to manually repair it (could have done it using undo, were it not for another editor making a null-edit at the top of that page, ugh...). EdokterTalk 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka community discussion[edit]

The thread "Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed" and its subthreads was 92K long, so FayssalF moved it here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed. I agree it is a now a better location. All concerned please go there to continue working this issue. RlevseTalk 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM Dalmatia final decision breach[edit]

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here [8]) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [9]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [10]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([11]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

To whom it may concern, I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time ([12], [13], [14], [15]).
DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement is probably a better place for this report, where it will get more eyes, and can be subject to discussion. As this board is rather highly-trafficked, it may remain unnoticed or be archived in the middle of discussion. --Iamunknown 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC) is...[edit]

A WikiOgre on the loose and needs to be banned. He/ she keeps making unneccesary edits in abundance.Navnløs 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am simply trying to correct information based on the given example shown in the Template:Infobox musical artist. All my edits clearly follow all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Have a nice day. 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please point out what "unnecessary" edits he is making. The ones I see glancing at his contribs look like non-pointless gnomish edits. Someguy1221 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just a formatting dispute. Personal attacks and calls for bans don't help. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This edit and edit summary are inappropriate, however. Corvus cornix 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
My AGF is thin to none on most days.... I lost it about 20000 edits ago :D. I will have a tea and ponder my temper tantrum :D 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin abusing page protection[edit]

Admin protected the page in his preferred version and is abusing the mediation process (over a single sentence in the intro) to prevent anyone else from editing any part of the article.

Page needs a lot of work, but has been protected for three weeks now. See #Admin edit rights privilege abuse. — Omegatron 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To call restoring the page to the version protected by admin user:Riana, after you unprotected it during the mediation, which was the second time you used the sysop ability to edit protected pages; the first being where you made an edit to the heart of the lead which under intense discussion, may possibly be reminiscent of that great Yiddish word, chutzpah Face-smile.svg.

-- Avi 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


A few moments ago, I got a weird message from a Connell66 sock (the sock was blocked almost immediately afterwards by another user). When I mentioned that the username bot now has that string ("Bimbo Wales") flagged, Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry came by and said that he may be making socks specifically to point them out and get them blocked.

I am now officially confused. Any ideas on just what exactly is going on? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. A new vandal/troll. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected[edit]

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -Mask? 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
An elegant, innovative, and bold solution fitting neatly with Arbcom rulings and the current situation. I'm taking notes. Pigman 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Wikipedia:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
your removal of critical information and removal of his anti-semitism from the article linked here would seem to make it less of an attack and more a statement of fact. -Mask? 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In your first example, I hid a twenty year old comment by the Post which might belong in the article but not in the lead, since I doubt that it is still accurate today. In the second example, I removed OR by Dking, which puts words in LaRouche's mouth in a defamatory way. Any responsible editor would do that. NOR and BLP are core policies. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy[edit]

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison Talk 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"[edit]

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No one cares and we're all to happy that someone got out the clue-by-four to solve a legitimate problem in a unique, innovative, and emminently reasonable manner? Oh silly me, you were being rhetorical and I should have avoided using this moment to bask in the glow of a confidence-inspiring action that lets me know the project is in good hands. Whoops, there I go again. -Mask? 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem to be belaboring the obvious, but I get the feeling that there are one or two admins here who are either oblivious, or indifferent, to the core policies that they are supposed to be implementing. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. The other admins seem to be supporting Georgewilliamherbert's actions though. Fram 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh! El_C 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to protect Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely. He is correct that it has been the subject of tendentious edit warring since 2004 The latest round has been particularly unproductive. An alternative solution would have been using Enforcement provision #1 of the first LaRouche ArbCom case, which would have resulted in the banning of Marvin Diode and others. However that probably would have been more disruptive and time consuming. The page protection is a reasonable and necessary step to bring stability to a contentious topic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a neutral encyclopedia and all of its rules exist only to further that goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contributed to Wikipedia for a day short of five years now, & of all of the nasty, prolonged "we're bringing machine guns to this knife fight" edit wars on Wikipedia I've seen, the LaRouche-related one has been the worst. Worse than dealing with Scientologists, Neo-nazis, circumcision, or even the proper name of Danzig Gdańsk that port city on the Baltic sea. If his action ends this dispute, then GWH deserves all of our thanks. -- llywrch 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Herschelkrustofsky[edit]

The main LaRouche editor has been Herschelkrustofsky (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), currently a moderator at Wikipedia Review. HK has been the subject of three ArbCom cases resulting in various short bans and probations, and finally a one year ban. In the course of those investigations it was found that he'd been using sock puppets from the start of his editing career. Desptire his ban, he's never stopped using them. The non-stop sock puppetry has resulted in the ban being reset several times, most recently this month, and has become a de-facto indefinite ban. I propose that we end the charade and make the indefinite ban official. It won't stop him from using more socks but it would make the situation clearer. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we haven't formally banned him yet. Would very much support a ban. JoshuaZ 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to place the ban? That would be helpful since you're uninvolved in the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User Rogerfgay[edit]

Resolved: editor temporarily blocked now - Alison 18:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor has two highly POV articles up for AfD and has now removed the AfD tag from both articles several times.[16] [17] [18] [19] He is also leaving inappropriate vandalism warnings for editors who restore the AfD tags and delete his other POV edits. [20] [21]. I've already reverted him twice today so I'd appreciate some intervention.DanielEng 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the two articles in dispute on my watchlist now, and am keeping an eye on his contributions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it's appreciated. He's now making claims that I've been "reported for vandalism" for reverting his AfD tags. I'm not concerned about it because I know I did nothing wrong here, but it's pretty ironic.DanielEng 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left him a warning and good advice.[22] Hopefully an outside perspective will help them realize that they need to stop. - Jehochman Talk 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. He doesn't seem to be listening (I'm back to being a vandal, LOL) but I really appreciate the assistance here. He doesn't seem to register what is being said to him here or elsewhere. Best, DanielEng 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found this conversation now. I blocked Rogerfgay last night for a number of reasons last night. POV-pushing / edit warring / 3RR violations, etc, etc. His subsequent unblock request was declined. This came to my notice through a request on WP:RFPP - Alison 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE on the Ref Desk[edit]

Could someone have a word with DirkvdM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) about not biting the newbies on the Reference Desk In response to a question posted in ALL CAPS by an anonymous IP ([23]) – which I fully agree is an annoying practice and worth discouraging – Dirk responded with the comment

Don't shout. Shouting is rude. You are rude. I refuse to read your question. DirkvdM 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)(diff)

I left a note on Dirk's talk page asking him to try a little more explanation and a little less bite ([24]), as such an approach would be a bit more likely to produce the desired change in behaviour. I also added a comment of explanation to the Ref Desk to try to soften his comment: [25]. In response, Dirk decided that he would leave some additional stabs for the newbie on the Desk: "rude", "total lack of common sense" ([26], [27]). The full thread on the Reference Desk is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#TERRESTRIAL PLANT GROWING COMPLETELY IN WATER; the thread on Dirk's talk page is User talk:DirkvdM#SHOUTING on the Ref Desk.

