Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive392

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

Noticeboard archives



There are severe civility issues with this user. I'd elaborate, but he has <30 edits, almost all of which that were in article space he was warned about for various reasons by multiple editors. He has harassed an editor via email to the point where he was warned he might lose his email ability, and he posted an uncalled-for remark that really had nothing ot do with anything on my talk page that was a blatant PA. AGF is out the window (and has been for some time), and I'd like an admin to look into the situation and consider some sort of action. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See my thread above: #Procedure for making a block for abuse of the e-mail function?. This is the user I was referring to. -MBK004 04:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 31 hours for harassment & incivility, email also disabled for that time. He may explain his conduct using the unblock template if he wishes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For transparency, I have fully protected this user's talk page after they have posted a semi-abusive message (which I have left displayed) saying that we are abusing him and he needs the ability to block us, and also blanking the page and the block notice. I did not take this action lightly, because the original block has e-mail disabled. I will not consider another admin reversing my protection as a wheel war and will not object. If I have done something out of policy, please let me know so I won't do it again. -MBK004 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
He could have used the unblock template but chose not to, issuing a diatribe instead. Endorse protection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society[edit]

Resolved: Speedy closed as a trainwreck, relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society (2nd nomination)


Could someone take a look into this AFD(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society). We have several new users, even the nominators' first edit was making the AFD. I just went through and labeled everyone involved as being a Single Purpose Account so far. We have IPs doing half the nominating, and some are already claiming to be leading authorities in the field. I'm not sure what message board they are all on planning this one out, and I haven't even begun to wade into the mess that is the actual article. But I just spent the last hour trying to sort out the page, and I'm guessing Admin intervention will be required in some form or another. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing was a definite ... all versions of the article after March 6 were cut-and-paste copyvios of the society Web site. So reverted. Blueboy96 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pope Barry George blocked[edit]

I've blocked Pope Barry George (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indef for series of edits [1][2][3][4] suggesting he may be a trollpuppet. Posting here for a review. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have me convinced until the last diff, but that was clear enough. Endorse block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Get the feeling he returned as Swirl Face (talk · contribs), link between them is the upload of a wrong photo here, which Pope Barry George (talk · contribs) had on his userpage. --Van helsing (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I hadn't actually noticed that the upload was vandalism! I'd assumed Van helsing (talk · contribs) was on a bad faith reversion spree. Feel free to revert as you please. (And btw, I am not Pope Barry George (talk · contribs). Swirl Face (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah... so both Pope and you (after pope was blocked) fiddling with the unblock request of Confederate till Death is entirely coincidental? --Van helsing (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting that Swirlface also attempted to close an AfD, which is precisely what I warned Pope Barry George for earlier yesterday. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There's another unblock request open at User talk:Martin Bean, which was also reviewed by Swirlface, here. I have reverted that review. While I am not particularly interested in the feelings of proven bad-faith users, I'm also bothered when we jerk them around by telling them they're unblocked, and then they find that they are not, etc. This is a problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
...And, while possibly a coincidence, it is interesting as well that Swirl Face was registered at 23:04, 19 November 2007, just over 30 minutes after Pope Barry George was registered. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

indef block of Swirl Face (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

After a quick review of the above editors contributions I have enacted an indef block of the account. I have not posted this for review, but for praise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum The username appears to refer to a paedophile, per User:Swirl Face. I also note that Barry George is the name of the alleged killer of British celebrity Jill Dando, as adapted by User:Pope Barry George. Does anybody else hear distant quacking? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Praise- oh LessHorrid, we are not worthy to so much as receive your words through the medium of wiki. special, random, Merkinsmum 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, all hail LessHeard, etc etc. PBG did threaten to use another sock in his unblock request, after all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Distant quacking? That duck woke me up this morning it was so loud. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add Bob from lostpedia (talk · contribs) to that? Only one edit though, but same guy, registered the account in the same timeframe. And uploaded a photo of an unknown individual to Image:Hurleylost.PNG which Pope Barry George used on his userpage and Swirl Face reverted to. --Van helsing (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let sleeping ducks lie? Is it worth the effort of a CU for a single edit, per the evidence above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet, disrupting AFD again[edit]

Andrew Craigie (talk · contribs) an account also registered on the same day, is vandalising and closing AFD's. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by LessHeard vanU. The MO is the same; closing AfDs as Delete, removing tags from articles as Speedy Delete, and copying their user page from that of an experienced user while retaining that user's name or information (thus). The registration date is unlikely to be coincidence, but the fact that this user began editing within 12 minutes of Silly Face being blocked is even more telling. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that you can't block me and you will never stop me. I have loads of these accounts, and I don't EVER intend to stop impersonating administrators. Hahahahaha Oli Mitchell (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The vandal might consider that we know where he edits from, that his employer is not likely to look kindly upon misuse of enterprise computers, and the privacy policy does all the Foundation to release IP information to deal with long term disruption and vandalism. Thatcher 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Might it be time to lay the banhammer down? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked that one before they could 'grant' any more unblocks.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As you like... can you handle it, as I have never done it (only a real sysop would admit to that!) Please can you include the one edit user in the section above, just to make sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Any others to add? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You did get the users here too right? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did now. Is there a Longterm abuse or SSP file on that set? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser case has been filed and transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Barry George. Please add whatever data you wish, as I did not follow the issues surrounding this User:Allen Lee Remis asshat vandal. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub articles on Ontario communities[edit]

Have an eye here. User keep on making stubbed article that has less information. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Less information than what? I'm not sure I understand the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ZOMG!! Editor creating content, in the form of stubs, of inherently notable places of habitation!? I mean, isn't this place about zapping socks and clubbing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I had looked at it. Its all stub stuffs that should be further expanded. There is nothing wrong in the massive creations. Unfortunately most of them were tagged for deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is something wrong - none of these stubs are supported by a source. Neither is the list that they come from. Articles should not be created without a source to support them as this is a good way of keeping false/erroneous information out. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am creating the stubs first. Much articles are missing. What is need to do first is to start the articles, the next step is development. This is in the same line of French communes. But I am facing problem. Special:Contributions/WilliamMThompson. User:WilliamMThompson is tagging the stubs for speedy deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. As long as it is not crufts, it shouldn’t be deleted. (User:WilliamMThompson, please see WP:INSPECTOR).
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
He seems to be taking a break from tagging them, gods be praised. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Foretunately, none seem to have been deleted. WilyD 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easier to stub them first. As long as details are added after then I don't see a problem. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you have against crufts anyway?:) special, random, Merkinsmum 14:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP problem on Emma Griffiths[edit]


Restored at a previous non-BLP version.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Emma Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just came across this article at random, but it was suffering some major BLP issues so I deleted it for now. It was entirely unsourced, focused very heavily on her personal life, and she seems to be of minor notability as well. I'd like to get some input on this, before we restore it. Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't look like anything that can't be taken care of by editing. If we stubbify the article, she's got enough notability to be here. I'm sure some sources can be found for the article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This version by admin Kingboyk seems reasonable. Should we restore at this point? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It still needs sourcing, but I would say that's a good starting point. ^demon[omg plz] 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


This user has persistently been trying to create an article that reflects what he thinks about plastic pipe systems. His sources for his information were wholly fabricated. He went so far as to fabricate conversation on the talk page of Plastic pressure pipe systems to try to show there was some interest in the subject. There were issues of OWN and 3RR. However, when his socks were blocked, discussion on the article miraculously ceased. The user's socks are readily identifiable (his latest tried to close an AFD on the article as snow for third contrib or so), and there have been numerous forks to various related "plastic pipe system"-type titles.

