Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408

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

Noticeboard archives


Copyright Violations[edit]

I am requesting administrator assistance in regards to the constant copyright violations by User:McLeod1 (talk). This user has in particular frequently added copyright-subject episode summaries to the Category:McLeod's Daughters seasons, most recently in McLeod's Daughters (season 6), which I reverted only minutes ago. Most recently, the user has created new articles about individual McLeod's Daughters episodes (see McLeod's Daughters (season 6)#Episodes). These articles are composed completely of copyright-subject material and ought to be deleted.

I, as well as numerous other editors (User:Ultraexactzz, User:Bidgee, User:Collectonian), have warned McLeod to stop contributing copyright-subject material but the user has not taken any notice whatsoever and has continued to add copyright-subject material.

I beleive User:McLeod1 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia to prevent any more copyright violations, to protect the project's reputation and to save other editors the time for having to clean it up.

Thankyou, Daniel99091 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

Told him about this discussion. If he does another edit again, I will block him immediately. Can you point to where he's getting his stuff from? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In the last violation, the user copied the summaries from []. I tagged these today and the articles have been deleted. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC).


After being blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia Carld2002 posted the following image: Image:Hellfffo.jpg. (enter at own risk) Can anything be done? Thanks. §hep¡Talk to me! 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the pic may be a good start!!! --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow that was quick. Good work. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)No problem ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, now I have to go clean out my brain. §hep¡Talk to me! 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

KMweber's welcome template[edit]

If you are familar with KMweber, then you will be familar with his borg like utterances of Oppose; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. at RFA and keep it exists at AFD. That's fine, if kurt wants to spend his time just cutting and pasting that from page to page - that's his business and I don't consider it a problem (because people just screen it out).

However Kurt seems to be getting frustrated with the lack of progress he has made and now is actively trying to recruit (and I don't think there is a better word for it) new users with this non-standard welcome. Now in theory, if people want to make their own welcomes we don't have a problem with that - my concern is that to the novice user, that template reads as "people might try and tell you we have rules, we don't". If Kurt wants to try that line of argument with experienced users that's fine but Wikipedia is a bewilding place and I'm concerned that suggesting such a stance to novice users might cause all sorts of wikidrama and problems for the new user. -- (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I love it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So do I. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
+me. That said, a link to WP:IAR in there would be nice, so as to not confuse a newcomer in the way the IP alludes to. But no, it's not a bad's describing reality, after all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As insane as some of Kurt's other proposal's have been (i.e. renamming the term "administrator" to "servant") I see nothing wrong with the message in this template, in any case it notes WP:IAR. The empty "power hunger" opposes are better discussed in WP:RFA, its not like that's going to stop him from thinking that anyways. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The message is great. The IP's been hit for block evasion. east.718 at 11:34, April 25, 2008
It's a good message (and admins should be called servants, a janitor is a servant). DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. I would strongly suggest that you not address any janitorial or custodial employees you may encounter as "servants". MastCell Talk 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it describes reality. Most situations are, fortunately, decided by policy rather than IAR, and the template clearly implies otherwise. I consider the present wording an encouragement to disruptive editing. Possibly a modified wording would retain the reality that nothing is actually totally definitive. But I agree the appropriate action is not here, but at MfD or TfD. DGG (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be one of the individuals who would have benefited from this message when you first started editing Wikipedia. The fact is, what I am saying is correct; anyone who has been around before 2006 or so understands this. There has been a trend over the past couple of years of new users who never had this explained to them, and so they started to treat "policies" as, as someone else said elsewhere "rigid rules to be applied rigidly." You, unfortunately, appear to be one of these. What I'm doing is trying to stop this trend that has victimized you and countless others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
DGG, personally (due to dispute resolution experience) I've probably had more trouble with people wikilawyering and almost being banned; so I've built up the opposite opinion, where I think it's actually more productive for new editors to ignore the rules and just learn from people correcting them where they go astray. But there is merit to either approach, I guess. (some people want to know all the rules before they start, which is kind of tricky on wikipedia atm...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
While it may truthfully describe common practice, I have a problem with the wording, which is easily interpreted as "ignore all rules" if it fits you, not if it fits Wikipedia. However, Kurt has a point; The distinction between the core policies such as WP:COPY and WP:BLP, and other policies that merely govern content has faded. The core policies should include only those touching Foundation issues, legal subjects (WP:COPY, WP:BLP), editor conduct (WP:3RR, WP:NPA and the like) and administrative issues... all the other policies should be demoted to guidelines, as they only deal with content and is in constant state of flux. In other words: we shouldn't have "policies" whose implementations are open to discussion and changing consensus; Those should be guidelines. Policies should be reserved for matters where their implementations are not subject to discussion. Otherwise, the real policies become discussable as well. Just my thoughts... EdokterTalk 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Kurt's templates is good, but it needs links to some of the most basic, obvious policies. A link to the WP:5P would do it. (something along the lines of "If you do want to see what the most basic policies are, take a look here". Neıl 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ehh, "Five pillars" just reeks of pretentiousness, which is part of the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The trifecta or simplified ruleset are available as alternates, if you prefer them. Both have been used in new user templates before. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The simplified ruleset might take some dusting off. It's a wiki, feel free to edit. :-)

I have respectfully reverted the "resolved" template because I believe some further discussion is needed, either here or at another appropriate location. I have two concerns regarding this form of welcome template. The first, which is the more serious, is that this template omits much of the useful information found in the standard welcome templates. I am not referring so much to links to various "policies" and "rules," but to links that can be of immediate usefulness to newcomers, such as "How to create a page." Since the presence of one "welcome template" on a new user's page will generally prevent any others from being placed there, sensibly enough, I think this is a significant concern.