Normally I wouldn't bring a little matter like this to AN/I, but I've had previous...discussions with Dirk that raise a couple of flags for me. For one, I don't want to issue warnings to an editor where I might have a conflict of interest, and for another, I'm concerned that he's being obstinate just because it is me who brought the problem to his attention. I'd appreciate it if a neutral third party could have a look over this situation and tell me if I'm completely off base here or not; if not, then perhaps some kind and constructive advice could be given to Dirk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that responses like this are totally unnecessary; people type in all caps often on the help desk simply because they don't know better. His response was quite WP:BITEy and assumed bad faith (assumed that the user was trying to be rude), however, unless this is a chronic problem, there is really nothing for admins to do here. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick check shows that the user is from New Dehli, India. They are likely not accustomed to writing in English, or may have different standards when communicating with other Indians in English. Some understanding would be appropriate. Leebo T/C 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is writing in all caps really that harsh on the eyes? Equating all caps writing to verbal shouting is a bit ridiculous. This isn't a chat room. Also, for many people familiar with a non-latin alphabet, reading and writing in all caps is easier to undertstand. — DIEGO talk 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, it is widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting. TheIslander 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with TheIslander here, for people who spend a lot of time on the internet using English this is the convention, and they will often react emotionally as if someone had shouted. In any event, there are more polite ways of explaining this to people. Something like "Please be aware that using ALL CAPS is frequently considered to be shouting on the internet. Please use lowercase lettering."JoshuaZ 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll just add that, quite stupidly really, I didn't read the rest of the thread. I would certainly agree that Dirk's comment was overly bite-y, and that in this case wasn't warrented. TheIslander 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is "widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting". My point is that Wikipedia is global and a) it is sometimes a mistake to assume that our accepted conventions are accepted by everyone else, and b) we have an obligation to assume good faith and not react to something as inconsequential as all caps by biting another editor. It was obvious from the context of the question that this editor was not using all caps to indicate SHOUTING. A gentle instruction/reminder that the use of all-caps is generally frowned upon would have sufficed. — DIEGO talk 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it has nothing to do with TenOfAllTrades. I make it a habit to point out to people who write in all caps that that is rude and that therefore I did not read the question. (One might as well argue that Ten reacted because it was me who made the comment, but I won't utter such accusations.)
As I pointed out on the ref desk, if someone manages to figure out how to post a question on the ref desk, then one can assume they know enough about computers and the Internet to know the difference between normal typing and all caps. It's also a matter of common sense. I cannot imagine someone so accustomed to computers to not notice they have caps lock on. The fact that he is from India and therefore may not be accustomed to English doesn't make any sense either because he asked the question in near perfect English. Just one typo and some bad punctuation. Hell, he even used the word 'adventitious', which I had to look up, despite the fact that my English is pretty good.
The only thing I can think of is that keyboards in India are different in some manner that makes this mistake likely. But that would mean he didn't check the result of his typing on his monitor. Or am I missing something here?
Instead off telling me off, you should go tell that rude guy to never do that again. DirkvdM 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Or you could assume good faith when dealing with new users. Its one thing to point out that it is discouraged, but saying "You are rude." is a personal attack. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(E/C) Yup. There's no reason to assume bad faith, especially on the reference desk. You could have told him that CAPS was considered shouting while still remaining civil. There was no reason to respond in this manner. --Bfigura (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you were going to ask a question on another Wikipedia, where you have knowledge of the language but little familiarity with etiquette related to that Wikipedia, you could easily make such a mistake. To assume that the user wanted undue attention is to assume bad faith. To loosely refer to Hanlon's razor; "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance." Leebo T/C 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
DirkvdM, I appreciate that you consider it rude that someone write in all-caps, but can you please comment civilly to that effect and then, if you are unwilling to answer their question, simply let someone else answer? --Iamunknown 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's only tangentially relevant to this matter, but I wanted to point out that my few interactions with Dirk on the reference desk have almost universally been positive. I've found him to be exceptionally helpful -- Samir 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't I give enough reason to assume bad faith? How can this be explained by ignorance? Give me a good reason and I will apoligise. For another example, look at newspapers. All over the world, bigger letters are used to draw extra attention. Headers are always in bigger letters and still bigger letters are used to draw still more attention. It's universal. The only reproach that makes sense is that I researched this after making the comment. But it's ridiculous to take every possible excuse, however unlikely, into account. If a stranger walks up to you in the street and starts shouting in your face, do you go "Well, maybe he has Tourette's or maybe in his country it is polite to shout"? No, you tell him to get lost (or worse). And I didn't say that, I politely pointed out that he was being rude. (Well, actually I said he was rude, which is something different, so my apologies for that.) And I pointed out that it can have an adverse effect, namely that some people won't read his question. That's a ref desk equivalent of turning away when someone shouts at you. DirkvdM 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And if the user was native-English and/or computer-literate, then you might have a reasonable point. Drawing a comparison between a non-native speaker of English using capital letters and "a stranger walking up to you in the street and shouting in your face" is crazy. My father types in all capitals. It's not because he's rude, it's because he rarely uses a computer, and has poor vision. There are many reasons why someone might type in capitals, and rudeness is only one of them; in the absence of any indication to the contrary, one assumes good faith. You don't have to apologise though - in future, simply just don't say anything if you can't say anything nice, and let someone capable of responding politely and constructively handle the reply. Neil  10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't multiple editors on this board give enough reason to assume good faith? Isn't that a guideline on Wikipedia? Why abandon it on the ref desk? --Iamunknown 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I teach newbies to use computers, and have found many use all caps. Part of it may be uncertainty in when to use caps and when not to. There are some subtleties in English, like "God" meaning "the one and only god" and "god" meaning "any of the many gods". Using the wrong capitalization there could thus insult someone's religion. I personally don't particularly care if someone uses all caps. If others do, they should either ignore the Q without making any comment, or, if they can comment without themself being rude, they should do so. Something like "please don't use all caps here, we prefer mixed case". We all need to be nicer, and not just to newbies. StuRat 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd probably also like to note that if there is nothing good to say, or you are simply going to say that you aren't going to answer the question, then it might well be best to, well, not reply at all... x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the questioneer is (most probably) not a computer illiterate, because else he would not have know how to post a question on the ref desk. Neil, would your father be able to do that?. And Stu, would the pupils that don't yet know when to use all (!) caps know how to do that? And if he had such poor vision, then he couldn't read any of the answers anyway (including my 'rude remark' - so no harm done in that case).
About not responding: like I said above, did that all caps section draw your attention? And was that just? I'd say no, so telling him makes sense. If someone draws undue attention you can't expect me to ignore it, because I can't. He gets the attention he asks for.
I have yet to hear a reason to assume good faith. The only one I am now starting to doubt about is computer illiteracy, but I don't find it sufficiently likely. And if there is sufficient doubt about his bad intentions I will apologise. That would be the honourable thing to do. Note that the questioneer hasn't done that yet. So either he can't find the thread anymore (in which case no harm is done) or he doesn't care. DirkvdM 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to hear a reason to assume good faith.
Dirk, I don't mean to be trite or rude, but according to WP:AGF: To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. Later in the article, it says: Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. To me, the assumption of good faith seems pretty non-negotiable - kind of like the presumption of innocence in the American legal system.  Folic_Acid | talk  12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Dirk, I agree with all above who think you have bitten this newcomer. Your response was less polite than the all caps. Accept that you made a mistake, and move on. (adding) TenOfAllTrades, use Wikiquette alert next time for something like this where there's no need to block the user. - Jehochman Talk 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Block the user? Is that the issue here? Why wasn't I told? DirkvdM 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Btw, why not assume my good faith? And what about the good faith of users who ask questions that might be interpreted as medical. Deleting their posts (as Ten sometimes does) is infinitely more rude than what I did. But that's a different issue. DirkvdM 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone suggested you should be blocked, and that's why this discussion shouldn't have been started here. It wasn't one that required administrator attention. Leebo T/C 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding my €.02 to a very silly debate that should never have ended up here: 1) DirkvdM does a hard job here as a volunteer, for no pay and little glory. I thank him for having as much patience as he has (and I say that as somebody who has virtually no patience whatsoever). 2) My sister types bulletins for the police department, and by convention uses all caps. She often forgets and types that way in personal correspondence. So it can happen. Dirk made a mistake. Let's drop it and move on. Jeffpw 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
He made a mistake yes, but "drop it and move on" is really only a useful answer if Dirk accepts that it was a mistake and stops repeating the same mistake. If he'd done that, this never would have been brought up here. Friday (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, Friday, you and others here think kicking someone in the teeth is the appropriate response for inadvertently biting a newbie (or anybody else, for that matter). Have you people no sense of proportion? Move on and leave Dirk alone. Or is protecting an anon IP so important you'd risk alienating a valuable contributer? Jeffpw 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has proposed kicking anyone in the teeth; nobody is protecting an IP; and risk of alienating a valuable contributor applies equally to all editors whether they have 1 edit or 10,000. Each person is judged according to how they act. If anything, I expect better behavior from an established user than a newbie. Please take this issue to Wikiquette alerts if it needs following up. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, my main concern was not that he bit the newbie in the first place—at least, I wouldn't have brought that here. For what it's worth, I both understand and agree that contributing to Wikipedia can be a thankless task, and I acknowledge that Dirk is usually an active and positive editor; I have would have no trouble with saying he is a net benefit to the project. However, I was very troubled by his response in this case. The newbie did something annoying; Dirk bit the newbie for it; I asked Dirk not to bite, and left the newbie an explanation of why ALL CAPS messages aren't appropriate and asked him not to do it in the future. If the matter had ended there, this thread wouldn't be here. Instead, Dirk decided to go back to the Ref Desk and insult the newbie, ascribing to the newbie either a 'total lack of common sense' or a bad faith motiviation. Regardless of how good and useful Dirk is in general, in this specific case, he was well over the bounds of acceptable conduct. WP:BITE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:RDG all exist for a reason, and are meant to be followed all the time—even when dealing with Indian school kids who need to work on their netiquette.
I'm also more than a little bothered by the attitude that anonymous IP contributors are less deserving of courtesy and decent treatment than logged-in editors. (I don't mean to pick you specifically, Jeff—it's an unfortunate and pervasive bias across a large segment of the Wikipedia population.) I know that I contributed anonymously to Wikipedia for a while before I got an account, and I'm sure that almost everyone else on this board did at one time as well. Unless there's some indication that an IP is a banned user, obviously trolling, or has otherwise clearly demonstrated bad-faith intent – indications that are not apparent in this case – we still need to offer a bit of basic decency.
I don't deny that it's easy to bite and kick anonymous editors. By and large, they don't know our dispute resolution mechanisms—they don't know where AN/I is or how to seek help. They don't have long or proven individual track records like logged-in editors do, so even if they do speak up they will tend to receive less attention. They usually don't know how to post a diff, or even what one is. They often aren't as familiar with the culture and norms of Wikipedia, so they may appear rude, confused, or disoriented; they might be a 'bull in a china shop' when they edit a talk page. But all that doesn't mean that we need to be cruel to them, nor should it mean we should accept it when an long-time Wikipedia editor is needlessly and gratuitously rude to them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be going around in circles. All the arguments have been used up and there is no consensus, so if no-one has anything new to add, I'm quite happy to leave it at this. Just one more thing for clarification. From my point of view, I wasn't being rude, just very Dutch and therefore straightforward. I don't beat around the bush and say things the way I see them. This sometimes gets me into trouble with certain people. I know that, but I can't help being what I am. Or rather, I couldn't live with myself if I started being dishonest, which not being straightforward would feel like to me. So please assume some good faith on my part, however I come across. :) DirkvdM 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify this, the reference desk is for people that wish to help out other editors and members of the public. When you are on the reference desk, you are acting as an ambassador for wikipedia. If you think you are going to be rude and to the point like you have been, then I suggest you go somewhere else to do some work. If I see another comment like that from you on the reference desk, then we'll have to think about a ban from commenting there. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:MoritzB[edit]