There's no need for RFCU (been done 3 or 4 times already anyway), as the socking is blatant (8 confirmed, 2 suspected), but is there anything else that can be done? MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can see to do would be to block his IP address (again), but unless it's conclusively not a shared IP, we can't block it for too long, and we certainly can't block it indefinitely either way. An abuse report to the ISP could be in order at this point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If it hasn't been done already, you could make a request in the "IP check" section of WP:RFCU to identify and block the underlying IP. This may not be technically feasible, though. In which case, I'll watchlist the article and you can let me know if you see more suspected socks pop up; I'll try to respond quickly. MastCell Talk 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Real-world threat?[edit]

Is this a real-world threat? ["Hope I never come face-to-face with you."] --Milkbreath (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think so. It sounds like a wish to not meet the other party in RL, something that I would apply to plenty of people I've met here. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Me, too, but I think you are failing to parse the sentence correctly. It means "You should hope that I never...", not "I hope I never...". I call that a threat. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This one, though, is pretty close to a Personal Attack. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could it not mean "as a censor, you are not very good"? Seriously, though, you're right, the IP is skating around the acceptable at the moment. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What about this one? (Not a threat, not acceptable either though). The conversation should probably be continued up here. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone pathetic is an insult, whereas saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face is both acceptable and entirely applicable for many people I've dealt with here. ;) EVula // talk // // 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer a more direct refutation or rejection of my contention, expressed above, that the correct reading in context constitutes a threat. I can only suppose that my prior comment above (13:23, 27 March 2008 ) escaped your attention and that it was in no way your intention to blow me off with your comment here. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Milkbreath is true that the verb "hope" could be interpreted as an imperative in this sentence. However, that is a very uncommon usage for that particular word, and I think that's why most editors simply aren't seeing it as a threat. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I thought I was plenty direct when I said "calling someone pathetic is an insult" and "saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face" was not. EVula // talk // // 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not just block the IP address? It doesn't appear to be contributing anything useful? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free. The Holocaust remark was pretty unpleasant, although unexceptional comparatively. I'm not inclined to feed it by blocking, personally, but that's because I'm jaded having seen (and been on the end of) so much worse. On the day we came this close to losing a great editor on the back of the awful, threatening conduct of a total psycho living out its problems online like 72.76.x.x, this type of thing feels like very small fry. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Organised off-wiki POV-pushing campaign on Israel-Palestinian issues?[edit]

I noticed an intriguing interview which the Jerusalem Post ran yesterday featuring Richard Landes, a political activist and conspiracy theorist. It leads me to wonder whether an organised campaign of POV-pushing is underway on Israeli-Palestinian articles. To quote:

[Interviewer] But doesn't the blogosphere also work in favor of the radical anti-Zionists and anti-Americans? Aren't they cranking it out faster than the West can refute it?
[Landes] Well, yes, they are cranking it out faster than we can refute it - on every front - but there are certain significant fronts on which we are fighting back effectively. Take Wikipedia, for example. There's a fight going on right now at Wikipedia about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc. [5]

I really don't like the sound of that "fighting back effectively" bit - who is this "we", and what does he mean by "fighting back" (I'm pretty sure he's not talking about NPOV)? I don't have much visibility of articles in this topic area, as it's not an area I get involved with to any significant extent. However, I've noticed a sudden influx of new editors on Pallywood, an article about Landes' main conspiracy theory which I've been monitoring for a while. There has been a certain amount of disruption as the newbies have not been familiar with NPOV and V and have needed to be educated rapidly. Has anyone noticed an influx of partisan newbies on other Israelistinian articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring and POV-pushing on Israeli-Palestinian issues is like pissing into an ocean of urine. Sceptre (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Amused and agreed. I've lost track of how many organizations on both sides of that are trying to POV push on our articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it raises another issue. A few days ago I proposed an article, Ouze Merham, for deletion or merging (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham‎). There's currently roughly a 50:50 split between "keep" !voters and those supporting either deletion or merging. However, two things have happened in the course of the AfD which have raised some warning signs. I had forgotten to post the AfD notice to the Israeli-Palestinian WikiProjects (I'm not a member of any of them). As soon as another editor did that, a flood of rival partisans descended on the AfD and !voted in entirely predictable ways (all on one side !voting one way, all on the other !voting the other way). The whole AfD has been corrupted into little more than a headcount of partisans. It is emphatically not a cross-section of the Wikipedia community. Secondly, in the last few days a series of new editors, all with similar firstname-lastname usernames, have !voted on the article. It's an odd pattern.
The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, 29 March, any time after 19:30 GMT. It will need careful handling and a willingness to review the arguments, not just the headcount - hopefully one of our more experienced AfD closers can take on the task. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I just commented on that AfD. Sorry for possibly further reducing the signal to noise ratio. Oh, and it looks like I may have given an opinion favoring what I'd be expected to given my ethnic group. Sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea what your ethnic group is, so I'm not going to comment on that. :-) However, I've noticed that AfDs on political issues can end up with the discussions being dominated by purely partisan concerns ("keep because it shows how awful the other side is" / "delete because it's a lie perpetrated by the other side"). I'm really not sure what can be done about this, unfortunately. I should add that the comments you just added don't fall into that category, but all too often it comes down to ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT and whichever one has the bigger numbers wins the day. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO, you might consider posting your comment to Jayjg's talk page to see if he has any comment. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to Jayjg's unfortunate accident with his mailing list last December, I have to say in fairness that there's no evidence that he has any involvement in the activities that Landes seems to be describing. It's unclear how Landes is participating in the activities of the group he describes collectively as "we", and there's no indication of who else might be involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything related to that issue should be placed under editing probation so that administrators can remove disruptive folks on sight. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but as soon as an admin does anything in that area, they then become classed as an "involved admin" by various parties and are harangued until they give up. There are at least five editors in that sphere who should be topic-banned, but it'll never happen. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The solution there is to hand out lengthy blocks to people who try to rules lawyer in such a fashion. Such behaviour is not acceptable. Jtrainor (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Offensive unsourced picture with no license[edit]