Second, I happen to agree with much of what Kurt Weber has said to the effect that the project is becoming too dominated by rules and policy, sometimes to the detriment of creativity or common sense. (Compare, Wikipedia talk:Pranking#Some thoughts for an example of such a situation.) {{Template:Welcome9}}, which I was using for awhile, may be an example of a standard template that risks overwhelming a new user with too many of both rules and resources. On the other hand, I fear that Kurt's form of welcome significantly exaggerates in the other direction, while confronting inexperienced users with an argument for one side of a wikipolitical or wikiphilosophical dispute. The practice of using new-user welcome messages for this purpose has been severely criticized (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming new users) and should not be engaged in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had made it clear by now that I'm a supporter of Karmafist and see nothing wrong with what he did. He did what had to be done to keep new users from having wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas. Usually someone's first impression of how something works on Wikipedia will be the one he sticks with, and it's awfully difficult to change his mind after that. So what method would work better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. So you advocate independent and critical thinking and resistance to indoctrination, and you act on this by trying to indoctrinate new users to your point of view before anyone else can? If you really believe that critical thinking and rational judgement are paramount, then why the need to carefully shepherd new users and keep them from being infected with "wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas"? The whole thing strikes me as a bit... contradictory. As to what method would work better, I find that the most effective way to be a positive influence on new users is to model the behavior you'd like to see more of. When I started here, I learned by example, not from what someone said in my welcome message or from the WP:TLA of the moment. MastCell Talk 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly now, doesn't this argument loose a little something after high school? It's somewhat akin to telling someone going on a fast, "so, you're going to stop eating things by eating nothing?", and punctuating it with a pointed snicker, lest they fail to acknowledge this clever use of irony. Unfortunately, it's a basic fact of human psychology that in order to be introduced to a new idea, one must be indoctrinated - otherwise the idea itself will be lost in a mess of gratutious Gestaltian qualifications and cross-idealogical pandering. In simpler terms (they're simple, so let's not attack the rather black-and-white nature of this analogy, nor the rather immature, gratutious heavy-handedness) - if I wish to share the notion that two plus two equals four, it's more useful to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two equals four" than to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two could equal anything. It could equal one, two, three, four, five, or six. Some would argue that it equals quatro, or quatre. There are people who might state that it equals five hundred and sixty seven, as well as people who would have no answer to the question. I kinda think that two plus two is four, but I'll AGF and agree to disagree". While Kurt's spreading an open-ended "why", rather than the simple falsifiable "what" in that analogy, it still amounts to him saying "two plus two is x", rather than boring everyone with long-winded open-endedness. If his idea is weaker than whatever the current status quo is, it'll flounder in the marketplace. If it's stronger, then it is, ipso facto, a better idea. There is no irony. There is no cabal. Four legs good. Two legs better. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the template as written. Although I agree with Kurt that what's best for the encyclopedia should be the fundamental, guiding rule, I am also of the opinion that we do need prescriptive rules laid down by the community, so that editors know what they can and can't do. The rule of law is a very important value, both in real life and on Wikipedia; if there are no formal rules, then those in power make up the rules as they go along, to the detriment of those without power. So while we should focus on what's best for Wikipedia, we should also encourage editors to follow the policies. WaltonOne 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It could well be argued that the rule of law doesn't really do much to stop those in power from doing as they please - just imagine I wikilinked a bunch of recent political scandals there. =) --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the "Kurt welcome" in action here and the response was confused concern the user had done something wrong and stepped on a rule. I personally agree with a lot of what is in this message but I think it's too much for new people and basically agree with what Brad said above. Sarah 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Following up to Sarah's point, I went back and let the user know what was going on. So far I've had more responses when I use {{subst:W-basic}} than {{subst:User:Kmweber/Welcome template}} ~~~~, but I haven't really done enough of either to get any sensible numbers. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry[edit]

I checked the Chris is my name (talk · contribs) account, blocked as a troll, with CheckUser, and found that it was operated by Shapiros10 (talk · contribs), who was mentioned by the sockpuppet ("this Shapiros10 person went for an RfA the day after he graduated from adoption. This is stupid that we let them edit!"). Don't ask me why he would use a sock to insult himself, but upon checking, I have found a number of other socks. A couple used for odd trolling related to user "adoption," a project which Shapiros seems to be very involved in, including MadMan3, PA3296. Others are just general trolls/vandals: The Change is Coming..., Le Noob, Vengaboys Rock!, F Yo Mama, Kambula, The Old Hat Restaurant. Other socks are also Stjimmy61892 (which he welcomed), Iroc555, and Goggreen. I haven't blocked any of these myself, but I recommend that an administrator consider taking action. Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing it. -- lucasbfr talk 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's disappointing. My interaction with Shapiros10 was okay. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming Good Faith, I think it might be friends or family of the user who could be the socks. But for some reason this case reminds me of User:Green Kirby, in which his dad got on here and did several things (I can't remember though). During that case, User:Green Kirby was blocked for his dad getting on his account and saying bad things. Kirby contested it, but was denied because it was done on his account. I guess it is kind of the same thing as in just different people at the same IP. But still, we aren't certain that there are even other people at all. Well anywho just a hunch and 2 cents that helped with nothing. :D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm upset about this as well. He seemed to be a good editor! Are all the accounts going to be blocked... just coz some of them aren't right now. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a stern warning to User:Shapiros10 (I don't think a block would be productive), and didn't block the account that was tagged as being an alternate account. I only blocked the sleepers, and the accounts that either trolled when the rays crossed. -- lucasbfr talk 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory comments in apparent contravention of an Arbcomm ruling[edit]

