Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive375

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

Noticeboard archives




This user has an external link on his talk page which does something quite unpleasant. It starts a music video which refuses to go back to Wikipedia, stop or close - I had to use Ctrl-Alt-Del on it in the end. It also jumps all over the screen. Even though this is on the users own talk page, I feel that it is not useful or Wiki related and should be removed, especially as it is the only thing on the page (or at least it was until a message turned up today). The users short contribution history contains no useful edits; it is all trolling, vandalism or otherwise unhelpful, although he has had no warnings for these (unless you count the message from his "friend" User:Penfish). SpinningSpark 07:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done – Removed and given a final warning for vandalism for the user's recent edits. --slakrtalk / 08:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed socks need blocking[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by MBisanz

Would an admin please drop by Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan and block the confirmed socks at the bottom of the page (there are 2 of them)? Alison confirmed them yesterday but they still need blocking. No drama or sexy disputes here, just boring admin work! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Sikol99 and Roti99? Tonywalton Talk 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep that's the two she confirmed yesterday. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Done MBisanz talk 10:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it! Flagging as resolved. Tonywalton Talk 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee[edit]

Could some uninvolved admins and editors have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee and give their opinon? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

editor creating articles about non-notable players[edit]

An editor is creating multiple articles about non-notable footballer players (a couple might scrap in because it's asserted they have made a single senior team appearance but no evidence actually presented, so I prod'd them). I've pointed out the footballer notability criteria (which those articles clearly fail) on his talkpage but I get no reply or acknowledgement. I'm DB-BIOing them as they pop up, but it would be nice if he's actually stop or even just engage in conversation with the rest of us because this is just creating work for the sake of it. Can someone stop by and ask him to, others have tried to no effect. Although the editor seems to acting in good faith, their current actions are basically disruptive. Can someone ask to stop for the moment and review the relevent policy pages. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. He's on a final, final, warning now. I can't find any reference to the two players that you PRODded hving any first-team appearances, even looking at their club's official sites, so I suggest that info is also false. Black Kite 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD problem?[edit]

Resolved: fixed, user blocked

There are a ton of userspaces in CSD, very few of which appear to be tagged CSD. The only thing I can see in common with them is that they all have {{signpost-subscription}} in them. Be really careful about deleting userspace from there until we know what's going on please... - Philippe | Talk 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Need someone smarter than me on this one please. I'm baffled. - Philippe | Talk 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the reason. It's been reverted now -- I expect the pages will disappear as the job queue progresses. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) - what Sam said. Neıl 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that explains it. Thanks. :-) - Philippe | Talk 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The job queue is at over 5 million at the moment so I have removed a few through purging. Woody (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't help noticing that this was the first and only edit of Qsxwdvefv (talk · contribs).--Tikiwont (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
He got a warning; someone could block, I suppose, but I would imagine it would be the last edit anyway. And it may (may) have been an error on his part. Possibly. Perhaps. Neıl 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say no block. He/she has made one edit. It was a doozy, he/she was warned, and has now successfully been watchlisted by several interested parties. Let's see if he/she makes any other contributions first. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We only assume good faith in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. In this case, we have a very clever use of a CSD template on a widely-transcluded page that a new user would be very unlikely to stumble across by chance. (Bonus points for correct use of includeonly tags to help conceal the change.) I note that the account has been indef-blocked as a sensible precaution—if nothing else, such a block may interfere with the creation of new throwaway accounts.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That username is indef-blockable as a vio of the username policy, anyway. —Travistalk 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked by User:East718. I would have done it myself otherwise, this is definitely a throw away account, and I prefer not having him around once he's autoconfirmed. -- lucasbfr talk 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Alansohn has taken dictatorial ownership of the article Dane Rauschenberg, which began as a self-contributed autobiographical article written in violation of WP:COI. The article came to his attention during a proposal to delete it, and now to validate his "inclusionist" philosophy, he is fighting over all common sense to resist any edits to it. His disruptive revisions include:,,,,, among others. I have been told that this violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA and other policies. For example, I have tried to remove the birth month and year from the lead paragraph under but he keeps adding it back. I add a sentence stating the date the project ended and the amount of funds raised at the date, and include a proper citation, but he keeps deleting it, in order to create the impression that the fund raising goal was more complete by its announced deadline. The subject of the article ran 71 marathons, but his reflex deletions replace that sentence (as a part of a conventional biography) with a list of 5 marathons that are selected for no apparent rhyme or reason. He displays a need to emote and engage in personal attacks rather than discuss the matter at hand -- how to develop a balanced and accurate article. I understand that this article started in a hole because for most of its first year, it was edited exclusively by its subject. But reasonable people should be able to work together to remove the junk and come up with something balanced and objective.

For example, many people do not consider Rauschenberg an "amateur" because his derives his living organizing running events and giving motivational speaches about his running experiences. Mr. Alansohn keeps reinserting that difficult-to-define characterization in the lead paragraph, while I and others believe it should be left out in light of the ambiguity and controversy on the point. I have tried to reason with him and used the article's discussion page, but he leaves personal attacks and insults, rather than objective arguments in reply.

According to , this is a recurring problem. Please help. Thanks Runreston (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That RfC is likely stale, though having Burntsauce speaking up for him probably is not a good sign given subsequent events. You might want to consider a new one. I don't see action being taken on the basis of that particular RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. However, the discussion page has been updated as recently as January 15, 2008, so I'm not sure that it is stale. I would hate to go back to square one on what appears to be a continuous, ongoing pattern of incivility. Runreston (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The bigger question is why User:Runreston has not been banned as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Racepacket as was the result of The most recent sockpuppet check. Racepacket, together with his earlier sockpuppets User:Xcstar and User: (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket), has been joined by Runreston. I do not know what the nature of the monomaniacal obsession is, but some 90% of User:Racepacket's edit history has been dedicated to the Dane Rauschenberg article (and other directly related articles), following directly in the footsteps of Xcstar's edit history, which also topped off at about 90% of his 300 odd edits. It is extremely hard to understand why there was no follow through to ban both User:Runreston and his puppetmaster User:Racepacket, in light of the "likely" finding of the SSP request, but in light of this continued abuse of article and abuse of process, it's well past time to give the both of them the permanent heave ho. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Alansohn is trying to draw me into this dispute by leaving this snippy message on my talk page [1]. I am not involved in this WP:ANI posting, but I want to point out that the above statement "some 90% of User:Racepacket's edit history has been dedicated to the Dane Rauschenberg article (and other directly related articles)" is mathematically untrue. I have 1,445 edits and the article has been only edited 561 times. I recommended that the article be deleted at the end of October 2007, but I have no position on its current contents. Racepacket (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I will make a rather small apology for typing "Racepacket" when I meant "Runreston" as being the one whose edit history is 90% attacks at Dane Rauschenberg in his and other related articles. Though in retrospect, once all of User:Racepacket's definitively confirmed and likely sockpuppet's -- User:Xcstar, User: and User:Runreston -- are added in, Racepacket's overall Rauschenberg obsession may well reach about 20% or more of total edits combined with sockpuppets, still quite a disturbing obsession with one article. Racepacket's initial excuse for using Xcstar as a sockpuppet was a knowingly false claim that Dane Rauschenberg would physically attack him if he were to use his own Racepacket username to edit the article. After being successfully outed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, it should be extremely disturbing to all legitimate Wikipedia editors that Racepacket has started with another sockpuppet, User:Runreston, to push the same attack against Rauschenberg, especially after The most recent suspected sockpuppet check came up as "likely" confirmation of sockpuppetry. If Racepacket is still willing to attack Rauschenberg after being caught once, it makes clear that Racepacket has a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy and confirms that the original excuse of feared retaliation by Rauschenberg is an out and out lie. It is rather telling that the statement "I recommended that the article be deleted at the end of October 2007, but I have no position on its current contents." ignores Racepacket's extensive sockpuppetry by User:Xcstar, User: and User:Runreston since Racepacket pulled away from using his own username for Rauschenberg attacks in October 2007. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have search both the Dane Rauschenberg article as well as the various running discussion boards and cannot locate any authority for the claim stated in the paragraph above that there was a claim of "fear of retaliation" or that it was or was not a lie. That is not the issue here -- the issue is Mr. Alansohn's disruptive edits and personal attacks. The tone of Mr. Alansohn's remarks here are further evidence that he feels he "owns" the Rauschenberg article, and that anyone who wants to edit it must be personally attacked. I invite everyone to compares my last version of the article before Mr. Alansohn reverted it to Mr. Alansohn version, to judge which has a more objective neutral presentation of the facts. In the meantime, let's have some civility please. Runreston (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You used the "Rauschenberg will beat me up" excuse to convince an admin not to block you permanently after the initial checkuser came back positive. This cock and bull story was told so convincingly that the sockpuppet report was blanked due to "privacy" concerns. You used the BS story yourself at this link. I don't own the article. You don't belong on Wikipedia. While you are still here, I have suggested that any proposed legitimate changes should be discussed on the talk page AND consensus reached before making any changes to a stable article that has passed AfD and been the subject of repeated abusive attacks from you and a whole gaggle of your fellow sockpuppets. You have refused to get consensus and then made abusive and defamatory changes to the article without any evidence of support. The real question is why nobody has followed up on the confirmation that you are a sockpuppet and tossed you off this island once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relax dude, this isn't that big of a deal. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow[edit]