User Truely obstacle uploaded an offensive picture with no license and tried to use it in the subjects article. Could someone delete it? Also, I'm out of reverts by reverting vandalism and related stuff on the Fitna article (the movie) and if someone could help me out by undoing me here, this would take care of the OR which he put in as well. I've warned him not to vandalize again. thanks --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the copyright on that photo is almost certainly a lie. See [6] (knew I had seen that photo before). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Image has been shot. --Carnildo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all that remains is undoing of this edit, which the same user put in (unsourced OR). I would be grateful if someone could do that as well since I'm out of reverts. thanks in advance. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the good news is that you are unlikely to run out of reverts by reverting vandalism. There are plenty of types of revert you can make without falling foul of 3RR. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at SUCI article[edit]

An edit war is going on a the Socialist Unity Centre of India and several related articles. Input from other editors would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand you have an SPA and his army of socks who talk in honorific first person and who is dead bent on having the article as his party wants it, whitewashing out every piece of criticism and adding all sorts of nonsensical eulogies and tall claims. On the other hand you have me, a banned user. Please note that the SPA claims to be a collectively operated account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
adding; And Soman a very valuable user, is hardly a neutral party in this. He has been too eager to ingratiate the SPA account and its collective army of sock and meat puppets. (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no claim there in which has not been cited as of now. Puppet of User: Kuntan is doing vandalism in the SUCI page. His personal vendetta towards some individuals of the organization is clear from his own words. He is also abusive in his language. Editors, please take a stand in dealing with this puppet of User: Kuntan. He is logging in from various IP numbers every day but that does not make him a different individual. If you check his ip numbers you can see that they all are from two towns of Kerala namely Calicut and Beypore. This proves that he is the same individual.--Suciindia (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:Soman's ill-mannered comments stem from his spite at being spurned for ignorance of WP policies as well as his uninformed reverts. He just reverts and reverts and it was a very hard task to make him discuss. My efforts have certainly improved the page which Soman and the SPA comic fellow smugly shared between them with own/self published sources. User:Relata refero's intervention made soman change a wee bit. Soman is time and again relying on the puppet argument (in unbelievably cretinous manner, see his reference to two towns) in order to get around discussion of the article in the light of policies. Soman has virtually promoted this spa's honorific wei'sm and have always tried to ingratiate into their good books by reverting good faith edits. The article is about a very narrow fringe group. A party that never had a member in the parliament or any considerable presence in any of the more than 20 legislative assemblies (mostly with several hundred members). At best they had a couple of members in a couple of states. Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India. I never denied that I am the banned user. Any one can check my contributions (from the range) and find if I am an SPA or not. The question is, should WP be at the mercy of a bunch of determined apparatchiki who want to use it as their propaganda medium. (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not Soman, but the comic SPA who referred to the two towns based on some pre-conceived notions. (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of posting a notice here is to widen the participation in the discussion beyond the currently three involved parties (Kuntan, Suciindia and myself). That is the only way to move forward, not only in conflict resolution but also in improving the articles in question. I don't wish to evalute my own role myself, but briefly I'd say the following about the dynamics of the conflict:

  • I have pointed out that there is an obvious WP:COI problem regarding User:Suciindia. That say, my feeling is that User:Suciindia does not indulge in spamming. Moreover, I must say that I personally prefer that User:Suciindia is open about their party affiliation, rather than working through anon accounts or socks.
  • Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan, it is obvious that he conducts systematic bad-faith edits. He repeatedly stated his own personal dislike for this party, and it is clear that it is this particular dislike that is his motivation in the edit war, as opposed to the intention in the edit conflict rather than improving the articles in question. The recent addings of notability tags on Sambhunath Naik is an obvious case of this.
  • Kuntan writes that "Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India". This is clearly wrong. I have stated that SUCI considers themselves as 'the only genuine communist party in India', a very notable fact for understanding SUCI's relation to other Indian left groups.

--Soman (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Articles that are related to the conflict: Sambhunath Naik, Probodh Purkait, All India Democratic Youth Organisation, --Soman (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • My single claim: After soman's and spa's sharing it between themselves for nearly two years it had no single third party source. My intervention brought about that. Can either deny this? "Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan", I am not allowed to use an account. I have never hidden behind anonymity. Soman's pretense of neutrality is obviated by the fact that he hides more than he reveals about the SPA. The SPA has indulged in sockpuppetry in the dirtiest manner possible.

See this check user case and Soman's active involvement for the puppeting accounts. [7] And also this [8] Soman prefers that account. Good for him. About systematic bad faith edits. Soman is plainly lying. I started by discussing the issue with Soman. I discussed and Soman blindly reverted. That was the beginning. Then he and the SPA began tag team editing. That the article currently have third party source (poor and insufficient ones though they are) is the refutation of Soman's venomous charge. Soman need ot learn the basics of NPOV editing, it seems. The party in question is a minuscule organisation with merely a few pockets of influence. Without stating this fact Soman wants to front their claim to being the only genuine communist party, which is plainly deceptive. What Soman needs is some good advice on wp's core principles. Block me or not. I have by and large stuck to what an encyclopedia is (the repeated revert war to bring this to some forum,excluding). Soman's role has beenlargely to abet the other guy in soapboxing. (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I've been trying to make sense of this, and haven't got very far. What banned user:Kuntan (incidentally, why was he banned? I can't find the community discussion/ArbCom case, and the only definite reason in his block log is "inappropriate username", which seems over the top for a ban) is apparently claiming is that User:suciindia, which is an admitted role account for party members of the Socialist Unity Centre of India - which is indeed a relatively marginal organisation - is exerting ownership over a set of four or five related articles. This appears to be true enough.
  • He also seems to think that User:Soman is aiding in this somehow. Frankly, I have not seen any evidence of this. The only evidence Kuntan provides is that Soman used self-published sources extensively, which may be true; but this is undercut by the fact that Soman has a consistent approach across all the many political party articles he edits, which is to ensure that their own self-published sources are used, and accurately and fairly represented, and I don't see any evidence that this is an exception.
  • I think more eyes are now on these articles, so their quality will naturally improve; the fact that party members are exerting ownership over the articles will have to be managed somehow; and we can hope that, now that student elections in India are over, this furore will die down slightly. In the meantime, I will try and keep an eye watch these articles myself, though some help would be welcome. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Some points: 1) any attempt to portray myself as part of a SUCI cabal is doomed to fail. I was accused of being a paid CPI(M) agent (in a series of edit conflict that extended to Nandigram violence, a conflict in which CPI(M) and SUCI are at diametrically opposite sides). Anecdotically, I've also been accused of being a Sikh extremist. 2) sources is a problem in the SUCI article. I've tried my best to go through JSTOR as well as my personal library, but nowhere is there any systematic academic study of SUCI. Mention of SUCI is generally limited to occasions when SUCI has entered into electoral alliances with other parties. In that backdrop, using SUCI's own sources for describing their public positions is better that no sources at all. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I remember the extended Nandigram wars, though you must point me towards the Sikh extremism diff, as I always get a good laugh out of seeing other people inexplicably accused of bias. I've looked for sourcing myself slightly, but its true there isn't that much online. This is the sort of thing that people have studied, is inherently notable, but isn't available through a simple search - the very essence of WP:BIAS. Given that, I agree that, suitable qualified, SUCI's own publications are definitely better than nothing. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editors, We read about the conflict of interest regulations in Wiki and the issue related to the use of 'WE'. We would like to expain our stand in these issues.