Resolved: I think it's clear Giano's not getting blocked today

User:Giano II has responded to a request to discuss the addition made to an article page with this: here and here. The summary of the Arbcomm ruling is found on his user page: User:Giano II, along with the user's angry response. Ongoing discussion is here. The user has already receved two periods of blocking subsequent to the arbcomm ruling for incivility, and I view his comments (supplied above) to be completely unjustified, probably offensive, and not in keeping with fostering the idea of us all working together because it is inflammatory. In fact, I fail to see any advantage for making such comments except perhaps, in the light of the comments in response to the ruling on the user page, to taunt or otherwise push the boundaries of the decision. Can someone look into this? It is now not just about incivility, because of the arbcomm ruling, and so I thought a message here would be appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I'm not going to block Giano for trying to stop the march of the hateful infobox. His comments don't appear to have been particularly rude anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not about the infobox, no matter what your personal opinion is about them. It is about him characterizing those who question the fact that it sould never be included as having the intelligence of gnats and being of lower intelligence than him and his supporters. You do not concede that this contarvenes a number of wikipedia guidelines about behaviour of editors, especially in the light of the arbcomm ruling?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, it does but a) Giano was talking in general terms and b) he's right. Infoboxes are vile. People need to stop poking Giano with the ArbCom stick. On this occasion it is not justified to do so. Occasionally he's rude for no good reason - block him then. Not now. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Explanations were given to you at length by multiple editors both on the talk page of the article and at WP:CHESH - it is you who continues to bang this drum. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this comment contains claims that are not true. The issues remain open for quite legitimate reasons, and people are just asking for convincing reasons which do not disparage them or use demonstrably fallacious arguments (such as some of the ones you used) to advance their position.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you are struggling to read correctly - where does Giano say that the "those" Giano refers to are those asking for the explanations - its clearly a statement about general readers. Please wind your neck in Stretch, take 5 and read it again - are you sure you've not misunderstood? We're all human after all.--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between incivility and a biting turn of phrase. We don't want boring users making anodyne conversation -- people are allowed to have personality! I think you are over-reacting a tad here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I must have been unclear! I thought it was obvious that I was referring to your own comment that "explanations were given to you at length", and that it is me "that continues to bang this drum": I am not the only one to remain unconvinced, and the explanations that were given were hardly convincing at all. That is why the discussions are ongoing. The issue you mention at the end about whether I have misunderstood is a separate one to the claim you made which I was replying to at that point. I am sorry that you could not understand what I thought was clear.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
An ArbCom ruling should not be used as a hammer in every little tiff, and his comment isn't directed at you or any other editor but a rather pungent speculation on what will best serve the readers. Certainly nothing that would merit a block. henriktalk 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving a sensible and possible answers (Sam Korn and henrik). I will dwell on them, but would welcome further reasoned answers (as yours are) that do not display prejudice based on personal preferences or which do not use demonstrably untrue statements.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you want a truly incivil comment? Because beleive me I can furnish you with one if you want. In the meantime go and talk to the Arbs - whose intention it was that people like you should be popping out of the woodwork every five minutes over every trivial matter. They may have to time to waste, I do not. Giano (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness. Seemingly derogatory comments? What's next, "Possibly irritating positions implicit?" I know that I have promised to write it out at length, but the short version we need to keep in mind is that civilization and community exist only when there is speech that acts in defense, and this can always be understood, by the one pushing in, as offense. "Let's put a box on! Let's put a tag on!" These are not new arguments, and yet we're having to go through them every couple of weeks as new groups set up as "Project Houses with Gables," a split from "Project Houses," which split from "Project Buildings" -- and almost always over some formatting issue or another. Each group forgets, gradually, if it ever knew, that format is never a law, that consensus is the rule, that no one should be coming along to say, "Your article is in violation of WP:MYPROJECT guidelines, so I get to redesign it," because that's simply one person vs. another saying "mine." Geogre (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Worse still, Giano is very obviously right - we can't have that, can we? Style must in every case beat substance on today's Wikipedia. If people did not go around enforcing style guidelines, they'd have to write articles or something. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I do wish we would have a page (or we probably have twenty) for people wanting to join or set up projects that would warn them that projects, like everything else on Wikipedia, are volunteer efforts. By joining, a person is agreeing with the assumption that there should be a uniformity of articles on a given subject. The old reason for projects, and often still the stated reason, is "to be sure that our articles on X are well done," but we rarely need projects for that. We need only a "here is a portal page" for that. When we get projects, we get "solitary look." My point is not to bash the projects, but to remind them that when people don't join, they may be very politely saying that they don't agree with the basic goal. The non-members vastly outnumber the members of any project, and the projectors need to be humble before that fact. Geogre (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Resolved: Content e-mailed to user

I once had a page User:Jaeger123/Maya Caldendar when I was activly contributing. I'm going inactive now, but could an admin please email the contents of the page?--Jaeger123 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry about this, I accidentaly posted here instead of the administrators noticeboard.--Jaeger123 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem ;) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: content dispute. No admin action required.

The discussion is not substantial for the conclusion there is a wide consensus to remove the image here. How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)



SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) a non-admin has twice closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication early[1][2]. The first closure was within three hours of the nomination. This issue was raised at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, from which I reopened the AfD as the closure wasnt within the criteria of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. After the reopening A number of users have explained that it doesnt meet Speedy Keep nor did it meet the requirements of WP:SNOW, yet SynergeticMaggot has again closed the afd this time citing Speedy Keep, Snow and WP:IAR.