User:MoritzB has four times attempted to include inflammatory racist remarks [28] [29] [30] [31] from a newspaper interview with Nobel Laureate James D. Watson in the article Race and intelligence. These remarks have created a furore in the UK and the USA. Even when Watson retracted his comments, MoritzB continued to argue that his views were useful for WP. [32] MoritzB similarly attempts to push the scientifically discredited statistical methods of Richard Lynn on Eugenics, Dysgenics and Race and intelligence. More worrying is the way he has dug out contemporary newspaper articles to paint the victims of lynchings as criminal scum. [33] All his contributions appear to conform to a racist agenda; he has sided with racists like User:fourdee, permabanned by Jimbo Wales himself. --Mathsci 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Killed the ref tags, we have no {Reflist} tag here :) Spryde 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mathsci 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
User:MoritzB is a long-standing single-purpose POV-pushing account of a particuarly distasteful sort. If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. As is, not sure what the best next step is. MastCell Talk 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Repeatedly re-inserting identical material is classic tendentious editing. This is aggravated by the fact that he did not note that Watson later retracted the remarks, which raises serious WP:BLP concerns. Blocked for 48 hours. Review welcome as always. Raymond Arritt 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No argument here; the behavior is tendentious and it's difficult to identify any positive contributions to the encyclopedia from this user. MastCell Talk 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had exchnages with this editors and I agree with MastCell's assessment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this block as opposed to nothing, but think an indefinite one would be better. Otherwise he'll come back, behave for a bit, and then launch back into this. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have experienced this editor, and he is the last one standing from the racist group, that I know of, (User:Fourdee, User:KarenAER, User:Phral, and User:Hayden5650), who has managed to avoid being banned along with them for gross racist POV pushing and soapboxing. In addition to the above articles mentioned by Mathsci, he has done, and doing the same thing on articles and talk pages of Race and Ancient Egypt, Race, Nubians, Race and genetics, Negroid and others. All with a racist-pseudo-science and white supremacy POV. He and the others have helped make my time here very uncomfortable... so much so, that I have lost respect for Wikipedia, and one of the main reasons my editing here as decreased. This type of stain, needs to be wiped off Wikipedia. It's sickening, and a disgrace. Jeeny (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In the about one year I've dealt with this editor, he has always struck me as not just POV-pushing, but editing tendentiously towards racialist, if not overtly racist (and sexist) positions, and far from showing any kind of subtlety, he seemed to demonstrate a liking of editing for shock value, such as inserting outdated, demeaning comments towards Blacks and also towards women, in what seemed like an attempt to provoke an outraged reaction.--Ramdrake 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Small point here, he has been here since July 2007. ~3 months. Spryde 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Feels like longer than that we've been putting up with this bunch. Maybe I just can't tell them apart any more. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
MoritzB made a few contributions to Homosexuality in ancient Greece that struck me as POV-pushing rather than genuine attempts to improve the encyclopedia. What I've seen of his race-related edits looks far worse, and I don't see any reason to keep racist soapboxing editors like MoritzB around. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) After reviewing his contributions, he is one well read, well sourced disruptive editor. I will give him that. His views are his own and would be a case of WP:FRINGE. Some of them seem to be content additions that would be valuable (Not 100% as I am not a expert on homosexuality in ancient Greece) while others appear only to push buttons. Anyway, my US$0.02. Spryde 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his sourcing on Homosexuality in ancient Greece was fairly poor--he was giving quotes from specialist literature, but it was clear that he was picking up the quotes from non-specialist (and very slanted) websites, so his quotes were out of context and misinterpreted. I can't say if this is the case with his edits on other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There have been at least two previous threads about this editor, and an indefinite block was suggested both times - but never implemented. Why not? Can some uninvolved admins reading this please determine whether MoritzB should be editing at all, after all this disruption? It's embarrassing how long it's taking to close the door on this disruptive, biased editing. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As the admin who placed the current block, I would have no objections at all if it were extended to indef. Before this he'd only had a single 24-hour block. I was a little concerned about having to deal with the crowd who come out of the woodwork to defend disruptive editors because they haven't been given a bazillion and eight warnings, 17 gradually escalating blocks, and 12 last chances. Raymond Arritt 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you said that If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. It is still alive. It's been transferred here. Please read its AfD closing ceremony: Keep, but merge role and functionality back into AN/I. Now, is MoritzB willing to keep it cool and stop abusing and violating WP:NPOV? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I would also support an extended block and even an indefinite block. His history of tendentious editing is pretty damning. He has started edit wars on various articles and moved on to other articles once consensus forms against his edits (see the previous ANI threads). Can't see any good reason to have him still editing and I'd recommend an indefinite block that should be appealed through ArbCom. Pascal.Tesson 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd definitely support an indefinite block but would like to see him back so we won't be accused of "not showing him enough patience at the ANI". It is up to him. He witnessed the fate of User:Fourdee, User:KarenAER, User:Phral, and User:Hayden5650 and the infamous User:Mariam83 who is still harassing users from time to time using socks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised he isn't blocked yet as there is a long history of such behavior with this user. See his edit here[34] on Great Zimbabwe pushing racist fringe theories, and the same on afrocentrism where he caused edit wars due to his agenda.[35][36].. Many more examples but he's been reported so many times and since this isn't my case, I'll limit it to that. I'll just say that wiki editors need to stop being so indifferent as it makes such reporting seem worthless. This user has been doing this for so long and has seen so many complaints that people are tired of complaining and admins not doing anything.Taharqa 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above and again reviewing User:MoritzB's contributions, it seems clear that the feeling is that we've tolerated this user's long-term disruption and problematic behavior long enough. I've therefore gone ahead and extended the block to indefinite, with instructions on how to appeal it if MoritzB sees fit. MastCell Talk 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockitis/false accusations[edit]