The use of 'WE' is only because that the article on SUCI is about an organization and that any edits on it from our side needs to be recognized as by the party and not as of any individual. At any given moment, it is defenitely a single editor who is accessing it as User: Suciindia, however, he/she will never use a singular phrase to make the edits. This is because, we don't believe in individualism and that is our political stand, inside or outside Wiki. We live in communes and thus live a collective life. Every issue, including Wiki is discussed and approaches are formulated. Our interest, as we have mentioned it a long time back in the discussion page associated to SUCI page, is to keep up with the spirit of Wiki. Only that we don't want to be misrepresented. This also addresses the COI issue, as a careful reader will always know what was created by the party and what was not. When we initially noticed the article in Wiki about us, we realized that there were many misrepresentations about us there in. For example 'SUCI emerged as a splinter group of RSP' which is not true and this issue was discussed and settled in the discussion pages.

We also don't claim any ownership of the articles. Infact we are happy that User: Soman created articles about us and is striving for the up keep of them as he does for many other articles. We acknowledge that fact that the true owners of the article is the Wiki community who built it.

So also, the party which attaches to the 6th largest trade union in India is not a minor one. If you want to state us as minor, then you should first do that on the pages of a number of parties that are confined only to few states. That will demand a minor/major classification of political parties based on some criteria in the Indian Political Parties project in wiki. If such a criteria is formulated and applied to all parties including SUCI, we will agree to it. Recently we also sought the advice of User: Soman on citing articles in regional languages to make points only to improve the present page and not to make Wiki our propoganda medium.

We will eventually add secondary sources as references. But as they are not available digitally, it needs time to pool up and cited. One must realize that Wiki is not the only thing that we need to deal with, limiting our time on updating the wiki page. But you may have noticed that over time, based on constructive discussions with User: Soman (and not with User: Kuntan) we have improved the articles with third party citations.

After all, Wiki is not through which the working class will get to know of us. --Suciindia (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related Articles[edit]

As an interested observer, I'd like to mention two other articles also involved in this: Sambhunath Naik and Probodh Purkait. These pages have a similar edit history to the SUCI page.  This flag once was red  00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enthusiastic recent-change patrolling.[edit]

Resolved: All done. EVula // talk // // 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot200245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Complaints/requests on his talkpage in the last 24 hours or so:[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

Templating of regulars, unacceptably lax determination of what constitutes vandalism, and biting of newbies by dropping vandalism templates for probable good-faith, relevant edits. All additions to his talkpage are immediately reverted without comment. Is there standard procedure in these cases? I'm afraid I have a suspicious mind about relatively new accounts that behave like this.

Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that this user is using Twinkle and abusing it by posting the incorrect warnings. Possible abuse? -MBK004 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just as I thought. This user's first edit was to install Twinkle on their monobook. Definitely does not seem like an inexperienced noob. -MBK004 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user has accused me of "vandalism" because of my edits to design of experiments. I have a Ph.D. in statistics and I care about the subject. I added some material and cited a reference that can be found in university libraries. Two other users have said I must be wrong. I patiently explained my position on the talk page. In particular, I asked them to explain why it makes sense to speak of "variance" at all if, as they suggested, this is supposed to be about a binary comparison. I asked them to check the math. I asked them to go to the library and check the reference. User:Hot200245 has not said that he or she has done any of those things, but has accused me of vandalism. I demand an explanation of the evidence that I have committed any vandalism. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia math articles than I do. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia generally than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've commented to him several times (all erased and bad-behavior continued) about it. He actually did respond to one comment someone else made about his behavior, by essentially accepting that he had made a mistake and repeating his accusation that the other editor was the one who was wrong. Enthusiastic vandal-reverting? Good. Enough mistakes that all his edits need others to look over his shoulder? Very bad. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Urk. This user has been reverting good edits like this [15] calling them vandalism. Not good. --NeilN talkcontribs 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that edit "good"? Batman? Tan | 39 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Batman (military). Corvus cornixtalk 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And this is why you check a link instead of assuming. HalfShadow (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The link did not go to a military batman, and as I have not been in the military, I was unaware of this term. The whole phrase has been (properly) removed now anyways. Tan | 39 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Hot200245 anyway. It mentions he was David Niven's batman in the first sentence of the 'Career Highlights' section. HalfShadow (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This would be, among others, the blocked User:Hot20024 and User:Dmits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And now blocked indef. Nakon 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm going through his edits and reverting if necessary. Seems he targetted edits by anon IP's (including those placing links to foreign language wikis). --NeilN talkcontribs 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What a freaking mess. Last warnings and only warnings given for good first edits. I've removed a few but there's going to be some confused anon editors out there. --NeilN talkcontribs 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is now requesting an unblock claiming they are not a sockpuppet and stating they are considering legal action against the blocking admin. -MBK004 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that'll sure get him unblocked faster. Corvus cornixtalk 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblock declined. I'm waiting to see what his reaction is before I lock the page. EVula // talk // // 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Another request up. I'm not sure this person get it. -MBK004 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Now that's what I call a response to an incident report. Relata refero (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I ZEE NOTHINK! HalfShadow (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SPA on AfD for Raljoball[edit]

Resolved: Just implement normal procedure for SPAs in AfDs. —Kurykh 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of SPA activity on this AfD, plus the vandalizing of the user page of User:Baseball Bugs Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just mark their posts with {{spa}}. No need to do much else, unless the accounts start vandalizing; the admin who closes that AfD will take the SPAs into account. EVula // talk // // 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've given a vandalism warning to the SPA which did the userpage vandalism. Hut 8.5 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the discussion, just wanted to affirm the SPAs. Ed, you've already indicated in the AfD the sock accounts that were seemingly created for the purpose of bolstering !votes. Nice job - I'm sure the closing admin will not miss this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel kind of sorry for the SPA's, even the one that called me a "fag" (strangely, I've never been compared to a cigarette before). Without the SPA's, the "deletes" would be nearly unanimous. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Yngvarr (c) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please intercede to User:i123Pie. This user is pastering my talk page with WP:AGF after I reported a user to WP:AIV. I've reverted their edits on my talk page as they're non-constructive.