I've run into this fellow removing large sections of French invasion of Russia when asked to explain things went down hill fast. Apparently he has decided that I shouldn't be allowed to edit this page and its getting personal. I've requested a few time to cease communication to me or about me and it just keeps getting worse. Its all over both of our talk pages and on the talk pages of French invasion of Russia as well. I am thinking about taking a wiki break for a few days but rather resent someone trying to get me to cease editing. --Tirronan (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong, I removed a section of unreferenced text which did not have any sources, and if I may point out that Tirronan has done the exact same thing for the exact same reason here in the Battle of Borodino as you can see he gave the reason "(Reverting uncited change, before adding information bring up the change on the talk page with your proof.{rv}IP address vandalism”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And then again which he gave the reason “Multiple changes by IP addresses without a single citation, please do not add or change facts without citation”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So if Tirronan removes unreferenced materiel that is ok but if others do it is not allowedWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And I did respond to it, but he refuses to continue any conversation. Not only did I respond to the removed section I gave a source which proved it wrong which he also ignoredWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And no I have no personal grudge against anyone but I find it amusing to see that most if not all of my responses were completely ignored by him whilst I answered everyone one of his Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
But he has stopped adding that specific paragraph now and all of his recent edits have been mostly good and backed up by a source, possibly he has just copied this new text directly from a book without rewriting it but that is a different story Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And I am willing to forget this whole thing as long as he keeps the specific, unreferenced and proven wrong, paragraph out and does not use pov wordingWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew I smelled a rat here are the citations in the "unreferenced" sections removed!!!! The Wordsworth Pocket Encyclopedia, page 17, Hertfordshire 1993) ^ Helmert/Usczek: Europäische Befreiungskriege 1808 bis 1814/15, Berlin 1986 there is a 3rd but it isn't legal since its a wiki ref in german. your whole argument never was valid and this should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talkcontribs) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I however have had enough, I had an IP address making changes to the results box and reverted it. This is done every day for the same reasons. When you reverted a paragraph you reverted much more than that and kept it up removing cited and [citation needed] tags without citation which is what I was objecting to. Further I didn't write that objectionable paragraph nor did I approve of it. Stating the weather is POV then my vericity despite citation then claiming I was a lying and furthered by multiple charges of plagerisem and other acts. I am a fairly well regarded editor and I have little tolerance for this childish behavior. I am only interested in making history articles better and have never attempted to do more than that. Unless you have something constructive to add to the article I simply do not wish any further communication from you at all. --Tirronan (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no interest in the specific paragraph then how do you explain this edit? (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I still have no interest in that paragraph, though in fact it is right and sections above it in fact give citation on whoever wrote it earlier. After reading that and other statements however I began rewriting the entire thing because in fact I agreed that it needed a more specific rewrite with citation. That you attempted to interfer in my editing is what got me upset. I repeat I didn't write it but it is in fact correct. If you read the logistics sections it even speaks directly to that section. Now understand this, anybody on wiki can and will edit your work and mine too. But it better be a good edit and ready to stand a challenge. Your behavior didn't lend itself to that and if you can't stand your edits be reverted this then make sure you have good reason to cite for it and all this would have been avoided. In history articles it isn't about what your or my opinions are, it is what is supported by fact as documented in reliable verifiable histories. I don't care one wit who won or lost but I do care that it is accurate and provable. None of this should ever be personal and my reversions are not attacks on you nor ever were intended to be. If you want to get along here be then understand what someone is trying to tell you and don't take it personally. Now let this be and I am going to continue to fix that article and get it right. --Tirronan (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong and I proved it wrong with the link but you reverted anyway, I also proved that you did reinstall it without any sources and that you did remove sections from other texts that were unreferenced (Battle of Borodino) and in fact the section is wrong which I have so clearly explained on the appropriate discussion page that it is wrong and why it is wrong and a source proving that it is wrong. And my behavior? It is you and you alone who have refused to have a discussion I have replied to ALL your comments whilst you have ignored ALL my comments so it is YOUR behavior that is wrong just as the section is wrong and this could have been avoided if you would have stopped installing unreferenced text which I proved on the discussion page was wrong with a source. As long as this unreferenced and totally bogus text is not installed and other equally bogus and unreferenced texts are not installed then I will be most happy Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok so there we have it, you can't be wrong and I am not right regardless of fact. BTW here are the 2 citations you removed with the "unreferenced" text... as may be seen, you never should have removed it in the 1st place...

The Wordsworth Pocket Encyclopedia, page 17, Hertfordshire 1993) ^ Helmert/Usczek: Europäische Befreiungskriege 1808 bis 1814/15, Berlin 1986

Now let me make this very clear, I am done with this argument. I don't wish further communications with you and I will edit as I see fit by how I understand the rules. That is it, no more discussion. Go pester someone else ok? Bye bye now... Tirronan (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tirronan: Since User:Wheelcarboat22 was created on February 9th, and immediately started editing the article in question with an edit summary that said "Some vandalism that is fake has sneaked in....", and has not edited any other article, you really should consider the possibility that the person you're arguing with is someone with whom you've had conflict before, editing under a different name specifically created to annoy you. I don't know if this is something that an admin can look into...? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
TO Tirronan those quotes as you well know where from a DIFFERENT paragraph and I said once we have discussed the paragraph above we can move on to other paragraphs and to Ed Fitzgerald all I have to say is take of your conspiracy hat Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, leave the guy be, given some time to learn he might turn out to be one hell of an editor, heck I have seen it before. Hopefully we can just move on, and so long as he refrains from attempting to hinder me editing and keeps it to himself we should be just fine, so far he has, so let it be water under the bridge. After a certain point no matter how right I might think I am I don't look much better flinging mud. Time tends to show who a person is, hopefully he'll turn out to be just fine like most of us ended up being. --Tirronan (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How nice to see that this thing has been settled for now Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User refusing to sign talk pages posts and other unhelpful editing[edit]