Looks like these are WAY off base: [37][38][39][40][41] Just trying to help here Mysticpairs 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an admitted sockpuppet of blocked User:Mysticpair‎. Corvus cornix 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
HMMMM; the notice still seems important. The 1st. 4 links accuse Ahwaz,one of the admins, of having 3 sockpuppets (seems to be a case of mixing up an article titled Ahwaz with User Ahwaz which the Blocking admin. only corrected on one of the alleged socks' pages) Reayreu 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who's not a trolling sockpuppet see anything of concern here? MastCell Talk 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha. This is ridiculous. --Strothra 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
They're all obviously sockpuppets of Ottawaman and were at the AFD and DRV to troll me and Strothra. It's really quite obvious to me, especially given the various AN and ANI complaints. He's better delt with block and ignore. Sarah 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ESPN IP removing criticism[edit]

This IP, today, removed sourced allegations of sexual harassment against Woody Paige diff and Jay Crawford diff. Both Paige and Crawford work for ESPN, and the material removed details a lawsuit against these individuals and ESPN. The IP traces directly to ESPN's offices. Other edits to ESPN related articles include some poor attempts at expanding some entries. I haven't dug to deeply, more investigation is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a WP:COI notice; we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Remember, COI does not prohibit editing, it just requires more care and oversight. -- Avi 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was trying to avoid plopping some template there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What's to avoid? Now there can be no plausible deniability of policy. -- Avi 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I was drafting a personalized response, one less cookie cutter that can drive home the problems with COI editing. Templates are evil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Although infrequent, this IP has done this in the past. See these two: [42][43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talkcontribs) 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a first-hit on Google for both of those people's names. The allegations are sourced, but are extremely negative, and I understand why anyone would wish to redact them. Can we please consider carefully whether this material is needed? I, for one, don't think so. --Iamunknown 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really an admin issue, try those articles' talk pages. Milto LOL pia 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I consider the content of biographies of living persons to be an admin as well as a content issue. Thanks for your suggestion, though. I don't think this will get very much attention. --Iamunknown 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you even tried the talk page at all? It's worth a shot. And if you don't think it will gain much attention, maybe just remove it yourself, post a note on talk, and then if no one responds it's all good :-) Milto LOL pia 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Its an admin issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[44] Some weird edit war is going on. FYI. -- Cat chi? 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am missing something here, but there only seems to have been 7 edits (including 4 reverts) in the last 8 days [45]. Not really an edit war, and what do you feel is weird about it? Thanks TigerShark 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304#Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is what rather alarms me and the fact that the account was recently created-- Cat chi? 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about Leobudv or Kurdology1? The first is an established editor who would more likely support dab's position on an article than disagree with, let alone harass, him. The second appears to be more interested in articles relating to the Kurds & Kurdistan, & has interacted more with Denizz than dab. -- llywrch 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark[edit]

We are currently in discussion about a possible BLP violation at this article. Per BLP, I have removed the material in question. Shot info (talk · contribs) has continued to restore the material without any meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion.