  • AIV report [16]
  • History of the edits in question [17]
  • Attack on my personal character [18]
  • First posting to AGF [19]
  • My revert of this posting [20]
  • Persistant user [21]
  • My suggestion to the user to take it up here [22]

I am a longstanding editor with good standing. If one were to view my contribs, there are no issues nor warnings of civility nor WP:ABF, and I resent this editor for implying as such. Yngvarr (c) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I flew off the handle, and we've apparently worked it out amongst ourselves. Yngvarr (c) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
She was not following WP:ASG, she should have told that anon. user about WP:MOS first. – i123Pie biocontribs 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to cut a users ISP[edit]

Resolved: An apology == the user knowing they went wrong. Warning or taking further action would be pointless and inflammatory ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture

A user called User:Police,Mad,Jack threatened to report another user, Mikkalai, to his ISP with the intention of getting them to cut his internet connection[23], while anyone who knows anything about Mikkalia knows this is meaningless gibberish from Jack it is still an unacceptable threat, can an admin please intervene and at the very least warn Jack not to make such threats ever again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And has now apoloigised [24] which is something. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call, Redvers. This is Mikkalai's latest[25]. I know Jack from way back and don't wish to discourage him from editing, I don't think any of us do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and personal attacks from[edit] has been on fire over the past several days, with repeated and consistent blogspam to the OSx86 article, a personal attack on the talk page here, and now he is moving on to vandalize more articles. The most recent was to another project of mine, the Golden Bear (ship) article, as can be seen here. He also left a vandalism notice and personal attack on my talk page via 2 edits, as seen here. Something should be done, I leave the decision of what to the admins. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudget semi-protected his/her target article, so that's out of the way for the moment. The IP, as you've noticed yourself, is dynamic, so a block would be almost pointless at this point. If your user pages are being used to attack you or make you uncomfortable, a similar protection on any or all of them is available - please ask me. Rest assured, s/he will get bored eventually - they always do. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The larger problem seems to be, though, that they followed me to other articles I had worked on and vandalized them as well. Seems like they might've calmed down a tad for now, but then did before too. *shrug* we'll see what happens. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Semperfi76 Person vs. man[edit]

I just warned User:Semperfi76, so if he stops then a block is probably not in order. But an eye needs to be kept on his edits. Check any of his contribs and you will see my point -- replacing "craftspeople" with "craftsmen", "congressperson" with "congressman," etc., in places where it is not particularly appropriate, and occasionally in places where it breaks a template. I will try to keep an eye on the edits and will report back if he continues after the warning. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the quaintly old-fashioned sexism (the guy must have been born in about 1822 to be worked up about these things), the cut-and-paste moves from the bias-free usage to the male usage were annoying. I've reverted them, but with brute force - some minor edits were lost, but that was far easier than getting deep into history merges for such a small matter. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Lets wait for the next move. I've watchlisted his talk page to see if this starts again, but lets see if the warnings do their job before we jump on any blocks or anything yet. 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have only so much time to spend on Wikipedia to watch editors like this, and REDVERS and Jayron are names I recognize and hold in esteem. I agree the time is not right for a block, but getting two pairs of trusted eyes to help monitor the problem is wonderful. Thanks!!--Jaysweet (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipissing University Student Union[edit]

Resolved: Closed as merge into Nipissing University. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This AFD has been opened for way too long (14 days/2 weeks). It needs the attention of a uninvolved sysop. nat.utoronto 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference: in hopes to keep the notice board a little less "full" the proper place for a request like this would be WP:AN, no worries though. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam linking by User:NostalgiaVista?[edit]

The above newly created account seems to be doing little else but adding a link to the external links section of various articles which indicates that they sell copies of the radio programs, primarily, the articles are about. What should be done with the links and the account? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links, we are not free advertising space. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And if someone would warn the user for spamming, then we could look at removing the user when they continued. Whilst they are left to edit unwarned, little or nothing can be done. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There we go, issued then with both a {{welcome}} (if they're selling such things, they may know something about them, useful for article building) but also a {{uw-spam1}}. So now they're better informed all round. If they continue, keep upping the UW-templates, then off to WP:AIV if they go past UW-4. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hello, I deleted this as a WP:SYN. In essence, the editor who added attempted to legitimiza a driving technique that he is advocating using sources that mention something similar but not quite the same thing. He thinks that I have something against him, and seems to not understand wikipedia policy. Can anybody lend a hand. In essence, I would like to see a reliable source documenting that driving technique. Thank you so much, Brusegadi (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the statements the editor made are true, however I don't know that the cites back them up (I didn't look). And I don't see how they are relevent to the article where you IMHO properly removed them. These are also techniques that typically aren't taught to beginning drivers. Drifting is tailgating, and tailgating regardless of the gearshift position is bloody stupid anywhere other than an oval track with professional drivers (and merely dangerous there). Its true that it will buy you gas milage in some cases. If you live to enjoy it. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the techniques, but my point is that the sources are poor and I just wanted someone to let him know that. I am trying to avoid an edit war. To do that I need either him to provide better sources or a third person in the talk page to explain what a reliable source is (I tried.) The sources were websites about driving in the snow, but not about saving gas... (synthesis.)Brusegadi (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving - too much troll food. The first edit should have been reverted and ignored.--Docg 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How are the following "cabals" appropriate for Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is NOT a social networking site and these serve no purpose but to cause server overload. They should be speedily deleted by an admin and their creators warned, because if we put these pages through an AFD all the "members" would vote keep. Wikipedia should not continue on this trend towards MySpace and Facebook. --End the Madness (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell-o there, Mister Single-Purpose account! HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind being called that because I am protecting the integrity of this site.--End the Madness (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess the giant banner with the word "humorous" highlighted doesn' t mean much, this is not the kind of stuff that belongs in AN/I this is maybe MFD material, Mr. SPA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Server overload is not a concern. This is a communal effort in building an encyclopedia and folk are permitted to have a few light hearted moments. Can you provide any evidence that these nunseekrit cabals are detrimental to the community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I did as the user's name suggests and ended the madness. Autoblock not enabled, if this user has another, productive account, they can go back to it. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad block. A single unpopular idea expressed politely is not reason to indefinitely block someone. --OnoremDil 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Looked at the contributions? The guy is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, single-purpose accounts were a no-no. HalfShadow (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Only sort of. WP:SPA is informative, not policy, but even WP:SPA has a large measure of "look before you leap and don't bite the newbies" to it.
On this particular block ... speaking as a non-admin, I don't know if I'd have banned Madness, but I certainly don't know that Guy's decision was a bad decision. WP:IAR can cut both ways--as "End the Madness" just discovered. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, simply being a single purpose account wasn't a reason to indef block. --OnoremDil 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it likely they would have contributed anything worthwhile? No. Is it likely that this thread was going to achieve anything? No. I still think it's a bad block of someone who simply had an unpopular opinion. --OnoremDil 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Spas are not blockable for being spas - all accounts by definition start out as spas. ViridaeTalk 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, this was an encyclopaedia, not a social network. Making your first edit to a meta-page discussing what looks awfully like anold grudge against someone - or maybe just being pointy - is not one of the things I think we ought to encourage. The individual has clearly edited before, let them go back to their main account. Unless, of course, it's banned or blocked. Nothing to do with the opinion, which is simply ignorable, and everything to do with not encouraging trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How ironic that others using WP as a social network is exactly what they were trying to stop, and reporting something they do not feel to be useful to the growth of the encyclopedia is not social networking. THe block is invalid, please overturn it. ViridaeTalk 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree, this was not a good block. Kelly hi! 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked there is a procedure to be followed when blocking editors; I have placed a {{subst:uw-block3}} template on their talkpage so at least they are able to explain to an uninvolved admin why they should be unblocked - if they so desire. Guy, when defending the encyclopedia against the Forces of Evil please try and follow the policies and practices that the community have decided that we all are supposed to adhere to. There's a good chap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought this sort of thing was addressed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. Kelly hi! 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not even close to being addressed, but it is certainly the sort of thing being commented upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What, you mean my failure to assume good faith of an accounts whose first act is to report some harmless user pages to the admin noticeboard is considered an issue by people whose opinion is worth hearing? I'd be faintly surprised, to be honest. I don't think more than a handful of real Wikipedians seriously consider that "brand new editors" whose first action is to troll the admin noticeboards require arbitration before we can quietly show them the door. Like I said, it entirely implausible that this is genuinely this user's first action on Wikipedia, he can go back to his original account and then we can accurately establish the basis of his dispute. Seriously this one absolutely screams sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I thought you promised to do better at throwing around bad-faith terms like "troll" and "sockpuppet". Kelly hi! 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this block. A brand new account comes on ANI, citing Wikipedia policy and process to get a bunch of user subpages deleted? Odds of being an actual good-faith brand-new user: 0.0000001%. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no cabal. And I'm reporting all participants in this conversation to the cabal immediately. Fnord. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no cabal. (1 == 2)Until 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? -- Naerii 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Back the the topic at hand, and ignoring whether the messenger is a single purpose account — have these pages been to MFD yet? I can't see how they support our mission, but I can see how they violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh leave it, nominating them for deletion will cause more wailing and gnashing of teeth than it's worth. -- Naerii 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Had a look at one of the people running it an they are a productive editor. If the same applies for the rest its not worth upsetting them. ViridaeTalk 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that things that do not contribute to the mission can be seen as bad. But in all reality, do these cabals detract from the mission? Justin Eiler (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All now listed at MFD - surely that's quicker and less hassle than the drama being played out here, right? George The Dragon (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If otherwise productive users want to have a little club on the side, there's nothing wrong with a little social atmosphere. Now that they are at MfD, they might as well go through the process, but I doubt much will come of it. --OnoremDil 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always viewed WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a restriction on unduly concentration on the editor's userspace instead of working on the encyclopedia. If these pages do not distract editors and do not detract from the collaborative atmosphere of the encyclopedia, then WP:NOT#MYSPACE should not apply. —Kurykh 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The concern isn't about the collaborative atmosphere. The concern is that we want the media and others to see our editors as professional, mature contributors (regardless of their actual age). Things like this make our editors look immature and unprofessional, regardless of their age. What news reporter is going to take Diligent Terrier seriously after looking at these pages? If our user space looks like a game, it's natural for others to infer that our content pages are only a game as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This encyclopedia is by definition informal and casual in order to reflect a more inclusive atmosphere for laymen such as us to contribute. Wikipedia is not meant to be prissy and uptight and prudish rather than actually being helpful. We are not Citizendium, trying to maintain a "learned scholars only" type of thing (not that I have anything against them or what they are doing). By adopting the "anyone can edit" banner, we have eschewed that sort of mentality in favor of a laid-back, Google-workplace type of thing. On the media's view of us, if we're going to keep on worrying too much about what others perceive us as, this project isn't going to get anywhere. —Kurykh 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Our mission is to create a free encyclopedia. Certainly others' perception of the product we create is at least a tiny bit important... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course I'm not saying disregard our dignity entirely. :) I'm just saying don't overemphasize it, given our mission and our means to achieve it. —Kurykh 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got some work to do, then, Carl. Here you go: Category:Wikipedia humor, and when you've finished you canmake a start on Category:Wikipedia essays, since we wouldn't want to give the impression that any action is outside of a rigid set of rules codified and voted on by t'committee. Or is it teh cabal? Guy (Help!) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[edit]