Bostonjj (talk · contribs) (and probable sock Bostonasia (talk · contribs)) has been requested six times [3][4][5][6][7][8] to add new talk page comments at the bottom of sections instead of at the top, and to sign his posts. He continues [9][10][11] to refuse to follow this practise. This in addition to making factually-suspect edits, like claiming that there are 108 million people of Korean descent in Northeast China [12][13] (the entire population of North + South Korea is 72 million, and of Manchu people only 10.68 million), and personally attacking [14][15] other users. He never responds when asked to provide sources for any of his claims. A block might be overkill (me and SineBot are the only ones who have complained to him so far), but I don't know what other measures can get this editor's attention as he doesn't seem to read his talk page and he can't be reached by e-mail [16][17], which is why I'm bringing this here. cab (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but adding deliberate misinformation can definitely be construed as vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excessively swift archiving[edit]

Is this archiving by User:Black Kite acceotable? User:MickMacNee added his post at 22:21, 24 February 2008, and four minutes later Black Kite removed it with the edit summary "archived to WP:AN/B". MickMacNee then undid Black Kite's attempted archiving. However, as I've stated here and here, I think there were legitimate concerns and that there needs to be restraint shown by those who want to push everything towards that page, as quite frankly, some genuine concerns will start to get lost in the noise over there. Please note that this is not about the edit war (which Black Kite dealt with well), but about the archiving of complaints and the contribs from Betacommand through his alternate account (the diffs I highlighted). Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I was concerned that MickMacNee, having already been warned in the thread above by a number of users - including myself - about creating spurious AN/I postings, had created yet another, especially when his comment could either have been added to the thread that was already on this page or to a page that had been created for such discussion. I believed his editing was starting to edge towards the tendentious, especially when he'd just been warned about participating in an edit war during which he reached 6RR. Black Kite 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That page you mention, WP:AN/B, may indeed have been created for such discussions, but it is clear here that Betacommand and MickMacNee are not disengaging, and that the differences between them are beginning to obscure legitimate concerns. Too much centralising can lead to stuff being lost in the noise. I feel people are no longer following WP:AN/B and are missing issues that need to be raised here. For this reason, I am starting a new section to address that, and I'd appreciate it if links are left here, instead of sections being archived with no link left. Carcharoth (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable enough to me. Black Kite 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I specifically asked for that previous thread to NOT be archived, and got a fair bit of support for NOT archiving, but some admin archived it anyways. GG, admin, cause I saw this thinking coming, and said it at the time. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • What are you talking about? It's not clear at all. Do you mean what Black Kite did by archiving a single ANI post from MickMacNee, what MZMcBride did by doing the redirect of the page, or what I did by archiving part of the talk page here? I really don't know who or what you are referring to. Other questions: what does "GG" mean? What does your edit summary of " thanks for listenign to me, unknown admin" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think GG usually means "good going" or "good game". Avruch T 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It meant, in this case, 'good going', and sarcastically. I was referring to the fact that a number of the Betacommand threads all got archived to AN/B, including one long one where a few editors agreed with me that moving it to AN/B was bad, because it meant less of the community could comment on it. After that, LaraLove agreed with me, as did a few others. More community input was heard. Then it went poof, covered up like many of these threads. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Could someone more experienced please have a look at what this ip is doing? They are emptying lots of sock-puppet categories and nominating them for deletion I don't know if it's constructive or not, but it looks a bit strange to me. Ascidian (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I might be mistaken - but the recategorization seems to be correct, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets for similarly names categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the usual behaviour of a sockpuppet, but this does seem constructive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, just checking as I thought it could be some sort of weird vandalism, thanks for looking into it. Ascidian (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is this person? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I mean, who is the IP? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Account Obviously Being Used By Multiple People[edit]

I have now reverted User:Alow18's talk page twice now for social network behavior. I just got around to actually reading the full content of the talk page and noted that the only editor to the talk page was the account and me. It appears the user is either talking to them selves or there are two people using the account. Note here, it appears that there is a conversation between two lovers going on and that they are both using the same account. To my knowledge it is against Wikipedia policy for more than one person to use a single account. Rgoodermote  13:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right – see policy. And that's really quite odd... αlεxmullεr 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I forgot where to find it, thanks. Yeah this is the first time I have encountered an account being used by at least two people and not trying to hide it. Rgoodermote  14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It happened few days ago - see this. Looks like it may be some of the same people, given the references in both conversations to "the ship's internet not working", S Africa and so on. Tonywalton Talk 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah from the exerts that a user thankfully copied and pasted. They are the same people, may I suggest the same course of action as before?Rgoodermote  14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Alow18 indef blocked and marked as a suspected sock of User:Ajk5055. It was amusing and slightly "Awww..." the first time round, but they seem to want to make a habit of it, despite being told the first time not to. Tonywalton Talk 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)It's exceedingly similar to User talk:MCD26, where I warned accordingly - you'll have to look a bit back through the history, as I've blanked and warned and the user blanked themselves this morning. User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke, whilst unrelated, have also been used for an IM service - I added them the thread linked in above (but by that stage it was quite a long way up AN/I so probably got overlooked. I'm on my public account, but it might be an idea if someone could block User:MCD26, as that's clearly another account of the ship-based lovers. The public face of GBT/C 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)User:MCD26 indef blocked. I'm not sure it's the same people, however - it's similar but the names are different. Perhaps someone "helpful" has told their friends about this Great New Way To Communicate. If it continues I'll raise a WP:RFCU to see if it's all the same people. Tonywalton Talk 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a check user should be done before more arise. Because it may not be destroying the articles it is bringing in the unhelpful. By the way nice title for them. Rgoodermote  16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be at least two families involved. Doing some sleuthing in the deleted and blanked contributions there is a common factor (a ship and Cape Town) but also differences - User:Sullke talks about going to church, while Ajk5055 was going to shul (synagogue). I'll hold off on the checkuser unless any more of this starts - the problem is that they seem unaware enough of what the problem is (or willing enough to ignore clearly-worded "Don't Do This" templates) that they're unlikely to listen to arcane terminology like "checkuser", "sockpuppet" and "community ban". At the moment they're not disrupting mainspace; they're just burning cycles. Tonywalton Talk 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to view the deleted history so I was not aware of those differences. Anyways I believe this is done and maybe some Star Struck Lovers and a Family Apart have learned that Wikipedia is not their personal blog, things tell me though that we will be seeing them again. Rgoodermote  16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
For information, I came across User talk:Bnut7 a few days ago, although they've stopped now and it's probably unrelated. Ascidian (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally unrelated, the MO here is that there are multiple people using 1 account to talk to each other because they do not think they have another way. In your case there are two different people using two different accounts to talk to each other. But it is still equally annoying having to deal with them. Rgoodermote  17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys this is far from resolved, I was reading the history and I stumbled up this written by, I presume the male.