Shot info's reversions:

Please note that the matter has been posted at BLP/N and we are awaiting outside opinions on this matter.

Shot info seems to think that a consensus is needed for someone to remove possible BLP violations. I don't believe this to be the case. What I would like to see is the material in question be removed until the BLP policy issues which I have brought up can be addressed. I don't want to edit war any more (even though I am quite certain that WP:3RR does not apply when dealing with possible BLP violations).

Any third party help/input here would be welcomed by me... even if you just tell me that I am completely wrong here. ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The allowance to remove potentially libelous material on site and without discussion is specifically meant for material that could be considered derogatory if untrue. A reference is provided, an affidavit written and/or signed by a deputy attourney general from the state of Indiana. Unless you suspect to have fabricated or altered this affidavit, it's a legitimate source for the complaint. The issue then, is a somewhat editorial decision as to whether this is of significance to the article or is fairly presented. Someguy1221 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That is precisely the kind of answer I was seeking. I am surprised that I got it here before BLPN. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shot info is stopping an editor who has clearly articulated his purpose on the article's Talk Page from removing verifiable information from reliable sources from a BLP without consensus. I note that I have been involved in the discussions unfortunately Levine thinks that he can run roughshod over the article, here, BLP/N, everywhere trying to get an answer that he wants, without trying to develop a consensus first. He is merely gaming the system to prove a point, the point being, he doesn't think that a RS is an RS. Rather than actually discussing the merits in the context of the article, he just reverts, claiming BLP issues, and then engages in a editwar. This is vandalism on his part, and using TW to revert as well. Shot info 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained to User:Levine2112 dozens of times: The duty to remove contentious material on sight and without discussion is specifically meant for unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. The only consensus needed for re-inclusion of the disputed content is that the sources are acceptable (usually: published in a reliable third-party secondary source). This consensus should be clear from article edits and/or discussion on the talk page (or anywhere else, but see WP:CANVASS). Avb 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been an uninvolved lurker in this mess for quite a while. Levine2112 seems to have a strong personal dislike for Stephen Barrett. I invite anyone to view the megabytes of filibusters he's dropped at Talk:Stephen Barrett and Talk:Quackwatch over the (literally) years. His latest effort is a large-scale purge of Barrett-related links from altmed articles, which the Hulda Clark kerfluffle is but a small part of. He's also been blocked several times over Barrett-related articles, which doesn't seem to slow him down in the slightest. I think it's high time for an RFC, with the goal of a topic ban from articles involving Stephen Barrett and altmed-related areas if he doesn't change his behavior. Skinwalker 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Skinwalker is being very tactful when he writes "strong personal dislike" above. It is that and much more. This is not just about Hulda Clark, but about yet another (yes, he has done it before) of Levine2112's deletion rampages aimed at eliminating references sourcing Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett from Wikipedia. He at times does it in such a manner that he doesn't violate policy, because he ends up pointing to the same content but from a more original source, which is fine....but his sights are mainly on Barrett and Quackwatch, which he wants to eliminate as much as a possible. A cursory examination of his recent edit history bears this out, and earlier rampages just as much. They are usually accompanied with edit summaries that use wikilawyering arguments as excuses for him to carry on his pro-quackery agenda (if one is anti anti-quackery, one is's the classic double negative situation by which he reveals his biases and condemns himself). His negative comments about Barrett and Quackwatch are numerous. He assumes bad faith on their part, and this affects his editing and leads to these deletion campaigns. A topic ban may be the answer. -- Fyslee / talk 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If he keeps it up, I'm giving him a short block. Adam Cuerden talk 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Before an edit war starts[edit]


Please clarify something. I was told long ago, when I was still editing under just an IP that tags go below infoboxes so they are at the top of the article but do not mess up the page. User:Mattbr disagrees. Could you clarify? Best example is Las Vegas (TV series). Thank you for your input. CelticGreen 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article message boxes states they go on top. As a side note, both versions render just fine for me (on IE 7). Someguy1221 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Top being relative? Top of the article or top of the edit box? When you put it below the infobox template once saved, the tag goes on the top of the article and the info box is on the side, as the example of Las Vegas shows. I've been told to put it under the infobox template so the page orientation is not disrupted. It is severely disrupted on Firefox with a wide screen monitor. CelticGreen 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Top of the page.
{{pp-semi-vandalismCleanup|date=October 2007}}
{{infobox}}-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not protection. Clean up and trivia. I was definitely told the trivia goes under the section that needs to be cleaned. And I'd really like a couple admins, not just user editors.CelticGreen 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It was just en example. Fixed now. He is right. You can revert yourself. As for trivia, you are right. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The opinion of admins doesn't (heck, shouldn't) carry any more weight than that of other Wikipedians. Indeed, this entire matter isn't an admin matter at all (no-one is going to get blocked, and no page protected). Please move this threat to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
...and that's why i advised CelticGreen to revert themselves because i am not entitled to do it at their place unless it becomes disruptive which is not the case at all since they came here for an advice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, look at that. I didn't even know that existed. I also thought the editors were the final be all end all say. Learn something everyday. Thanks for the suggestions. This person was putting the trivia tags at the top and telling me I was wrong, which I can be sometimes, that's why I asked here. I guess this is only for problems and that other page is for discussion. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Finlay ~ you mean threaD, right, not threaT? I wasn't threatening anyone. CelticGreen 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
it just happens that the user you are referring to (Mattbr) is an admin himself :) He did the correct thing and thanks for your query. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See also my comments at the village pump: there used to be some rendering problems with message boxes placed alongside infoboxes, but those problems seem to have been fixed since. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FLIR Systems anon IP campaign[edit]

FLIR Systems not sure what can be done beyond a semi-protect of the article, but I believe (based on all three IPs re-adding the same material) a single anon IP editor is responsible for the editing issues on the article.