Nothing but vandalism from this IP address, who has been warned several times. [26] Can someone take care of this? Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours, but if you encounter this sort of abuse in the future, the proper venue for the complaint is here. —Travistalk 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Rogereeny. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism problem[edit]

Resolved: Please take to WP:AIV if they continue after final warn, Tiptoety talk 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) is making vandalism in articles. A few users warned him but he simply doesn't care, he continues to vandalize. Just check his talk page. I'll warn him, and if he vandalizes wikipedia again, he should get blocked.

--Mr Alex (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, simply report the anon to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo[edit]

Nothing more to be done, nothing new emerging
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [27].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, nudity <> pornography, but [28] is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks guy. -- Naerii 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good block. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion /C 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also a bit late, but I must agree: good block. Yes, the mention of genitlia in the filename (or is it in the description) is a dead ringer. That having been said, still, a nude image of a child does not necessarily equal child pornogrpahy. Take, for instance, the cover image of the Nirvana album, Nevermind. As DeadEyeArrow mentioned, that image (as well as many other album cover images) is not child pornography. Of course, that says nothing about the image in question though.
As far as calling the authorities goes, rio de oro, you're jumping a little ahead of yourself. Not that it matters, but you don't come across to me as a U.S. citizen (based on your use of British spelling and lack of knowledge of U.S. law). So just for your knowledge, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service would probably not be hunting down child pornographers and/or pedophiles. That is the job of local law enforcement and, in the case of large illegal rings, the FBI. Regardless, though, Jimbo and the executives and directors of Wikimedia are not responsible if a user posts illegal material. Wikimedia cannot possibly know what's on every page of the site at every moment. Of course, if one of them does see something illegal on a Wiki page, s/he must take action -- and I'm sure s/he would. But there is not a legal expectation that they (or the operators of any other large sites -- e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft message board sites) be psychic! So don't overdo it, Rio! Your tone is way out of line. You're not against anyone here. We're all on the same side, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any child porno or pedophile supporters here. So please pipe down a bit, and I'm sure we can all get along. ask123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Wikipedia's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Guy has been a staunch opposer of what he calls pro-pedophile activism, but he doesn't speak for most editors on this matter. His actions regarding such things might be supported, but this is due to the presence of activism in general, which is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We call that POV-pushing, and it wouldn't matter of the POV was pro- or anti-pedophilia. In response to Edison, no, the photo probably wouldn't have been deleted based on its title or description, assuming this wasn't sexually explicit (ie. depicting a sexual act or an emphasis on the genitalia, which is the difference between pornography and plain nudity). The user would have been warned or blocked for the context the photo was used in and/or for the associated text, however, as was done in this case. The deletion of the image, while motivated by its perceived pedophilia aspect, was separate and justified due to the license issue. Equazcion /C 19:25, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Edison, I don't think we have a single written policy that covers the situation, but it's what we do. We aren't a hidebound institution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy schmolicy, as you say. Actually Foundation and ArbCom are pretty firm on this, though. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted

AFAIK, Jimmy Wales is not a member of the Taliban. Count Iblis (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who posts x rated images of kids is going to be reported to the police and Interpol. The doctor posted X rated images, and its against the law. I can support my claim , (ex. What if this doctor guy was a pedophille and some how gets a "turn on" from this paraphillia , or this images could be victims of sexual abuse. Anyone how doesnt agree with this are contributing to pedophillia, and will be prosecuted by the highest extent of the USA law , and INTERPOLRio de oro (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)[edit]

Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.