"we can ust use another name and continue." this statement came after he mentioned the account getting blocked from editing. I think that enough evidence to warrant a checkuser in about 8 hours or so...mostly because I doubt they have sleepers. Rgoodermote  17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<-I've removed the tag. I've been thinking about this though and I'm not sure what good a checkuser will do. Normally a sockpuppet is multiple usernames using the same IP abusively'. Checkuser uncovers the IP. Here we have, basically, the opposite - one username using multiple IPs. I suppose checkuser could IPblock the IPs that they're using (though my block of Alow18 included autoblock of the IP. Any thoughts, people familiar with checkuser? Tonywalton Talk 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Since one of the parties appears to be travelling, their IP is going to change all the time anyway. If they keep creating new usernames there's not really any way of stopping them bar repeatedly blocking the usernames as they're found. Though if the other party has a static IP, blocking that might be useful. Black Kite 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The male party seems to be stationary and the female party seems to be in Africa using a laptop. We could get lucky and we may be able to get a hold of the male's IP address and that if we block it could stop the accounts from being made. The only problem is the female will most likely make a new account if he is unable to. I am a little concerned though. If Wikipedia is their only form of are they able to inform each other of new user accounts? Rgoodermote  18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Direct them to or MySpace or LiveJournal. There is nothing that is stopping them from using those equally free, equally accessible sites, where such chatter is more appropriate and more private. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If they're the same people as User:Ajk5055, I pointed them towards Blogger last time. Black Kite 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
From their conversations it appears that they know about those other sites and they feel this site a better option. Rgoodermote  19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Akinsane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) — After a minor dispute, which I believed to have been resolved, about several speedily deleted articles which did not meet WP:N and violated WP:COI, I then received this message from the articles' author – aside from constituting a legal threat (although directed at the WMF, rather than myself), it also seems to be a violation of username policy as evidence of a multiple-use account.

The legal threat seems invalid, but I'm not sure how to respond to this one... perhaps someone could take a look? haz (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked until they retract it. John Reaves 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to force Wikipedia to relist the article about that non-notable company/wrestler. Assuming good faith though, I'm not sure how there is any legal threat because of an article being deleted anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Their rationale, such as it is, seems to be "We want our article on here because if someone else writes one they may tell lies about us". Looks to be in contravention of WP:NPOV, WP:GFDL, WP:OWN just for a start Tonywalton Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is gone. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The legal threat remains. Tonywalton Talk 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about the validity of their GFDL and Creative Commons licenses on the two images they've uploaded, given that the website they're from clearly states that ... all Icon Championship Wrestling, Inc. Logos are Registered Trademarks which are the exclusive property of Icon Asylum Entertainment. Would someone who knows more about image licensing take a look? Tonywalton Talk 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As they're orphaned anyway, it might be a non-issue. I also note that two of them appear to be duplicates with differing licensing. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
True, though worth bearing in mind if an article ever does survive. By the way, my bad, there is a third image. Tonywalton Talk 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tagging the second image (this one) as a dupe, since it appears to be a bit-for-bit copy of the first. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Odd threat for a "class-action" when the only apparent member of the class would be themselves... But a threat is a threat no matter how implausible -- (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt their company is very legit, based from their web-site. No privacy or copyright statements, yet they have a CEO, CFO, a Board of Directors... seicer | talk | contribs 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You have to wonder about a website whose Corporate page has purple lettering on a black background. Corvus cornixtalk 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Lots of closely held S corporations have full boards. Anyway, it appears to be a legal threat to me. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Today's AfD Log[edit]

Resolved: It took 3 users to do it, but it has finally been repaired! —Travistalk 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the log? It's the broken entry for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss Me Like That and Boubaker polynomials that appear to cause the problem. Have tried to fix it, but it doesn't seem to work. Seems to be a 2nd nom issue. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. The correct title is Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I only fixed the first one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials still needs to be addressed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Both appear fixed now, at least the page isn't broken! :) Thanks so much. Know this didn't necessarily require admin tools, but I couldn't think of another way to get a 'fix it' notice out after trying to fix it myself. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I took care of Boubaker polynomials and another one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiley Dean (2nd Nomination). —Travistalk 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, what a mess. I took care of the first nom for Boubaker, the 2nd nom was just now corrected by Ultraexactzz. —Travistalk 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I missed the heading, though - at least these were caught relatively early. Good times. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your parts in fixing it! I didn't even noticed Kiley Dean, I just thought it had been speedied between nom and listing as happens on occasion. Have a good day! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted MfD[edit]

I have been away for a few days so maybe I missed something, but when I was scanning the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/January 2008 I noticed a red link for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/xxxxxx. Did I miss some back-history, or did this slip by unnoticed? My understanding was we usually do not delete the MfD. From what I can tell, the user changed his username and then deleted the MfD, and was later blocked for editing after exercising the right to vanish. (I purposely am omitting his new username since he envoked RTV.) Was deleting the MfD apropriate? Do his other deletions need to be checked, too? What is going on? --12 Noon  21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) removed add'l information per below request.--12 Noon  21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think things like this are covered in the RTV. Undelete? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some info you need from the MfD, or is this just pointless poking xxxxxx with sticks? Mr.Z-man 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
please would you consider removing his name? He clearly doesn't want it on WP and having it here does seem like poking him. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, based on Mr.Z-man's and DanBealeCocks's comment, it appears this is more side-taking WikiDrama than I bargained for. The point was deleting an MfD about yourself. I wish not to partake in empty accusations, and hope others would do the same and stay on point, but I have no horse in this race, so good-bye. :) --12 Noon  21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the name out. Everyone knows who you mean, and I hope you get some useful information. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the name could easily have been obscured without deletion. The process is as follows:

  1. Move page with name in the title to a new name.
  2. Check "what links here" in the redirects" and change the links to point to the new name.
  3. Delete the orphaned redirect.

Simple. Everyone's contributions to the page in question are preserved. The page name vanishes from searches. The page itself can be courtesy blanked so the searches don't pick that up either. Usually, though, people don't think of this and they just ask for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi folks: I'm a relatively recent admin with a problem; I think I now have a Wikistalker who's creating usernames that are rather like mine, and leaving me what you might term an abusive message. The first one here was from "Accounting4Tasteless" and the next one, here, was from "AccountingLacksTaste"; the same message both times. I reported the first one at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and the name was promptly blocked, but I figure a second go-round means it's going to continue. What's the best course of action, please? Accounting4Taste:talk 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Natalie (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just hard block on sight. Eventually they get bored. bibliomaniac15 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Shoot. I was gonna call my "public" non-admin account "Notaccounting4taste". Would that be a no-no? :-) On a serious note, biblio.. and natalie.. give good advice. They'll get bored and go back to their other MMORPGs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for your prompt and useful advice. One question: am I allowed to block this individual myself, since I'm concerned? Or should I report to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, or here, each time in the future? Oh, and User:Keeper76: -- there IS no Accounting4Taste, although I wish my vandal believed that more wholeheartedly ;-) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think transparency for admin actions is an isse here. Block on sight would be supported, at least by lowly Keeper, using of course normal editing discretion. If someone turns up as User:Keepersucks76, I don't doubt that I would block him/her and I also don't doubt that I would be justified in doing so (and supported by the community) My thoughts. You are now officially two cents richer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I wouldn't have any problem with you blocking these usernames yourself, since they're obviously impersonating you and you've brought the issue up here for review/advice. I can't imagine anyone else would, except perhaps the impersonator themself. Then again, I'm basing this mostly on having blocked my own impersonators before and heard nary a complaint. Natalie (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(exdent for convenience) Many thanks to all again for the advice. I do think transparency is a good thing but at the same time I have no wish to waste anyone's time unnecessarily, so I'll handle this myself from now on unless things get REALLY weird. I'm writing the quote from Natalie on the whiteboard over my computer desk -- "Revert. Block. Ignore." Words to live by! Accounting4Taste:talk 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I totally stole that from Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Natalie (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]


Unless the editor in question really really jumps off the cliff.