At first the editor was removing existing content while added nothing but negative info about the company, but now has turned mainly to just added negative info about the company. However, all the negative info is copy and paste info that is a copyright violation. This has been explained on the user talk pages, but they don’t seem to care. I’m speculating here, but I’m guessing there is a COI issue or former employee out for blood. Regardless, at a minimum the page needs a semi-protect for a week, but I was hoping admins might have better way of maybe reporting the user to their internet provider or such. Anything would be great. Aboutmovies 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All the IPs locate to the Portland, Oregon area. Bonus question: FLIR Systems is located in a suburb of what city in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.? Raymond Arritt 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ding ding ding, I'm going to guess Portland, Oregon. Article semiprotected for a month. Neil  10:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully they'll give up, or sign up for an account and then start editing properly. Aboutmovies 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani makes comments which are insulting and maybe even abusive toward other editors[edit]

In fighting with several users on several articles User:Nishidani is acting with disrepect to Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF:

<blockqoute>::Nonsense. You want smear innuendoes in, and, at that, incompetent smear material. That is not an inflammatory summary, since several other editors have more or less said that is how they read the passage. Rewrite it as you like, tighten your seat belt and get into an edit war. It will not, I repeat, will not stay on this page, as if is a defamatory and highly vulgar characterisation of the plight of an entire people, and that you insist on retaining it flags a temper of contempt, not only for Palestinians, which is par for the course in much of the world, but for the discipline of history. If you put that into a paper at a UCLA history course, you'd be kicked up the coit for slumming it Nishidani 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


she referes to other editors as "rag-and-bottle editors"[47] and may even go so far as accusae them in anti-Semitism:


This latest case deserve more details:

User:Nishidani has two days ago made this comment on a talk page:

"Many rabbis dealt with the Nazis, sending poorer Jews and Jewish communists off to the crematoria, where Jewish inmate slang called the victims who were condemned to the 'bakery' because unable to work anymore, 'Moslems', all this in exchange for their own and their family and friends' lives.

These accusations were in reply to my request to stop posting non-relevant data.

I find it offensive that one turn a discussion from :' what is relevant or not to an article' to accusations leveled against rabbis who can not respond.

What would any reasonable person do in their situation ? just kicking such stories around is something that fit anti-Semitic sites not Wikipedia.

Are such accusations correct ? but even if they are - why push stories on rabbis where they don't serve any useful purpose but to agitate an already hot situation. (there is a long debate in talk pages)

User:Nishidani later made this comment - directed at me(at least so it seems):

"because people who want that information ought to earn it, and people who might abuse it, should not have their antisemitism buttressed by facile access to someone's hard-earned notes.

the whole discussion is in: it is clear from the explanation she gave later that "someone's hard-earned notes" is her and "people who want that information", "people who might abuse it" and "should not have their anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access" is directed at me.

I wish someone who has better English than me (she does note that my English is not good and indeed her use of sophisticated words and style is above my level of understanding) would review her comments on talk and make sure to take the steps to stop this kind of sophisticated, yet insulting, use of the English language. Zeq 06:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The tactic of using non relevant information is something that this user is also doing in Wikipedia articles:
What does this [49] has to do with the subject of the article. Zeq 06:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think a momentary non-assumption of good faith, or a generalized comment about "rag and bottle editors" can be matters of much concern to ANI. And these comments weren't even addressed to you personally. Who are you to take offence on someone else's behalf? Gatoclass 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. More than one user that have such problem with her is not "momentary non-assumption of good faith". If you bother to read what she wrote later it became clear that she did not want to make it is for me easy to find a source - she wanted me to go read books (that what she wrote). So when she wrote:

    "people who want that information...should not have their anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access"

    who do you think she was speaking about ? Did she accuse me in being anti-semitic ? if not who was she accusing ?
  2. In any case, when she accuse rabbis of colbarating with the Nazis in a talk page of an article about a known-Nazi colborator this is (for me ) insulting as it has an antisemitic tone. Zeq 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know Nishidani is a she? And where are all these other editors who "have such problem" with her/him?

I think you have completely misread his comments about antisemitism. Why would anyone accuse you - an editor with a well established history of pro-Semitic editing - of antisemitism? That would just be nonsensical.

Nishidani was simply making a general comment about the nature of the texts he was referring to. The antisemites he alluded to were purely hypothetical. Gatoclass 07:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. She was speaking directly to me this became clear when she explain her comments about "anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access " with those words: "scholarship is in books, in libraries. Hence, if you want to know the state of the art of a subject, go to a library, and don't surf the net. ". In previous parts of the exchange it is clear that she/he does not want (initially) to give access to hin/her "hard earned notes". So what you derscribe as "general comment" about "hypothetical antisemite" is not so "hypothetical". This was an exchange about him/her as the one who bother to read books and about me as the "anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access".
I would agree with you that writing in the English that she/he does (both in talk and in the article) makes it very hard to understand but in this case it is clear from the explnation he provided further down the talk page. Zeq 08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 08:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you are completely misreading his intent. As I said, it simply wouldn't make any sense to accuse an editor like you of antisemitism. Gatoclass 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
One wonders, if Nishidani (not assuming either sex here), believes that "scholarship is in books... go to a library, don't surf the net" is the truth why Nishidani is wasting hir time trying to build an online encyclopedia. It would seem that this would be a waste of hir time. I don't believe it would be a leap of logic to conclude that if Nishidani really believes that what we are doing here is pointless, Nishidani's virtiol filled arguments are nothing more than trolling for response not a serious discussion in an effort to collaborate in the creation of an encyclopedia and Nishidani's continued presence here should be addressed with Nishidani's belief that our efforts are fruitless in mind. Kyaa the Catlord 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • in here she refer to the work by other editors as "semi-vandalaism" and "junk": [50] Zeq 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he wrote that he regarded the repeated insertion of a set of defamatory generalizations (which by their very nature are unprovable) about Palestinian Arabs, from a writer with questionable credentials, as "semi-vandalism" and "evidence of bad faith". While I have not supported such comments, they don't seem like such unreasonable judgements to me in the circumstances. There is no requirement to WP:AGF, and editors have differing opinions about when AGF is exhausted. Not only does he have a right to his own judgements in that regard, but he himself qualified his comments with "semi-" and "evidence of". So again it appears that you are trying to make a mountain out of molehill. Gatoclass 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, another traffic infraction charge, again on false premises. There are many splendid neutral editors whose work on the encyclopedia is hampered by these endless recourses to squabbles before an arbitration committee. I apologize for Gatoclass for the waste of hir time here. I intuit (from the fact that Zeq's English both on the articles, and Talk page, is solecistic, but here is, in the first comment, almost impeccable) that this is going to assume some frequency in my case, so, since I am the target, and what I wrote is under my responsibility, I will assume, if it is necessary, the burden of defence. I won't at this point interfere with the construction of the 'j'accuse' but simply see if these contorted charges expand, deepen, blow out, ring in numerous other editors for the prosecurtion or not. If it does, instead of simply collapsing under its own weight of frivolous misrepresentations, then I'll make the necessary defence, which is quite simple. Zeq has troubles with construing English, at least on the page where he selectively culled the 'incriminating' material. Nishidani 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black going on here, as Zeq likes to characterize those who hold opposing views as Mufti supporters. Israel-Palestine related articles are always going to see tensions rise and maybe a barb will be a bit sharp once in awhile. Is running to AN/I for every perceived slight really going to accomplish anything? Tarc 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The link Tarc linked to show that his claim is false. I was refering to two opposing POVs - not of editors but in general (POPVs that exist in the real world where some people oppsoe the mufti and other support him at least partly) and suggested that both POVs will be present in the article (including those who see him as a hero). I don't see any reason to get into this as this AN/I report is not about me. Tarc could file one about me and we will discuss it there if he wants. (we already discussed it on Talk page so tarc could actually see the result there) Zeq 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That you backtracked subsequently does not alter the initial accusation. Tarc 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
false and irelevant accusation from tarc has nothing to do with this report. Zeq 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Socket Puppet Abuse User Check Request[edit]