I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg
Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?”Travistalk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:
  • Valid Keep votes: 9
  • Valid Delete votes: 5
  • Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
  • Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
  • Other votes:
  • Possibly rename: 1
  • Possible move (destination unknown): 2
  • Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1
  • Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!
Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I came here for help when this started to look bad, didn't get any, and tried my best to handle the situation, leading to endless frustration, even more gigantic rants (check Hans Adler's talkpage for even more fun!) and me looking a bit like a prick even though all I'd ever been doing was to keep things in order (hell, I voted delete just like the nom wanted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?

  • SupportTravistalk 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and volunteer as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the creation date for the discussion and noticed that it was done on March 20, not March 22 as signed by the nominator. Therefore, according to this discussion, I went ahead and closed it. —Travistalk 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last word?[edit]

I left a long comment on the talk page after User:TravisTX closed the AfD. I'd just like to say here that I don't think either User:R_Physicist or the JSC Kazakhtelecom anon identifiable with G. N. Nugmanova (a collaborator of Ratbay Myrzakulov) was nominating or editing in bad faith. I don't know either of these parties, but I do have a friendly interest in expositioning related mathsci topics, and as my comment shows, despite long experience (in 2006) with AfDs, this was an unusually difficult case. One of the enduring problems with Wikipedia is that thoughtful comments in such AfDs, which often have much wider applicability, are lost to the community as soon as the discussion closes. ---CH (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will say that good faith contributions can still quite easily be disruptive ones. Simply, R physicist may have been trying really hard to get across his expert opinion, but when he starts dropping longwinded essays about the nature of Wikipedia, especially when they stoop so low as to take pot-shots at Jimbo Wales, his behavior has crossed the line into "really not appropriate" territory. But yeah, so maybe he meant to do that all in good faith, but refusing to stop disrupting the AfD is the real problem. As an expert, he is entitled to alot in his career, in real life, etc. But on Wikipedia, experts do not get special privileges based on merit. This has been sacrificed to allow true consensus-based encyclopedia-building. Yes, experts are sometimes bogged down with nonsense from uninformed people. But sometimes "experts" aren't really experts, or they don't really have a good sense of what they're really supposed to be doing here, or (worst of all) they're completely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I granted R physicist as much good faith and generosity as possible, and was completely willing to do so. But he refused to work within the guidelines of how we build our encyclopedia, and that just doesn't work (clearly). No amount of merit or expertise gives someone a free pass to disrupt AfDs or otherwise impede others' efforts to properly build Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that R physicist came at this one head-first and got so heated, but he was told repeatedly not to disrupt Wikipedia, and he outright refused. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I was leaving some comments, User:R_Physicist joined myself in the ranks of the Departed. To repeat, I don't know any of the parties in this matter, I simply thought some of the comments in the 2nd AfD were worthy of comment as a contribution to much needed wikireform. Cheeser1, one point you might be missing here is that one argument for reforming the ruleset is that otherwise good users are less likely to wind up giving the appearance of misbehavior. (Admittedly, I didn't look very hard at R_Physicist's edits due to lack of time, so you may have seen something I didn't--- I was struck by his/her departure just after I added a brief comment to his former talk page, which I presume was a coincidence.)

It is a sad and telling comment that my arguments from 2006 (a few tiny traces of which can be seen in this old page) have been lost to the community. Why? See step one in my advice here. Is it really any wonder that when people ask me about Wikipedia I send them here? I wish I thought there was a better place, I really do.---CH (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD process is not the place to stage disruptive "wikireform" - especially when others ask you to stop and you make it 10 times worse instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as [29]. DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
if we want analogies, I'd compare it to provoking an avalanche. Each justified though angry reply from established editors here was followed by another very long defense. Experienced people should know better than that. They at least should know to confine the discussions to the merits of the article. DGG (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you're confusing my posts with R physicist's. I attempted to keep the AfD on topic, related to the merits of the article, by repeatedly moving (not even removing, just moving) polemical and irrelevant essays, rants, etc. to the talk page, where they are at least slightly more appropriate. Outside editors repeatedly complained of the horribly convoluted state of the AfD, and I attempted in good faith to clean it up, and like I said above, apparently it makes me look like the bad guy. Fine. I'm evil. At least I tried to stave off what has been thoroughly determined to be an extraordinarily muddled, disruptived, messed-up AfD. God forbid I ever step in to try to clean anything up ever again. Next time a flock of what are now admitted meatpuppets steps in to gravely disrupt an AfD, I'll just ask you to step in and make sure nobody cleans it up. And you're the one with a mop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheeser, you did snap somewhat, and it's not out of line to point that out. I think it was understandable that you snapped and were rude, but that doesn't make it right.
On a secondary point, admitted meatpuppets? Where's the admission? I don't doubt you, I just want to see it, maybe feel some closure to all this mess. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
On the relevant RFCU, we establish Proscience=Antignom, and that the IPs originate from the same locale. Only after that was determined did Proscience jump in and demand that s/he and his/her expert spouse be given two !votes worth of leverage in a debate that constitutes their first, and only, contributions to Wikipedia. Actually, they expected to have all the say in the matter since they're experts, and when they didn't get what they wanted, we got lengthy essays about the failure(s) of Wikipedia (from several parties). Fishy as all get-out, and disruptive to boot. Considering the kind of outbursts that go without question (or with very little question) on the part of admins who are attacked for trying to clean up, fix, or otherwise un-disrupt a situation, I find it sad how little support I received from the mop-wielding Wikipedians (I asked and was basically ignored), and how much I've been blamed for actions whose blame rests solidly on others' shoulders. DGG, the only admin who seemed involved when the problem started to spiral out of control, took the time to cast his !vote, chastise me, express great sympathy for the disruptive editors, and do nothing to aid in cleaning up the AfD. Why? Because after repeated personal attacks, disruption, and abusive Undoing of my attempts to fix the AfD - for its own sake and by request of others - I dared to cross the line so horrifically and use the word... freaking? I hardly find that to be the cardinal sin that DGG makes it out to be. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So why did no admin step in? My guess is that those who considered doing this, once they saw what was going on decided that it is impossible to stop an earthquake. You just have to wait until it's over and you can clean up and rebuild your house. I made the same mistake as you. Let's get rid of the mess, take our lesson and move on. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

HHi, Cheeser1, when you wrote "others ask you to stop and you make it ten times worse instead", I hope you were talking about R_Physicist and not me! In hindsight, I probably was wasting time--- at last my time--- by attempting to comment yesterday "from beyond the wikigrave". I think any "disruption" my comments may have caused was very minor, but I have removed them. ---CH (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your comments, rather, the comments you were defending. That should have been (but apparently was not) clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maddox (writer) again[edit]