Is this a legal threat? I'm referring to the ludicrous threat to contact a third party on the issue of "libel", not the preposterous report to oversight-l. Yes, I realize the threat is thoroughly frivolous; apologies if the question also is. --Rrburke(talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline. At this point your best bet is probably to ignore it unless it escalates. Natalie (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a freakin' full moon tonight? What's with all the threats? </typing my thoughts>. I agrew with Natalie here. Keep a close eye or three on the perpetrator for us, would you Rrburke? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Will do. I'm planning to respond to the editor -- I didn't know whether it was worth suggesting he consult WP:NLT or if that would just raise the temperature unduly. The exchange that gave rise to the problem is here. --Rrburke(talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What you have there is a bonified content dispute. Thanks for the heads up though Rrburke. Let any admin know if his posts to you (or on that talkpage) escalate any further!. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a fair warning to the editor in question. Just an FYI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapping victim posting on Wikipedia?[edit]

Resolved: personal info oversighted, troll blocked - Alison 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert[edit]

Tonight, this user has reverted my constructive edits to the Maria Sharapova page twice, neither time giving a reason. When I try to discuss this on his talkpage, he removes my comments. Please can he be stopped? Thanks. Masha4ever (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were probably reverted because they removed a large amount of content from the article. Have you tried discussing this with Tennis expert (talk · contribs) on his/her user talk page? AecisBrievenbus 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. Yes, I've tried discussing it with Tennis expert three times tonight; each time, he has deleted my comments.
I realise my edits remove a lot of material, however, is this in contradiction with one of Wikipedia's policies? Doesn't WP advocate "being bold"? In any case, Tennis expert himself did an even more radical edit several weeks ago, completely rewriting a large part of the article. Masha4ever (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree - regular users/editors of the page usually do not respond well to large wholesale changes without any notice first on the talk page. That would be my first visit. State your position, and any concerns you may have about the article there. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for another quick response. I would be more than willing to discuss the best way forward for the article with other editors of the page; alas, when attempts for a discussion have taken place before in this dispute (it has lasted about a month now), BanRay and Tennis expert have reacted negatively, refusing to take on others' opinions, and BanRay going out of his way to secure bans for users who disagree with him. If those two can be persuaded to actually take part in a proper discussion on the best way forward, I'd be all for it. Masha4ever (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Tennis expert (talk · contribs) of this thread. AecisBrievenbus 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Masha4ever is a self-admitted sock puppet of a user who was banned for disruption for making these exact edits against community consensus, as has been fully discussed by various users on the Maria Sharapova discussion page. These are not "new" edits, as he is implying. In addition, Masha4ever probably is a sock puppet of Musiclover565, who also was banned for making these exact edits and for being disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And this comment from Tennis expert shows exactly how unwilling he is to take part in a reasoned, rational debate. Firstly, I am not a "sock puppet" of the first user you cited; I'm not denying I am that user, but I signed up for this account to make my edits on here INSTEAD of on my anonymous IP (on the advice of the admin). As for being Musiclover565 (the sole evidence being that I happen to agree with him), I'm not even dignifying that with a response.
Besides, this debate isn't about who did what and when anymore, it's about the best way forward for the page, because contrary to what you may believe, the community does not all agree with your edits, far from it. So are you prepared to engage in a debate on the best way forward or not? Masha4ever (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Minor correction - blocked, not banned ;) BanRay 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment This case is much more complicated. Although I do not personally support constant revisions as a way to solve edit conflicts, there is a reason why User:Tennis expert keeps reverting his edits. User:Masha4ever has been previously blocked for trolling, disruption and vandalism as an anonymous IP user, there is also a serious sockpuppet concern involved. I will be able to elaborate tomorrow, it's half-two here and I want to get some sleep now, cheers. BanRay 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up - my block on the anonymous IP - I received an illegitimate warning from BanRay saying I'd reverted 64 edits, even though the edit logs show this was not the case (in an example of him trying to silence all who disagree with him). I then received a block for "failing to adhere to the warning", even though the original warning was illegitimate. I'll ask you the same question I asked Tennis expert - are you willing to engage in a debate on the best way forward for the page?
I am now also going to have to drop out of this debate for tonight. Masha4ever (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Your block was absolutely legitimate and has been thoroughly reviewed by three administrators. You were blocked for trolling, disruption and vandalism, your block log is very clear on that. Your edit was not a direct revert of 64 edits, more of a copy/paste partial revert, but a revert nonetheless. Also, the warning you received was a standard Level 4 vandalism warning, the "64 edits" part of the warning was an additional comment, nothing more, nothing less. BanRay 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the previous discussion about the blocking of the user for which Masha4ever has admitted that he is the sock puppet. What's going on here is nothing more than a disruptive rehash of the previous discussion. Also, his complaint about my not debating his edits is ridiculous. We've already fully debated his edits on the Maria Sharapova discussion page, just as we debated my edits that he now complains so bitterly about. Tennis expert (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: authorities notified


Now, obviously this is a joke, but you just do not joke about stuff like that. HalfShadow (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Prank, but one that requires intervention, in my view. I'm getting Vernon, BC for it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be reported to authority's. Prank or not, this kind of shit has been happening in real life way too much to look the other way. Thanks for doing that Rod. Tiptoety talk 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note - The user has been blocked for 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can anyone phone the BC police? It's difficult for me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I will work on it, Doing.... Tiptoety talk 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done, unable to get a hold of them by phone. So i sent them an email. If someone lives in BC, maybe you could contact them by phone, just to make sure they get the message. Tiptoety talk 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Tiptoety. It's not so urgent as a suicide call might be but still needs following up, and I think we have done all we can here; it is now with the relevant authorities, so I'll mark the incident as closed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

8/8/08 is a troll meme, just block and ignore any such threats. Authorities don't need to be involved. east.718 at 02:48, February 26, 2008

And I think the correct post-9/11 & 7/7 attitude is summed up in the first reply on the linked page. I'm all for pushing the boundaries, but not when threats, however silly, could be taken seriously by those not familiar with such arcane jokes. I think we can live without propagating the acceptability of that sort of juvenile nonsense. Forgive me if I managed to live through IRA terrorism in the 1970s, but you never forget the fear. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone for whom both the Virginia Tech and NIU incidents hit far too close to home, this should be reported whether it's a troll meme or not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rod on this one, but either way I have already contacted the authority's, it is now up to them to decide if it is a meme or a real threat. Tiptoety talk 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

PErsonal attack on me at [21]. This is the same user who has been edit warring on the article [22] Uconnstud (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that is meant to be a personal attack....maybe you should try leaving a message with the user on their talk page. Tiptoety talk 02:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
ive got a handle on him. he wont be messing with you anymore. Smith Jones (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's comforting. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought the vandals stole the handles? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Old Charlie stole the handle... Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
yeah, that's tellin' him, Smith jones. That'll do the trick. Corvus cornixtalk 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If my interpretation is correct that is sarcasm, which is good because I kinda have to agree. Instead of legitimately warning someone for making a personal attack (and a dubious attack at that), you made an elitist comment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

if you're going to make a colorful warning please make one his account talk page.