SynergeticMaggot first action when logging on was to state he wanted nothing more to do with the discussion[3] his next edit was to closed the AfD[4] The second closure is well outside acceptable etiquette bordering on disruption to prove a point, rather than enter revert war over reopening the afd I like an uninvolved admin to review SynergeticMaggot's actions. Gnangarra 09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't endorse the edit-warring (after being reverted once, he should have left it alone), but a speedy close was correct as there's no way it was getting deleted. I re-closed it as such. I have asked him not to edit-war on AFD closures ever again (if someone reverts your closure, don't edit war over it, admin or not - discuss discuss discuss). Neıl 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did discuss it, and I reclosed appropriately (I look at it as fixing my mistakes). No intention of edit warring. For the purpose of disclosure, see here (but be mindful its a work in progress). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The bigger issue here, IMHO, is not this one AfD, but rather that this user is walking all over WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Somehow, he seems to find these miraculous AfDs, where a group of editors all swoop in and vote and vote to keep, and then he closes it, and the AfD is listed for less than a day. I admit, it seems the Nonviolent Communication AfD was facing WP:SNOW, but standard practice and indeed common courtesy dictate that an AfD that is nominated in good faith and not withdrawn remain open at least one day. When I and others broached the subject on his talk page, and at Wikiquette alerts, we were met with nothing but derision and dismissive, even insulting arguments. The other issue I mentioned was not marking his closures as non-admin, and SynergeticMaggot's solution to this is to add the letters "NAC" to his closes, without linking it. A new or inexperienced user would still not know what is going on. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Zaphod above has a point. A non-admin should make sure that the closing was clearly and explicitly a non-admin closing. "NAC" doesn't quite fit the bill. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the latest example, and I would add, in light of this page that this may all be in order to make a WP:POINT. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree at all - while edit warring, back and forth open and closures shouldn't have been done, SynergeticMaggot is simply WP:IAR for the sake of Wikipedia. Careful with WP:POINT as it is reserved for users who are deliberately attempting to disrupt wikipedia. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but neither IAR nor SNOW came into this conversation until I brought them up, then he started adding them as rationales to the same types of hasty closures. I just don't see what the rush is, why he feels a debate has to be closed in three or four hours instead of letting it run at least a day. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole "non-admin closure" thing is asinine anyway. If someone has concerns over the closure of a deletion debate, they can discuss it with the closer, admin or not. Either the debate was closed in accordance with consensus, or it wasn’t. A "non-admin closure" label just encourages straw-graspers to revert the close for no particular reason at all. Indeed, the only users who should be reverting non-admin closures are administrators. ➪HiDrNick! 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Beeblebrow: what you have to realize is the after the AfD was reopened, MangoJuice voiced a keep response, thus meeting a criteria for SNOW located on the WP:NAC page. I'd like to specify that I don't need another editor to bring SNOW up to use it closing an AfD. Agreed, I don't like non admin's overturning AfD closures either, but it happens. Maybe a change here and there needs to take place. DRV is a better venue though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, what concerns me is not just this one closure, hence why it is not a DRV. What concerns me is that you make a habbit out of closing AfD debates that have been open less than a day. Now, I am all for improving articles, and I know that sometimes an article has the very problem that made it a candidate for AfD fixed while it is there. For the record, I think that is great. I would much rather see an article get turned into useful content than for it to be deleted. That having been said, if the article really has been improved, the improvements will speak for themselves and the "Keep" votes will come rolling in, not just from those who made the improvements, but from other users who see the improved article, and from those, like myself, who re-visit AfD's they've voted in to see if anything has changed. Leaving the AfD open for scrutiny a little longer gives other editors a chance to see the changes for themselves and evaluate the new, improved article, and can end up actually strengthening the argument for keeping. Rushing to a speedy keep when the very narrow criteria at WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been met makes it look like you are trying to avoid scrutiny and just railroad through a quick keep. That's all I've been trying to say all along and I hope you understand my point. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I understand. Really I do. I just disagree with you. Once 5-6 editors have suggested keeping, its a snowball. And after reviewing the history, the editors, and contributors and the opinions, its closed (there really is no difference between 6 keeps and 16, a keep is a keep). Speedy keep just denotes its closed sooner than the 5 day period. You don't have to agree with me at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to go here, but you are Wikilawyering. That is, switching your defenses around when they don't seem to work, citing something when it suits your purposes, then discarding it when it does not work anymore, and trying to use the letter of guidelines like WP:SNOW and WP:SPEEDYKEEP but not the spirit of them. I don't have issue with rescuing an article from deletion, but, if the "Keep" votes mostly come from the rescuers themselves, that needs to be taken into account when closing. You still have not explained what the big hurry is to close, why you feel these AfD debates have to be shut down in a few hours, and, since you have now added WP:IAR to your reasoning, how your actions help the project more than the accepted practice of leaving it open at least a day. Also, is anyone else still reading this? I had hoped we would get a little more input from uninvolved parties here, since the two of us have gone around and around with this and seem to be at an impasse. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still reading this. I've worked (I assume rather well, SM, correct me if I'm wrong), with SynMag in the past. My question, Beeblbrox, is a simple one. Do you have a problem with the closes, or with the timing of the closes? Have any of the closes that you've witnessed specifically been ultimately wrong? I'm not saying yes or no here, leaving that to you. However, what I will ask, SynMag, since this seems to be a problem for at least one of your co-editors, and since it has come up before in your NACs, would you be willing to self-monitor yourself to not close anything with a date stamp that is the same day as your close? (regardless of SNOW, regardless of IAR?) As an admin, and as a regular Afd closer myself, I very rarely if ever close anything on the same datestamp that it is opened, as it can be seen (regardless of the # of !voters), as a bite of a slap to the nominator (again, right or wrong, at least one editor felt an article needed to be discussed). Would you agree to not close on the same datestamp going forward so this can all be put behind you/beeblbrox, and ANI? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally see no reason why SynergeticMaggot is so eager to be closing these AfDs so quickly. Since his closes have only been getting him in trouble, and there is no harm in leaving an AfD open for more than a day (besides cases of speedy deletions or BLPs), I'd say he should seriously restrict his AfD closes altogether, including completely refraining from closing same-days. GlassCobra 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what I said? :-) If it is, thank you for agreeing with me. If it isn't, then what you said GlassCobra, is what I meant. I'm hoping it will come down to a "self-restriction" instead of a "community restriction". I've seen SM make some very good closes, in fact, I would say the majority of the time, his closes are valid, timely, and accurate. But there has been drama, so I'm hoping he is still reading this and would agree to slow it down. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you both for your remarks. Keeper, if I understand the intent of your question correctly, you are maybe asking if in retrospect they aren't bad closes so what is the harm and maybe we should IAR and let it go? Maybe you have a point there, we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not to yell at each other, and, to be honest, I hate spending my wiki-time quibbling over little details instead of editing articles. Having said that, yes, I do have a problem with the timing of the closes, and not just because one of them was at "my" AfD, but because AfDs, unless they are begun in bad faith, deserve a reasonable period of time for comment by a variety of editors before closure. If we go way back here to where this whole thing started, it seems clear that what I mentioned above about Wikilawyering holds true. This seems to me to be more a matter of civility and honesty when dealing with fellow editors, as opposed to the specifics of these AfDs. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your civil response, Beeb. The intent of my question was to basically ask if this could be solved/resolved outside of ANI. I'm hoping SM will reply here/your talk/my talk with a self-imposed (and really, not just him, but any AFD closer), "wait at least one day, even if it's gonna be SNOWed". Hoping for a positive response from SM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If anything, this kind of thing should be encouraged, not discouraged. There's far too much stuff sent to AfD that shouldn't be at AfD, and when it becomes as obvious as this that it's going nowhere fast, it should get closed so actual, contentious AfDs can be focused on. The only thing AfDs like the mentioned one do is waste time. Celarnor Talk to me 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Woot. I had no idea this thread was still active. I'm not going to stop closing AfD's anytime soon. Celarnor says it rather nicely here and is my intention for my faster closes.
To Beeb.: I'm done speaking to you here. I would have preferred you addressing this more on my talk page.
To Keeper: Consensus comes first. If its reached in 3 minutes, 50 minutes, or 5 days, it exists and is applicable. So theres not really a chance of slowing down although I will give it more thought before doing it, since showing up on AN/ANI every now and then is getting repetitive and is usually unnecessary. So I'd only be doing it to save the space for actual incidents that warrant attention. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll call this resolved, then SM. At this point, there's no evident need in keeping an ANI thread open. My talk page is always open if you need a second opinion on a potential close that you're about to perform. A second opinion many times will avoid an ANI post. Happy editing to all, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious reinsertions at 'Gakhars' & 'Kayanis (Tribe)‎'[edit]