Can somebody please check out usernames User:Denveron and User:Ems57fcva as they both appear to be pushing an identical viewpoint and writing in a similar style. They are trying to dominate the Herbert Dingle page by deleting all legitimate sourced edits by other contributors. I strongly suspect that Denveron and Ems57fcva are the same person and that he is determined to impose his anti- Herbert Dingle POV on the article. DVdm may also be a sockpuppet although there does seem to exist some evidence in writing style that he is in fact a different person. Arthur Spool 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, although Denveron only edits on Herbert Dingle, you are going to have help everyone with diffs about Ems57fcva's edits. Ems57fcva hasn't even edited Dingle since the start of the month. Is this something in particular you are seeing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Or is it something in particular that you don't want to see. They both write in exactly the same style and on the same topic and with the same point of view. Denveron arrived on the Herbert Dingle page as a new user immediately after a freeze period of one week, and he continued on exactly where Ems57fcva left off. Other users have been blocked on alot less evidence. Why not ask Ryulong? He seems to be pretty good at spotting identical personalities behind masks. Or is it perhaps that maybe none of us really want to block Ems57fcva or Denveron? Arthur Spool 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky81682, fwiw, see my comment about this on Ryulong's talk page. Cheers, DVdm 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
See also "a major coincidence!", miraculously but also rather transparently happening after my comment. Sheesh :-) - DVdm 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Block requested[edit]

Please block me for 72 hours. I do not want to be involved in this fight and want to be prevented from editing for 3 days. Appealplease 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors are typically not blocked on request. If you do not want to get involved in a dispute, then simply walk away for those 72 hours. Arakunem 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think socks of User:Dereks1x are usually blocked for longer than 3 days. I suggest an admin look at Special:Contributions/Appealplease and then do the honors. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Was just looking into why such a request would be made, and yes, I concur with that assessment... Arakunem 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, call everyone a sock. I am not a sock. Greenwinged is definitely not Polounit. I think ProtoWolf is the sock master. His creation date is suspect, just when Derek got blocked. His name say proto as in prototype sock master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appealplease (talkcontribs) 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, a clear sock/troll. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing prod tags for amusement[edit]

IP User: has started going through the prod list and objecting to them without explanation, doing it alphabetically judging by the contribution history. I don't mind a contested prod, but it does seem like it should be based on something other an editor's amusement value. Should validity of the contested prods be assumed (making all the prod's a potential AfD) or can bad faith on the tag removals be considered and reverted? Michael Devore 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My own, nonadmin opinion is (a) this IP just came off a 31 hour block for disruption a couple of days ago, and (b) obviously bad faith removals, either just vandalism, or (if they have issues with proposed deletion policy) almost a textbook case of violating WP:POINT. I say IAR and put the tags back (someone with automation). I'll leave a warning, and AIV should be appropriate if they continue after that. --barneca (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just left a message. Also, this edit is interesting - Alison 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - by Icairns - Alison 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus[edit]

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 talk 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 talk 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".
Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.
This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Busytails, you provided a link to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Furry Wikipedians. In it User:After Midnight says "Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated." However, you have stated that they said "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." and "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". Could you please provide links to where After Midnight said that he would ignore them? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe Bushytails was offering his own paraphrasing of what After Midnight was saying rather than providing direct quotes. However, that has been the effect - the consensus of the people who actually showed up at this particular UCfD was dismissed, due to prior deletions of different user categories. I was honestly surprised when I saw that closure, because it didn't seem to make sense. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How can what After Midnight said be turned into "ignore"? His statement is quite clear and in no way dismisses the other arguments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As there was only one argument to delete (and a weak one based entirely on the nominator's personal opinion), the only way the decision could have been "delete" is if the five keep arguments, summed together, were given less weight than a single weak delete argument. I believe this would fit the defintion of "ignore". Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
jc37, since when did being tidy become a reason to delete things that have shown themselves to be useful? Try to understand: You have deleted a whole lot of categories that nobody really cared about. This has been generally regarded as a good thing. You are now getting more people saying "keep" rather than "delete". This is the point at which to stop, and say "Mission accomplished", rather than start deleting things people have actually been using to build user communities on Wikipedia. The creation of a general rule for user identification categories to override such discussions is not required, nor desirable. These decisions should be made by individual consensus in UCfD, just like articles.
If you want a guide for nominations, consider "categories covering a topic smaller or larger than that which could reasonably be covered by a single WikiProject." This would exclude both the "silly small" categories such as "Wikipedians who are fans of Ozy and Millie" or "Wikipedians who like Amnesiac" (but not "Furry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are fans of Radiohead") as well as the silly large ones, like "Wikipedians who read books" or "Wikipedians who like food". Basically, if you can't ever imagine having an "Infobox X", it's probably too small, and if that infobox would be a whole page by itself, it's possibly too big. In between that, it's the right size to start gathering a community of editors. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer to this "cause" of "IWANTIT" is to remind you all that the place to contest the closure of User:After Midnight was DRV. And DRV endorsed the closure. That pretty much puts a terminus on all your arguements about him. (And personally, I think you owe him an apology.)

But, to continue this "crusade" is risking becoming disruptive.