Abuse truth (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talkpage disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a gentle warning on the user's talk page at User talk:Abuse truth. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll need a bit more than that. This has been up at FTN twice, AN once - every time the contributions of Abuse truth are highlighted, every time we all agree there's a problem - and yet nothing happens. Now something finally has happened: the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a variety of editors who might be interested in this entry, but I'm wary of ganging up on AT and the strong POV of the skeptical disputants may over-ride the good that AT can do on the very limited number of pages they edit. AT does have a very strong POV and only edits towards that POV, but is always within the letter of civility, if not the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I'll admit the strong desire to indulge in a little incivility, and I have stepped beyond what I consider politeness. However, AT's polite ignoring of other editor's substantive comments and posting of over-long, sometimes irrelevant replies is sandpaper to my delicate sensibilities. Broader input from the community would probably be a good thing. One thing AT does bring to the project is a knowledge of the more...credulous literature and contributors and there is serious discussion of SRA in reliable sources that would not be included in the page were it not for AT and a minority of other editors. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How about a 1RR/day or 1RR/week limitation? Then Abuse Truth would need to engage and obtain consensus for his/her proposed edits. If the disruption is limited to the talk page, then options would include a complete talk page ban (the most drastic), versus limiting him to 1 talk page post per day (as was done with GordonWatts (talk · contribs)) or assiduously removing any posts which violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell Talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an option? That's a good option. AT does not disrupt talk pages by the way, AT is very, very polite. They're just long posts that don't really address the reasons why people are reverting. Often it comes down to a simple 'I disagree' and a page revert. I will admit that some of AT's comments deserve answering (or used to, they're mostly spurious in my mind these days) and I make an effort to try to address them when brought up (if I think they have merit). But I find the reverts never actually have a good reasoning behind them and AT does not (in my memory) revert more than once per day. Engagement with the community is usually very limited - no postings on any of the AN or DR pages that could a) help if AT has a point or b) conclusively state that AT is wrong in conclusions or interpretation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree that the SRA page is currently making progress. Certain recent edits have been made without consensus, including the deletions of large amounts of data on the page. At times, I have restored the data deleted w/o consensus. IMO, the real reason I am being attacked here is because of my POV. It is not a skeptical one. Certain editors find this problematic and have decided to try to limit my ability to edit. Normally I do not leave more than one talk page comment per page per day anyway. I also disagree that I have ignored the reasons people revert on the talk pages. I have tried to respond to all comments and have explained my edits throughly on the talk pages. Other editors simply revert my changes and do not even explain themselves. But they are editors coming from a skeptical position, so IMO they are not held accountable. IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics. This shows in the way reliable sources are treated. Those with a skeptical view are accepted rather quickly, regardless of quality. Those that may back the existence of SRA, etc. are subject to harsh criticism and often deleted w.o consensus.
This is also shows up in the way certain editors such as myself are treated. Abuse truth (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreschi, I completely agree. Fucking ridiculous. I have blocked this querulous warrior for WP:TRUTH, you are free to set an expiry time if you like but I don't see much chance of change. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Moreschi and Guy, and I fail to see what all the fuss is about - the username alone rings several alarm bells. Will (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
AT, we have tolerated your POV for MONTHS. None of the involved editors or admins have blocked, or suggested a block. It was all independent. You are not being crucified, perhaps consider taking some of the reams of advice handed out to you over the past months and weeks. The accusation of bias is laughable, insulting and reeks of the abuse of good faith.
New discussion - can anyone with the word 'truth' in their name be automatically blocked, unless it's meant to be ironic? Seems like it would save time. I'm sure WP:V applies somewhere : ) WLU (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics." —AT

I have explained to you, AT, and the other pov pusher in SRA talk page that child abuse is my specialty. However, it is unwise to swallow extreme claims such as the "Satanic" abuse of children.

  • "This shows in the way reliable sources are treated." —AT

It has been pointed out to you that no sociology or criminology peer-reviewed journal endorses SRA claims. If the criterion of limiting the article exclusively to peer-reviewed literature were used in this article, it would become far more skeptical than its present incarnation.

Finally, AT, I also hold a most strong "pov" and "truth" stance, as anyone who take a look at my user page can see. But presently I refrain myself from using WP to push my pov in the way you do. Listen to WLU: verifiability, not truth; and change you user name and your behavior.

Cesar Tort 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The user seems completely unable to understand the problem (which is, of course, largely why the problem exists). He's now asking to be unblocked so he can change his username, because he thinks the username is the problem, rather than simply being the kind of username that problem editors so often choose. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
AT's been very good at civilly acknowledging that a point has been written, while totally missing the substance of the point. Months of patient comments, pointing to policy and advice has led absolutely nowhere. I have seen no progress towards behavior that is in line with the community at large or overall purpose of the project, just a relentless trudge along the same POV-pushing path. WLU (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

request review of indef block[edit]

I request the indef block of this user be reviewed and reversed. The block is unfair, was done without warning, without a series of shorter blocks, and does not follow process-based community action in Wikipedia.

This is nothing like the extreme disruption that justified the recent blocks of multiple pro-pedohile activist editors without warnings. With the pedophile activists, there was a huge disruption by a group of people that went on for months before several of them eventually were blocked. Even in that situation, there was controversy about the blocks, and it became a matter for ArbCom.

This is a totally different situation. User:Abuse truth does not deserve an indef block and I request that the block be reversed.

Yes, he/she edits only a certain range of articles, and yes, the user's name implies a certain POV. However, the editor is more civil than most, and brings many references. Sometimes, too many sources perhaps, but that's better than not enough, and in particular his/her editing does not consist of simply re-writing sections without references, and s/he does participate in talk page discussions about the content.

Also, and importantly, those articles involved bring out strong POV editing in many editors, and not only among editors, but even in the scientific research and published papers and books there are POV battles including scientists and activists. This is not just about Satanic ritual abuse, but a range of articles relating to Child sexual abuse, including Repressed memory, Recovered memory therapy and others.

It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK.

I concur with User:WLU, at 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) that more input on the articles from a wider base of editors would be helpful. These are content disputes, perhaps WP:RFC would be a good idea.

This block should be lifted. The user was not even warned at all. If someone has a problem with a user, there are processes for that, such as WP:RFC/U that were not followed here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I said this, the only real advantage to having AT on any page is the addition of a blatant single side of an argument, at the expense of having to triage sources, review and dig up counter sources. Sure, the page improves, but at the expense of tremendous aggravation. The pages would benefit from knowledgeable editors willing to add both sides of the debate. AT does not do this. WLU (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with block of at least one week, although I think "indef" may be too long, and an indef article-space ban until he provides evidence of reform. On the contrary (to Jack), he was warned many times that some specific actions of his were inappropriate and violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He wasn't warned specifically for WP:TRUTH violations, but many of his clear violations involving misquoting sources, using self-published sources by self-proclaimed experts, inserting extensive quotes from sources which didn't support his article text, adding references to Elizabeth Loftus which are (claimed to) discredit her theories, etc., which all fall under WP:TRUTH violations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for concurring that indefinite is too long. About the warnings, I meant only that no warning was placed on his/her page indicating that if s/he did not stop, there would be a block and especially, nothing about the possibility of an indef block - at least, not that I saw.
I did see that there were improvements in the user's behavior over time. For example, instead of repeated reverting, AT has brought sections and references to the talk pages in recent weeks. I did not see blatant mis-quoting of sources, though it might have happened. If so, that needs to be addressed of course, but there are procedures for that, like RFC for consensus, or RFC/U; to allow other editors to offer feedback for the user to learn and change.
Regarding the content issues such as reliability of sources, those are complex. Elizabeth Loftus for example is a controversial researcher and there are many who have, as you wrote, "(claimed to) discredit her theories". Some of those who have done so are WP:RS. Maybe the way this user went about including that information was not quite on track, but criticism of Loftus are appropriate, with proper sources, because that criticism and controversy is WP:Verifiable and goes to NPOV. I'm just using Loftus as an example, of course.
My point is that there is a content dispute happening in these articles that extends beyond this one editor. If we lose this editor, we lose part of the process of finding NPOV through consensus. For the content dispute, the path to resolution is RFC, and I don't think that's been tried yet. If there were enough editors chiming in to create a real consensus, then it would be more obvious if one person were trying to go against consensus. Those articles need that kind of attention anyway. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

←I want to clarify that i don't know this user other than by seeing the editing and talk page comments. I'm advocating for a review and unblock because I believe from what I've seen that the user is a good-faith editor and is willing to learn and improve. This is shown by the user's clear statement of intent to change and learn in his/her unblock request. That is a very different response than many blocked users who become angry; here we have someone who wants to cooperate and learn, that is exactly the right response to this kind of challenge.