User:Arisedrink is a part of the influx of open proxy vandals that had a go at the article a few days ago, which led to lots of blocks and semi-protection. Now he´s using his established account to resume the edits, which led to full protection but no action against the sockpuppeteer. Check and compare [30] to [31], [32], [33], [34], followed by Arisedrinks three minutes later [35], [36], [37], [38] and [39]. The mere fact that he uses open proxies to avoid 3RR and introduces terms such as "Bullshit" and "Rant" as genres makes any attempt of WP:AGF laughable. I´m tired of defending this article earning me 3RR blocks against a vandal. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also previous sysop comment at [40]. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what is it you require of sysops? The article is protected and the editor has been inactive on Wikipedia since protection was applied; are you requesting a topic ban, or a block of the editor based on past demeanour and possible abuse of socks (via proxy ip's)? Personally, I would support a topic ban - but that isn't an admin opinion, just a third party one. Is there any consensus on the article talkpage - and if there isn't, shouldn't you be finding one? - in how to deal with this, one which an admin might be able to enact? I realise you may be tired of the matter, but it is best to present us admins with a suggested course of action which we can then consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not require, I request a block on this abusive user. Evidently it´s a single-purpose vandalism-only account with no intention to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way than defamation of Maddox. It´s really up to you how to deal with this, you´re the admin, you´re supposed to know the whole "how to deal with vandalism" thing. All I know is that it is vandalism and that someone has to deal with it. --Servant Saber (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After such a sweetly reasoned response I am surprised that the entire sysop community hasn't rushed in to do your willing... I would point out that admins are not some sort of overseer, making judgements on editors and their contributions - although I suspect that there may be some who have suddenly sat up a bit on reading this - and going forth and "righting wrongs", but basically editors with the ability to execute some particular actions. As such admins only act according to the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, of which WP:Consensus is a pillar. It is up to the community, via the policies etc. or by discussion, to decide what to do and for the sysops to enact that concensus. I suggest that you find a consensus that Arisedrink is a disruptive influence that can best be countered by having the account blocked, and then you can request a block - until there is a consensus then this is a content dispute and admins do not get involved in content disputes.
As an uninvolved editor (with sysop privileges) my opinion is that a topic ban would be most appropriate. If you disagree you need to convince me (as a representative of the community) why a block is more appropriate, or find others who share your preferences. That is how consensus works.
In the meantime the article is protected until 1st April, but not the talkpage, so you have the opportunity to produce the required consensus. Or you can wait to April, and report any obvious vandalism to AIV. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, I'll not get into word fighting over a petty vandal. WP:PROXY is a policy that prohibits the use of open proxies. Above I presented evidence that Arisedrink uses proxies (to avoid WP:3RR, no less). What's the issue? If you can't get yourself to actually check the article history but expect a group of editors to present "consensus" that the user should be blocked you are very mistaken about your role. Put some effort into it or leave it to others. --Servant Saber (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Pot, kettle. How you doin? -- Kesh (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Southern California: Dispute on a line of text, requesting another admin to review as a 3rd party[edit]

NOTE: the editors on the subject have resolved their differences --Bobak (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. I'm an admin, but I'm mainly looking for a third opinion (preferably from an admin). I am currently in conflict with a relatively new user who keeps trying to delete information about a notorious period in USC student politics of the mid-20th century; something I only found out about by reading articles (noted in this CNN article, detailed in this Daily Trojan article) and then the screenplay to the classic film All the President's Men --for more you can also read our own article on Ratfucking, a term which originates from USC student politics of the time. There is a brief line on the issue, and its been the center of concern. Right now it's teetering close to 3RR territory (though spread over a number of days).

The user keeps coming back with different argumentation, but the arguments appear to be of the baseless, kitchen-sink variety. I will go edit-change by edit-change in chronological order:

  • First, he argued that it was "NPOV" (we'll assume POV) which isn't correct because the information is cited to an NPOV source and a famous contemporary screenplay.
  • Next, the argument tweaked to saying that the statement was tainted POV, I lated reverted back because
  • Next, a new argument that the information allegedly opinion and does not appear in the source cited, which I pointed it out is incorrect as the statements are completely supported by the article and screenplay
  • The next edit mischaracterized the article as being about one individual, this is not true by any reading of the article and I made that clear. At this point he contacted me on my talk page as well as the article's discussion page.
  • I made an extensive reply on how his assertion is incorrect by a plain reading of the citations. Among the arguments addressed, in his assertion he claimed that the actions described in the article were not explicitly described as "corruption" when the actions themselves all meet the very definition (to help clarify the M-W definition was linked in the response).
  • I restored the article, and in trying to help clarify any confusion, I also took a swipe at confusing language and POV terms had been introduced over the months by anon accounts: [41][42][43][44]
  • The new argument, at which point I started to believe this user is not interesting in discussion, is that the line somehow violates "original research" and "unverified claims"; an absurd argument against information that's been cited. Of course, the user used this argument to revert the article.

At this point I realized this was going close to 3RR so I've come here for a third opinion (from another admin) to clarify how this should be handled. I don't feel I've been wrong in anyway, but after a while on Wikipedia you start to worry about inadvertently breaking rules.

Additionally, I suspect this is a user that, with good intentions, wants articles to look good for USC (which I should state is my own alma mater), because I've previously had to explain that the infobox for USC Trojan football cannot have claimed titles (see this edit, and part of the discussion on his talk page), but wire titles as per WikiProject College football. The dispute there was settled properly. I am not sure what to do here. --Bobak (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing (or severely modifying) that statement would seem to be pretty unquestionably correct. The statement makes it sound like the corruption is a continual and ongoing thing, when the sources say it was something in the 1960s. "Has been corrupt" has a different connotation from"was corrupt in the 1960s". --B (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that this is a forum with a great number of experienced and prudent editors. However, this does seem to be a question of content, and not one of conduct per se. So, this is not an appropriate forum, unless I misunderstand the nature of the complaint. A talk page discussion, a request for comment, or mediation are all good places to take the issue. While that may seem nit-picky, it is important to respect the tradition that administrators have no special privileges with respect to content. Hence, posting requests for comment on content here while specifying feedback "preferably from an admin" is to be discouraged. Unit56 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - this is a content dispute and has nothing to do with admins It might be a good idea to drop by the Universities Wikiproject and ask for input and assistance there. If I have time, I'll stop by the article and take a look since I heavily concentrate on American higher education. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sidetrack this request. Please, I request that you do not straw man me with one quibble about the kind of help I was asking for. From my (apparently incorrect) understanding: this is the "Administrators' noticeboard", not the "Village Pump", and I think I was completely reasonable in asking for advice from veteran editors --the easiest way to categorize them is by Admins since they require at least some consensus that they're veteran. I found it weird that someone created an account just to go after that point, as though I was going to go on some rampage against them --I have no record of doing that and I don't appreciate the implication. In the interest of my main concern with this section, I am not going to argue for mere admin support anymore. --Bobak (