If you consider a "crusade" for getting admins to follow consensus, it might make a bit more sense to you. I believe "crusading" for proper admin actions to be far more useful than, say, crusading to break up all informal collaborative groups on wikipedia. (please note again that you were the _only_ person to provide an argument on the ucfd as to why they should be deleted... "IDONTWANTIT"?) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: If you want to start a discussion about the relevance of idetification categories in general, please feel free to start a talk page discussion somewhere. The Village Pump is an excellent place, for example. - jc37 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. At Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by interest, well before the category in question was deleted. It was not significantly replied to, even though I pointed people to it in the discussion about LGBT Wikipedians. If I have to take it to the pump, I'll take it there. But I think you should ask yourself the same question about disruptive crusades. Nobody asked you to go around nominating these user categories for deletion. You thought it was a good idea, and you did it. And that's how wikis work, so I have no problem with that. But it's come to the point where what you are nominating them, and people are coming up and saying "hey, we were using that" - and actually telling you how, and have others come in without being asked and agree with that - and they're being deleted anyway. That's not good, not when there's no compelling reason for deletion but a sense of tidyness. GreenReaper 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is starting to border on being disruptive - DRV is the place to contest the closure of an XfD, and when DRV does not get you the result you want, that does not mean the appropriate "next step" is to seek out yet another forum of complaint in hopes of getting the result one wants. There is no process of endless appeals here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I discussed the DRV above - other than After Midnight's vote for proper colsure, there weren't any good arguments for why it should have been delete - the other "endorse" votes were all about content, and didn't mention the process of closure. Since the point of DRV is to discuss the process of the deletion, not to re-argue for/against the content, DRV failed at its purpose, so, as I was advised, I picked a better forum where the actual process of the deletion may be discussed. Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, before I answer your questions here, could you please answer these for me? After I deleted the category, and my bot removed it from your user page, you made this edit with an edit summary of "go fuck yourselves. you know who you are. people who do nothing buy try to destroy wikipedia do not deserve the right to live." In the edit, you state "This user only has a userbox because certain fuckwits decided that categories, even for the purpose of helping to find users for collaboration, should be replaced by userboxes. If you see one of these fuckwits, please shoot them for the benefit of the encyclopedia, as they seem to go out of their way to try to destroy it, and ridding the planet of ilk like them can only help our goal of encyclopedia creation.". I would like to know, am I one of the fuckwits that you would wish for someone to please kill? And whether this refers to me or not, why should you be allowed to continue to edit on this site, where death threats are not permitted? --After Midnight 0001 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you claim that an admin directed you to bring this discussion here, can you please link to this recommendation, since I see nothing in your edit history regarding any such conversation. Also, did this admin not also mention to you that "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)."? --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I re-worded that a bit less harshly, deciding threats might not be the best way to get the point across that certain users do not benefit the environment they're in, and thus shouldn't be in it. It doesn't change my opinion, however, that admins who ignore consensus are a major problem for wikipedia, and should be dealt with appropriately, as should users taking other actions that damage the ability to create an encyclopedia or the community that creates it. Don't forget we're here to create an encyclopedia, after all. Doing things that hurt the encyclopedia is contrary to creating an encyclopedia, and users doing such actions should not be here. (A single rogue admin action is _far_ more damaging than random vandalism, something that routinely results in long-term removal from the site.) And as I was advised on IRC, there will be no link (and, no, I was not advised of that. I also figured that as an active admin, you'd notice soon enough! :) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So you were less harsh because "threats might not be the best way to get the point across"? I would have hoped that you withdrew the threat because it was immoral, illegal and uncivil, but it appears you withdrew it only because you were getting reverted on your edit or because you think it didn't help your argument. Either way, your credibility here is shot and at this time, you don't deserve further discussion from me. --After Midnight 0001 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You could, you know, actually try responding to arguments people have made. Attacking me won't change the issue. Bushytails 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You could, you know, actually try to apologize for suggesting that someone should kill me. --After Midnight 0001 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the strength of the statement made, but not for the message I was trying to convey. That I would do shortly after I see an apology (and not to me personally; I'm just one user of many) from the various users involved for their efforts to damage our great encyclopedia and the community that creates it... However, as I said before, this is the place for a debate, not for attacks. If you don't plan on responding to the actual arguments, one must assume you don't have a case. Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I missed that. Is a permaban the correct response for a death threat? --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While village pump may be a better location to discuss the usefulness of user categories in general, this isn't about user categories; it's about admins ignoring apparant consensus when making closing decisions. Hardly appropriate for village pump... Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase : apparent consensus. Consensus is not vote counting and it is not uncommon to see cases closed where the consensus reached was not even a majority opinion. It is not only a right but a duty of administrators to interpret a debate based on the strengths of the arguments therein, not just the numbers. In any case, After Midnight is an administrator because at one point the community deemed him fluent enough in policy to decide these matters and trustworthy enough to close such discussions. That you do not agree with his closure is painfully evident, and thus the problem was brought up at DRV. The discussion at DRV reinforced the fact that his interpretation of the debate was correct. You still disagree. Tough. That an admin "ignored" your chosen interpretation of "consensus" is not a reason to file a greivance on AN/I. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the DRV didn't reinforce the fact at all - the _only_ person to say process was followed properly was After Midnight himself! Perhaps you should actually check the DRV is question? Contrary to what DRV is for, all the other endorse comments were about the content of the item, not the process that was followed. Multiple undelete comments saying process was not followed, however. Hence why it's here, where a proper discussion on the process of closing might be possible.
"Not a majority opinion" would be an understatement, and "strength of arguments" does not include "assigning zero strength to arguments I disagree with". All of the keep votes had relatively strong arguments, while the single delete vote had a relatively weak argument, so any application of unbiased strength-based weighting would still have ended in keep. Again, did you actually read it? Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I participated in the DRV in question, which is why I am here at all. I did read the UCFD. The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD and endorsed the result. Endlessly railing on against the administrator who closed the argument and making thinly veiled accusations of impropriety is not going to help your cause any. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should read it again; "The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD" - actually, at least three people _did_ find something improper with the UCFD. Other than After Midnight's own response, _no one_ said anything positive about the process by which consensus was determined. The only endorse votes were "I don't like it"s about user categories, and made no comment on the closing process at all. Since some of the users pasted the same comment in every drv, I suspect most didn't even read the ucfd. Bushytails 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Look - sometimes you just lose an argument. You didn't like the deletion of the category and you did the proper thing in bringing it up on DRV. When you don't like the outcome of a DRV, however, it's not proper to come running to AN/I to try and get your way. In any case it should be clear that this filing is not going to result in a reversal of that decision, nor is it going to result in any actions against the admin. It should be pretty evident by this juncture that what you are doing here is chasing windmills; but if that is what makes you happy, be my guest. I don't want to go blue in the face, however, so I'm going to move on. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to elaborate in the core Wikipedia principles, "Consensus means that community input is solicited, then the admin does what he wants"? Seriously, having a call for discussion where half a dozen people look at whether a category is needed or not only to be ignored wastes more time than thirty vandalism edits. If the admin did no wrong then the DRV process is defective. 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it’s already been said, but another deletion discussion closer is being reviewed bellow for similar reasons. It defiantly is not an isolated incident. --S.dedalus 05:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious irregularities in the closer of deletion discussion[edit]

The issue I am herby requesting a review of was a proposed deletion of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and nearly all child categories contained in that parent category. The discussion can be found