I hope that an administrator will accept the user's promise and execute an unbolock. It will be a loss for Wikipedia if this hard-working editor is lost, and, it will have been done outside of established procedures, without formal process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock with an indefinite article-space ban, with AT agreeing to the ban explicitly on his talk page before the unblock. He's misinterpreted too many statements which seem clear to me, for anything less than a "signed" statement to convince me he's willing to follow the rules. It should be pointed out that, as I've interacted with him, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock. I'd also ask for comments from the blocking admin as to whether this would seem appropriate to him.
As for Loftus, my concern is that, as her theories have separate pages, references discrediting those theories should only appear on the pages for those theories. That's another failing AT has exhibited; placing his reference on any pages loosely related, while it's clear to me that they should only appear on the articles which are most relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I'd accept an indefinite 0RR in article-space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to accept a reduction of the user's block. But those conditions are too strong. This is not an ArbCom case where long-term user sanctions are decided, or even an RFC/U with evidence from both sides and comments from a wide range of editors. This was a single, overly speedy, overly punitive action by one administrator, without a fair hearing.
The block is unfair and should be reversed. The editor is now on notice, as a result of this situation, so there is nothing to be lost by unblocking. If the editor does not learn and change as s/he has promised to do, then further procedures or blocks can follow.
Strong santions should not be applied unilaterally to any user without a fair and transparent hearing process. That's what dispute resolution and arbitration is for. If those steps are skipped when something is not an emergency, that is a degradation of community and is bad for everyone who edits Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As I just wrote in AT's talk page, perhaps a compromise solution between Jack-A-Roe and other editors and admins is viable? I am still very, very skeptical that AT has understood the issues that led to his block (though I might be wrong of curse). —Cesar Tort 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My reading of the debate there is that he simply doesn't understand what he's doing wrong. Blocks are preventive, I blocked to prevent further disruption, and an unblock can be considered once the chance of disruption is known to be reduced. Step one along that path is for the user to understand the problem, but we haven't reached step one yet. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since AT is blocked and cannot respond here, please see the user's new post on the talk page discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The user's new post on the talk page discussion is typical. He still doesn't get it that (1) placing long lists on a main article, and in this case of dubious cases in which the "Satanic" element was purportedly present, is against policy; (2) he still believes that Noblitt's (who seems to believe in the lunacy in Michelle Remembers) self-published text is a RS; (3) he does not regret his endless reverts on the previous point but continues to justify this behavior; (4) he is still not embarrassed for pushing the extreme fringe pov of the issues that Michelle Remembers rises, and (5) he still continues to regard his previous edit wars as "heroic for standing up for our [his and Rubin's] beliefs". —Cesar Tort 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This amounts to "please unblock me because I can state my fringe POV at incredible length without being rude at all". We appreciate that, but it doesn't exactly help. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

read both this page and the link to the person page. He does agree to the accusation (truth) and says he will be different now. He seems to get what a good source is. Why is he still kept from posting? (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "He seems to get what a good source is."
In fact, he still believes that in extraordinary claims a self-published text is a RS. —Cesar Tort 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a gross misrepresentation of his point made on the topic. He -correctly- pointed out that a scientific author - even if his findings do not suit the self-proclaimed sceptics (who are 'believers' when it comes to wiccan webpages and publishers who try to discredit sra claims) - can be a RS when the same author has been qualified as a source by previous RS publications elsewhere. AT has been consistently civil and positive in corrobaration (and collaboration with sceptic WLU) while trying to keep the point in which other editors try to push out of the article, that there is more to the topic than just a historical hysteria of previous decades. I am very glad he does this (and manages to do so with style and ssubstance, and am convinced that he does a lot to keep the page NPOV by working to keep more than one POV in and well-sourced. --Gwyndon (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you think that the book by Noblitt & Perskin equals to "well sourced"? I've tried to respond to you in talk:SRA. You can also see this book review. —Cesar Tort 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I could see perhaps allowing the editor to return, provided he is adopted, with the additional provision that his edits to the page in question be limited or even having him barred from that page, but not necessarily the talk page, for at least a set period. Whether that editor would agree to those terms is another matter entirrely. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of a primary source in a BLP[edit]

Admin WJBscribe has used a photo of a document alleged to be the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (porn star) (seen here: [23]) as a source to verify Lucas's birth name [24]. Editor Hux has used the same photo to source Lucas's birthdate and birth location, [25]. The photo itself fails WP:V as there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. Using the photo as a source to substantiate claims made in the text violates WP:PSTS as such use makes an interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim about what is in the photo. To allow these would be a violation of WP:NOR. -- (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The campaign never ends. Aside from being a recent topic on this board, the forum shopping continued at the help desk (link) a couple of days ago. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's rather disturbing... passports and birth certificates should not be used as sources in articles. What's next, editors going through celebrity's tax returns to source information on the person's wealth? This kind of stuff is journalism, not encyclopedia writing. --Rividian (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh don't be absurd. If a fact is not disputed by the subject, then using the subject's own birth certificate, with the subject's co-operation, as a source for the fact, is hardly problematic. It's not as if the birth name is that big a deal anyway; if his birth name was Darth Vader it would make no real difference to his notability or the name by whihc he is currently or most widely known. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still journalism... we're producing unpublished information no non-user-edited sources apparently care about. We're letting subjects provide original documents to determine what's in their encyclopedia articles? Are we an encyclopedia or a press release service? --Rividian (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This was at WP:RS/N as well. I can think of a few more noticeboards to shop it to, anyone interested?
Seriously, though, as I said at RS/N, yes, sure, its a primary source and should be used with caution, but if we can't ignore those rules in this instance we might as well toss WP:IAR out the window. Relata refero (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Rules are rules; WP:IAR doesn't apply here as there are many sources available to substantiate Lucas's birthname, which is a contentious issue in this bio. Remember that these are not the actual documents, but photos of those documents -- there's no way they can be verified. We can't allow the subject of a bio to provide photos of document she asserts to be official or accurate, when their provenance or acuracy cannot be verified. Anybody can create an offical-looking document and take a photo of it, or anybody can take a photo of a document and then use the various editing software to doctor it, then claim that it's offical. Those possiblities preclude the use of photos of documents as sources.