Over at Gakhars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Kayanis (Tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), editor Amirkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) keeps inserting the same family-member directory over and over again, even though now some 6 other editors (5 established, 1 new) keep removing them and have noted their concerns on talk (to which Amirkayani has not responded).

He was on 3RR parole earlier today, but does not appear to have learned anything from it, since "new editor" Adilkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) picked up right where Amirkayani left off (the latter has since resumed the rv cycle). The former have no other contributions worth mentioning, and the latter has only reverts/reinstatements of the aforementioned lists.

Question: whats the most efficient way to put an end to this sorry tale? RCU/Code E for block evasion + 3RRV + 3RRV + ... ? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the "older" account's block for a week. The newer one I'm not 100% sure of.-Wafulz (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the extension. As for the "new" editor, see Adilkayani edit history (note the 07:31 UTC reinstatements of your rvs of yesterday). IMO, it is a bit strange that Adilkayani only pops up while Amirkayani was/is blocked, and then has done nothing but continue his twin's rv war. *sigh* -- Fullstop (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
ps: I've filed an RFCU to ascertain which route to take (block-on-sight for puppetry, or block-on-sight for disruption, or rfc->arb)

Review of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey[edit]

A shared interest in homeopathy, similar IPs, and some geographic evidence connects User:Happening, with the banned user and puppetmaster User:Dr.Jhingaadey. Review and action (block/dismiss) by an uninvolved admin please. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move this to WP:SSP, Tim? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the evidence presented at the checkuser request, I've gone ahead and blocked Happening (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs). Briefly, the evidence is overlapping subject matter, congruent IP's with a somewhat suspicious pre-emptive excuse on the checkuser page, geographical similarity, and shared editing tics and habits. Even in a best-case scenario, it would be hard to make the case that we need more single-purpose agenda accounts at homeopathy, but this looks to me like a fairly clear-cut sockpuppet. Review welcome. MastCell Talk 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, your analysis seems spot-on to me. It was obvious, particularly after this edit and the unconvincing explanations why his IP addresses and activities were practically identical to the banned user. Even if we're wrong (and I highly doubt it), Happening was being disruptive and really helping nothing on the page. — Scientizzle 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions[edit]

Could others please comment on two aspects of COI issues relating to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and Vereniging Basisinkomen.

  • Firstly on Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others (and lesser extent Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen#COI) - does that consitute fair and appropriate view to block this editor, notwithstanding his decission to not listen to that discussion & rejection that COI should restrict his editing involvement ?
  • Secondly, rather than impose a block with a warning as COI/N seemed to propose, I elected to merely notify him of being community partially banned on just that one article. Was my interpretation and actions appropriate ?

Guido den Broeder responded with RFAR 3.1 Request to lift article ban. It seems pointless to duplicate the background details, links and references that are set out there, so please review those comments. (I note Robotje's comment of his mutiple filing of RFAR at Dutch Wikipedia, but I suspect that such actions elsewhere are immaterial here in English Wikipedia).