-- (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

72, why is this such a huge deal for you? You seem to be really invested in adding Lucas' father's last name to his birth name, based on a single source (and derivative works), when it's not disputed that a) it was his father's name, and b) it's not his name any longer, as he legally changed it to Michael Lucas. I cannot understand what Lucas would gain from stating that it was not his name. Horologium (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two very long-standing Wikipedia principles which indicate that we should accept the subject's word here: WP:IAR and m:DICK. To insist on a passing bit of poor research by an entertainment magazine against some pretty comprenehsive attempts by the subject to prove the truth, would be dickish in the extreme, and would also be an absurd piece of rules-lawyering. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:V trumps both WP:IAR and m:DICK. The photo cannot be used because there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman. There are sources that say otherwise. Are we to ignore some reliable sources and not other sources? Is the subject of a bio to direct which should be utilized and which should not?-- (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Repeating Horologium's question, why is this such a huge deal for you? What is your interest in this matter? Such single-minded pursuit comes from somewhere, and it has nothing to do with an accurate encyclopedia, so what is it? R. Baley (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, to apply Occam's Razor here, there are only two possible sources for the collection of images of passports and related documents: the subject, or an elaborate forgery. So either we have an elaborate campaign to fraudulently change information of no obvious significance, or we have a simple mistake by a tabloid and an increasingly exasperated subject trying to fix it. Whcih do you think is more likely? Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My interest here is: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The subject of the bio is obviously trying to fix something, but in pursuit of executing repairs he is employing workmen using faulty tools. A photo of a document, genuine or forgery, cannot be used as a source because its provenance or accuracy cannot be verified. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman, and there are sources that say otherwise. -- (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone entirely uninvolved in this, it seems to be that your "interest here" is to disrupt the encyclopedia by rule lawyering around an insignificant detail in a BLP. Whether that is because you have a bone to pick with the article's subject or for some other reason, stop it. — Coren (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding BLP content Jimmy Wales said, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed..." Please re-read the first paragraph of this thread. Look at the diff's. It's all there, nothing is made up. Can you contribute resolution to the issues raised there? If you're really interested, go over the revision history at Michael Lucas (porn star) and see the direction of the edits from about two years ago. You will see a once relatively balanced bio transformed into an effective PR piece for Michael Lucas. There's more than simple policy violation at work here. The real disruption to the encyclopedia is the compromise of its integrity.-- (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, User:AnonEMouse received a strong ticking off from Jimho for using a primary source to verify a detail in this way. Apparently in this case it is not that Michael Lucas does not want this info on the article, but that he wants it so the situation is not nearly as dire, but it is still completely unacceptable to use a primary source in this way. If Michael Lucas's real name mattered, then it would have been covered in a reliable secondary source. If it wasn't then it shouldn't be on the article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears the situation is more complicated then I first thought, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Lucas (porn star) which is probably the best place to discuss this (since it is a BLP issue) Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It actually has been covered in a secondary source which someone unearthed on Google Books, but for some reason that was rejected by the same person trying to do this. I've looked into the situation and am satisfied the guy's name was at birth "Treyvas". It's worth pointing out we do have the full cooperation of the subject of the article in this. I don't see what the problem is if we're getting the name right and the subject is not complaining. Orderinchaos 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Would a photocopy of an affadavit from a notary affirming the legality of the birth certificate also be rejected? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not that we don't trust the birth certificate (bizarre conspiracy theories by certain wikipedians aside) so it wouldn't make any real difference Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again with all this?!? In the interest of "Don't feed the trolls" I invite all to see that the issue seems to have been sorted out on the talk page of the article. Mistakes do happen but we have handled the situation working with the subject of the bio to avoid BLP concerns. Do i expect birth certificates to start being accepted? No. This is an exceptional case being fed by an exceptional wikilawyering IP who, despite good faith piled high and deep, is likely the same IP who harassed wikinews/wikipedia editor David Shankbone (who did a wikinews interview of Lucas) and has stalked the Lucas article. I really see this as forum shopping at this point. Benjiboi 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:The Community[edit]

Could some uninvolved admins take a look at this? I reported this as a violation at WP:UAA but it was declined by Rudget. In my opinion, the use of the username "The Community" serves to misleadingly imply an authority the user doesn't have, especially given the stated purpose of the account, which you can read about at User talk:The Community and User:The Community. Mangojuicetalk 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not admin but I suggest going to User:AbdRgoodermote  03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, a role account, isn't there only 1 of those, and that one's explicitly permitted by the Foundation? I'd suggest following the example of User:Oversight and pointing it as a redirect to Wikipedia:Community Portal and resetting the email address to either none or the foundation. MBisanz talk 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the account, given that no mandate is evident that this role should exist. This does not mean that the discussion isn't interesting, mind you. — Coren (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Support block as a role account: the user page bends over backwards to state that the account will only be operated by one person at a time, likely to avoid being labeled a role account, but it specifically exists to act on behalf of multiple individuals, which amounts to the same thing. There's also the fact that the user page states the account may change hands in the future (if 'The Community' decides it's appropriate) - I can't cite a policy, but I'm pretty sure that's also a no-no. Honestly, it looks a lot like an excuse for the editor to refer to himself in the third person as 'The Community'. -- Vary | Talk 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that, at this point, it may be safely presumed that Abd's intent is entirely benign. I do think it's too early to make any such account given that no consensus exists that this is desirable or workable. (I've also annotated the user page to that effect). — Coren (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting concept, though I agree, it's relatively unworkable. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is unworkable if administrators act to crush it before it utters a peep. I'm a bit surprised by the extremity of the wikidrama of the last day:
  • a virtual RFC on the Village Pump Policy page, rapidly closed.[26]
  • an SSP report filed, sufficiently egregious that an administrator deleted it,[27]
  • a totally unnecessary checkuser case confirming the obvious,
  • a legitimate sock indef blocked apparently for insulting the administrator who blocked him,
  • and then older, unused accounts of the same user blocked by another administrator involved in dispute with that user,
  • an AfD on Delegable proxy bringing up the irrelevant wikidrama above,
  • an MfD for WP:PRX, created two weeks ago, and hardly even considered, tagged Rejected without broad comment or lapse of time, and then, contrary to usual practice for rejected proposals, actually to be deleted, making it obvious that somebody -- and obviously more than one person -- really doesn't want these ideas to be considered and tested,
  • and now, this ANI report, made without notice to me, (Thanks to [[User:Rgoodermote|] and a block with no sign of problem editing or misrepresentation or any kind of emergency.
Because, in due time, all this will go before dispute resolution, I'd urge all players to be careful. In spite of The Community (i.e., me, logged in as such) having committed only one edit creating the user page with tight proposed rules for that user, which should certainly be read carefully, and without any warning or process, Coren has now blocked The Community. I think when I wrote that user page, I had not researched role accounts, or I wouldn't have written about giving up the account at the request of the community, but ... because the document specified a community decision as a requirement for transfer of ownership, no policy violation was involved (and The Community, as a user, would not take a contentious action, i.e., contrary to consensus). This was not a multiple login account, the meaning of "role account." See [28]. No, I don't refer to myself as "The Community," unless I'm wearing that hat, and I'm not authorized to put it on except provisionally (i.e., in advance of authorization solely for the purpose of facilitating such), and in which case I would not be expressing my own opinions at all. I have not been blocked, The Community has been blocked. Improperly. Let's see if the actual community agrees, through WP:DR, which should have been conducted beginning with discussion of disagreements before filing ANI reports, etc. I'm not going to skip any steps; but others have been moving so quickly here that they are skipping steps. It's all for the best, I'm sure. I'll come back with diffs for claims above.--Abd (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that it is entirely unneeded to have the "The Community" moniker and the pseudo title of the 'community secretary'. My understanding is that this account is supposed to act as 'the community of Wikipedia' would. Why is that nessecary at all? To make a visual representation of 'the community', so actions will seem more justified than claiming a consensus was made somewhere and a editor making the change that was decided? Seems like nonsense and the very reason WP:BOLD exists. Editors shouldn't make contentious edits if they know they go against the general view of the community. If an action is backed with consensus, there really is no need for a single account to represent the community in making an action. Editors should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be page moving, removing content, protection, deletion, etc. and I feel a user who would be called "The Community" makes users actions become less accountable since "The Community" did it. — Save_Us 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I note that Igorberger was asked and agreed here at WP:SEI maybe WP:MFD not to add blatant spam links to his joke page WP:SEI as a continuing stream of addition to ANI threads. A check of Igorberger's history will reveal other editor's concerns over this addition which does not help these threads at all. His addition of these spam links had stopped for some time because he went on holidays but he appears to have returned to with the view that his agreement is not important anymore?--VS talk 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
User:VirtualSteve I compared User:The Community as a joke to the sarcasm of WP:SEI. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how User:The Community is a more presumptuous name than User:TheProject, for example. Of course in a Community vs. Project wiki-deathmatch, you know where my money will be. — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, User:ThePro