So does Guido den Broeder have COI issues sufficient to warrant action or a specific level of warning (as per WP:COI/N) and were my actions appropriate or handled as well as I could/should have? David Ruben Talk 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your reference to perceived events on nl:Wikipedia. Such a mention only serves to put me in a bad light since I cannot comment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
@David Ruben: Can you provide some diffs of disruptive editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that the COI/N procedure mentioned by David relates to a completely different article, Melody Amber chess tournament. Since the COI/N, consensus has emerged on the talk page of that article that supports my stance, and opposing user has been warned for stalking. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not so, and further illustration of your failure to accept COI on this article and viewpoints of multiple other editors/admins. That COI/N's first posting was by Aecis on 16 April who stated "The user has also created articles for [[Vereniging Basisinkomen|an organisation he's the treasurer of]] ...", and on 17 April points out specific edits to that article's talk page. Gordonofcartoon observed on 18 April "The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view." WLU's posting on 20th included "See [[User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Vereniging_Basisinkomen]] in my archive,". On 23rd WLU stated "[ To whit]. Revert-warring isn't a good sign, ever" and EdJohnston posted "I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's [ yet again removing the COI tag]". So the COI/N made repeated reference to this article (as well as some other articles in passing). David Ruben Talk 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see a level of disruption that would warrant a ban. The user should be advised to exercise caution, and most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others. After all, it should be very easy to check the article and see if there is material that should not included, or vice-versa, COI, or not COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jossi. I believe that I am exercising caution, and said checking is presently taking place by cooperative co-editors. David is welcome to keep looking over my shoulder if he still has concerns. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, Guido. As an editor that has a COI myself in some articles, my advice is this: you need to edit not only with extreme caution, if you edit at all, but you should do it so cleanly that it will squeak, so that anyone checking your contributions could not make a case that you are disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict)Hi, I come to this page from Vereniging Basisinkomen which is still on my watchlist because I was following it in a recent Afd. In my view the removal of the COI notice made some sense. The article itself was cleaned up and to my knowledge all the COI material and other coattrack stuff has been removed(at least that was my impression). If I hadn't seen the discussion on the talk page I would of removed the COI notice myself. Going back a bit further there have been a number of editors posts I wouldn't say has been WP:CIVIL towards 'Guido den Broeder', perhaps it is just because there is a difference of opinion on the subject(clearly the case) but I think many of the posts are personal, which is quite inappropriate and gets nowhere to making the article a better article. To that end I have no understanding why 'Guido den Broeder' has been banned from that page. He(Guido den Broeder) seems to be the victim of the situation, and so the recent ban actions sense questionable to me at this time. SunCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
GDB is, in my experience, a very difficult person to interact with - stubborn, with an extremely dubious understanding of policies/guidelines, a propensity for irritating others, coatrack articles and wikilawyering. I really don't think it's a bad thing that he be banned from editing pages he has a COI in though that applies to anyone on wikipedia and is common sense to me. I'm guessing he'll be quite hands off now for the extant, but I'm guessing this situation will repeat. I don't think a block is warranted, I do think mentoring would be helpful. It can be hard to be civil to GDB because he does get to be irritating. Witness this discussion on the notability of articles User_talk:WLU/Archive_3#Notability - if he's right, then I've been wrong for a very, very long time. I foresee future problems, though right now I don't think there's anything actionable beyond what's already covered by policy (i.e. don't edit articles you have a conflict of interest in).
Regards VBI, GDB should have started a discussion about removing the COI tag. He should not have removed it himself. That's the essence of COI - you're not neutral, and even if your actions result in a neutral page or edit it's still not your call. There's a ton of options for suggesting edits on pages that are not directly editable, so I don't see much excuse. WLU (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You may, indeed, have been wrong with your interpretation of notability for a very, very long time. Yes, it is irritating if someone shows up saying that, but it's a lot more irritating if someone does not respond to arguments yet maintains that the other can't possibly be right and should therefore be considered a troublemaker. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heliac blocked[edit]

Heliac (talk · contribs) seems to be on a spree of abusing various Wikipedia processes. I warned him about a run of harmless names he posted to UAA, and then I thought to check the archives.

Turns out he's had these warnings before, multiple times. He's also been warned for biting newbies, and he's just had his rollback powers removed because he used it to revert people he disagreed with... such as people saying he shouldn't have rollback powers. He's now reverting randomly using TWINKLE. He's been warned about basically all of these things, including a large number of warnings for disruptive reverting.

After seeing the sheer enormity of the list of warnings he's removed, I blocked him for 24 hours. I have a feeling this won't be sufficient.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be denied twinkle too, at the very least--Jac16888 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to deny someone TWINKLE? That would be a new one on me. Or would this be a sort of "topic ban" against using TWINKLE? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. you simply blank their monobook, then protect it for as long as you want to deny them tw.Admittedly, it will only work after they close their browser. Also, i find the amount of times heliac's talk page has gotten comment's from ips telling him they weren't vandalising quite disturbing, several of these seem like legit edits were reverted--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think he's got TWINKLE turned on through Gadgets, not through monobook.js.
And yeah, the things he's been reverting seem to be a mix of vandalism and legitimate edits. I'm looking at his recent contributions, and cleaning it up is going to be a bit of a daunting task. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. You're right about that. I'll help out where I can with that task. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No twinkle in his monobook, so yeah, either ask him to move it there and disable the gadget, or just keep blocking in such cases, until he learns. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, forgot about the gadget way of using it. May not be possible then. shame. By the way, Heliac is requesting unblock.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[5], is very odd.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's conceivable that Heliac is going to be a constructive user at all, I think we're going to need to topic-ban him from making edits with automated tools for a while. Does this sound like a good idea? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support ban on using automated tools to edit. Additionally, would it be possible to add a Twinkle user blacklist, so anyone on that blacklist could use Twinkle, no matter where it was installed (monobook or gadgets)? Because that might be a useful thing to have. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since protecting the monobook is no longer an option, in this particular case, I'd support quickly escalating blocks if Twinkle is reused for some period of time (1-3 months? due to previous disruption, I'd say 3 months) In the more general case of Twinkle misuse, I think Twinkle should be removed from Gadgets. It's sooooo silly to argue about rollback when we give Twinkle to anyone who can check a box, and blocking (rather than taking the toy away) is now the only option. Where does one suggest changes to the Gadgets lineup? --barneca (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 (admin): Uncivil, expletive-laced language, with several personal attacks[edit]

"Hearing from Lawyers"[edit]


A legal threat can be found here. APK yada yada 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Blocked indefinitely until such time that it is retracted. seicer | talk | contribs 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
His block log is empty? APK yada yada 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, a stupid mistake on my part. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to block immediately when someone makes a remark of this sort? If so, what's the point of having the uw-nlt warning template? I placed that on Ryanborgz's talk page, and then Seicer immediately followed it with the block tag. Aleta Sing 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Plus, it also shows that you can't just throw legal threats around willy-nilly and expect Wikipedia to bend to your demands. If we did, one word: chaos. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read NLT. I think where we are differing in interpretation is the word "may": "You may be blocked", not "will". Isn't it reasonable to give a chance for retraction before blocking? (Yes, I know they can retract and request unblocking, but it seems more peaceful to give a chance first.) Note, I am not suggesting we kowtow to the legal threats at all. Aleta Sing 15:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is such a simple policy, and I don't know why people want to make things complicated. Make a legal threat → get blocked. Retract your legal threat → get unblocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about trying not to escalate already nasty situations. (If you're making a LT, it's already gotten nasty.) I'm suggesting making a warning, i.e. uw-nlt, to allow the person a chance to retract before blocking. If the person refuses, then go ahead and block. If you just block without warning, you can make a mad person even madder. I reiterate my question - if a block is automatic, then what is the point of tl:uw-nlt? Aleta Sing 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This meta-conversation, while a perfectly valid difference of opinion, is perhaps better suited to Wikipedia talk:No legal threats? Just an idea to clear up ANI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point, I won't say any more about this here. Aleta Sing 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to reignite discussion, you may also want to note, Aleta, that users threatening litigation are not supposed to edit while the threats are outstanding anyway. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Quite honestly, a look at the editor's history suggests that it's rather on the vandalistic side anyhow. This looks to be a good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and attempts to reveal personal information[edit]

Last week a user attempted to reveal on Wikipedia what that user thought was my name and home address. After that user was banned, new user User: has now taken to using what that user believes to be my real name and has gone about reverting my edits using that proper name in the edit summaries. Now the new user User:Everybody Hates Bradley has taken up a similar cause. Could someone please provide some assistance in stopping this harassment? Thank you for your help. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The second user I mentioned above is currently attempting to reveal an email address, phone number, and home address that it believes to belong to me. I would really appreciate any help on this in removing those edit summaries. Thank you. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I sent in a request to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. (Actually, non-administrators can do that too.) I also got rid of a few pieces of identifying information by deleting and recreating a few articles. That should help out until the oversight people take care of everything. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing comes up at Special:Contributions/Everybody_Hates_Bradley. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither does Special:DeletedContributions/Everybody_Hates_Bradley. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I still see them, but at least non-administrators can't make sense of the list. I also noticed that (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are Tor nodes, so they're now blocked. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?[edit]

HooperBandP (talk · contribs)

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We aren't canvassing for either side but we are letting them know (which is required by Arbcomm to inform all parties). It was easier to put it on the talk pages were multiple users had has a problem with him then it was on each individual talk page. Hooper (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles need informing? see WP:CANVASS. --Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, it was just an easier step in what will be a very sensitive case. If it is wrong, I just want to acknowledge why we did it and it was not just to get participation as much as to try to conform to the Arbcomm rules. It may have been best to go to each individual users talk page, was just trying to save time. But I do understand what you're saying. Hooper (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see enough of these yet to call it canvassing, however I do have some worries about the notion of building an arbcom RfAR project in a user sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres no harm in drafting RFCs, complex RFCUs, or RFARs in a user page, is there? I've done the same myself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm indeed... What is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
(EC) The posts on the talk pages were more or less neutral, but an article talk page isn't really an acceptable forum for this sort of post, even if the users involved would see it (see WP:TPG). An article's talk page should only be used for discussing the article. While it might be tedious to individually inform each user on their own talk page, that should be the course of action that is taken :) Cheers! ( arky ) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Understandable and makes perfect sense with the articles. If we come across anymore users that may need to be informed, we'll make sure to do it directly on their talk page. On Gwen Gale's comment, The sandbox is more or less to allow all the users involved the proper time (including the party being requested for Arbcomm, who has been informed of it) to compile the massive and spreadout different reports that they will have, so that Arbcomm's time won't be waisted. With it being an administrator, we're just trying to be as clear as possible. I'd prefer another way if someone had a suggestion. Hooper (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My main worry would be that comments there might be swayed by a lack of input from some (very unintentionally) excluded editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Campainging through the use of the article talk pages seems quite inappropriate, and I would assume these are the articles that you have disputes with this user? This is oughtright WP:CANVASSing for arbcom participants.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On each of those talk pages, there are users who both support the user in question and users who do not support him. I also recently made sure to inform, on his user talk page, a user who highly supports the user. Trying our best to get as fair a response as possible. Hooper (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. The draft RFAR is plainly frivolous and has no chance of being accepted. Best ignore it and get back to our regularly scheduled whatever-it-is-we-are-doing-here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin can be plainly proven to have went against admin policy and it is "frivolous". That is an interesting opinion indeed. Hooper (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is considered frivolous because Jimbo and William know each other personally. My guess is that Arbcom, who Jimbo has the final say of who stays on or goes, will not want to ruffle the feathers of a friend of Jimbo's. Not even if he has violated the blocking policy twice this month, and the protection policy once. I worry if the laundry list posted to the RfC pans out, that this can end up getting news coverage if Jimbo steps in. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not know William M. Connelly personally, actually. I do know dozens and dozens of admins, users, etc., personally, but not Professor Connelly. We have exchanged some email correspondence, none of it of a personal nature, something that I do with hundreds of people. Even if I did know him personally, though, I think we can all be quite confident that the ArbCom can judge matters independently. I think the ArbCom members themselves will testify 100% that they will vote for what they see as the truth, without regard to how I might feel about it. And I think they will also testify that I have never done anything to lead anyone to believe I would overturn a decision of theirs based on a friendship. (Though I must repeat that, in this case, I don't happen to know Professor Connelly, though I do admire his work from a distance as many people do.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Jimbo will stick his head out and defend any blatant admin misconduct simply on the basis of his acquaintance with the offender. To do show would greatly affect and offend the volunteers, and moreover, I believe Jimbo to be a man of integrity. For example, I recall the incident of a personal friend of Jimbo's, having been hired, and served on arbom, etc. who was exposed as lying about his credentials. Jimbo, despite his friendship with the person abusing the communities trust, did not take his side; rather he was asked to step down. Likewise, there is no reason to think that William's abuse of the tools as a violation of the communities trust, will cause Jimbo would intervene in defenses someone if the facts show the person is guilty of the offense. I do not believe WP suffers from such crony corruption, as previous examples prove. Its essential that we all follow the "rule of law" here. The volunteer nature of this project demands these basic standards, along with transparency, and other appropriate due process norms in keeping with Wikipeda ethos.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"...William's abuse of the tools...." This has not been proved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well said and I apologize for my statement. I do not think that Jimbo will read it, however I do believe you to be correct and I should have assumed better. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact, every time I see a supposed "invincible" but absusive admin who violate WP core policies rebuked by the community, and stripped of those tools, I gain confidence and respect in the project. I'm thinking about Mongo, for an example. It should be a warning to heed for all admins not to let their feelings of being invaunerable and above the law, get to their head. To do so requires a reality check that will confirm the confidence we give the process.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not know this. I placed a note on his (Jimbo's) talk page, though he probably has assistants or something. Even if he supports William, he should be aware if they are acquanted and that acquaintance could tip the debate into POV either way. But this discussion is probably not warranted here. Hooper (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not have assistants to read my Wikipedia talk page. The media may like to pretend I am some kind of celebrity, but actually I am just a Wikipedian like you. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notices from the talk pages. Talk pages aren't for gathering evidence against other users - they're there to help build articles.-Wafulz (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not any misconduct on the part of WMC, and should this frivolous arbcom case be accepted, I shall provide evidence that this is the case. Jtrainor (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will not be alone by any means. AN/I has already reviewed and taken this view. But I doubt Arbcom will take it on since it isn't too hard to see through it. --BozMo talk 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire situation is a phenomenon that has been remarked on before here, with the following sequence of events:

1. Admin arrives and tries to clean up bad article 2. People with WP:OWN issues/POV warriors/etc edit war 3. Said people are blocked or otherwise sanctioned 4. Said people complain about an "involved admin" misusing his tools.

As I have stated before, people who attempt to game the system in such a fashion should be severely punished. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is how you two feel you are more than welcome to sign on and show your side, whether on the current sandbox or when it gets sent to the Committee. All views are welcome. However, this discussion has steered away from the reason we are on this page, and continued discussions here should be discouraged so we aren't taking up time of those who maintain this noticeboard. You are more than welcome to voice any opinions or views on the sandbox talk page. Hooper (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching that sandbox in any way-- I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than harrassment directed at WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You might wan to review WP:AGF. Your comments here violate this. Its not an option, its a requirement. Instead of focusing on motivations of editors, we should simply note the facts. The facts speak plaining enough, and those will stand out for evaluation by arbCom.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever that page is it is no official attempt to gather opinions. Opinions have already been given at AN/I, with a broad consensus of Admins (for whose opinion AN/I exists) supported the view that WMC had broken no rule. Until (and if) Arbcom agree to re-open what looks like a closed case I don't see much point in wasting our time. On top of which a correctly formulated RfC would seem to be a prerequisite for Arbcom accepting the case and is missing. Whether an RfC should be openned about the conduct of the accusers is another issue but I don't see much point--BozMo talk 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There was no consensus that supported the view you cite. In fact several pointed out that what William did was a misuse of admin tools, or proper protocol with its use given his involvement in the dispute. I'm not sure how you can say you don't see much point, unless you think selectively only blocking editors with whom you are in an active edit war with, and placing protection and then editing through the protection, and as well as generally not respecting the consensus process--if all this is no big deal for an admin to comport himself, then, and only then, can I understand your point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Connelley is one of the most incivil admins we have and this arbcom request is long overdue. Asking people in the global warming walled garden to participate was proper. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "walled garden" which contains a featured article, and has been favorably written up in the mainstream press where it was described by an independent academic as "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia"? ([6]) We could do with more such "walled gardens". MastCell Talk 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I read this link. All of it. Spending a lot of my time reverting vandalism and other nonsense is really soul-destroying. It makes me wonder why I should bother. It makes me wonder whether the open model is appropriate. Reviews like this renew my confidence. Whether I am physically able to continue doing this remains to be seen. But it's hopeful, against all the ludicrous and mostly unjustified criticism we attract. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only semi-online so this will be brief. My personal opinion is that asking for input on arbcomm cases on the pages where the conflicts have occurred is quite appropriate. My thanks to the people who have been kind above. But I'm not a professor :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd[edit]

Because such actions have a history of being contentious, I am noting here that I summarily closed this with a deletion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, after learning about the issue at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have actualy done your job per the rules, but actually failed because a simple google search shows that, far from the single piece of gossip shown in the google cache of his previous wp bio, there are at least 4 other notable reasons for his documentation, not least invlolvement in one of the biggest police cases in the UK in the 2000's MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Mick, the close doesn't stop a rewrite that is NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who initiated the AfD, and added a report at WP:BLPN on the same subject out of fear that the article was going to be kept though it was a blatant BLP violation, I strongly support these actions. I have no problem with a good, neutral article be written. Corvus cornixtalk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami[edit]

During the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami, user User:Linlikai removed my recorded "Delete" vote without my permission, here is the diff[7]. I have restored my vote and placed a comment about what happened at the AfD page. Subsequently, User: Melissagoethe placed the SPA tag on all my comments, here is the diff[8]. His placing of the SPA tag on my comments was reverted by User:KleenupKrew, here is the diff[9]. After that User: Melissagoethe restored the SPA tags on my comments and accused me of having removed them earlier (aven though they were removed by KleenupKrew) and accused me of having "practised hypocrisy", here is the diff[10]. An easy check of my contributions will show that I have been editing Wikipedia since Aug 2007 and have well over 500 edits on multiple topics, far from being an SPA. On the other hand both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai are obvious SPAs who made few or no edits outside the topic of this AfD.

I request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at this case and talk to both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai, and also remove the SPA tags placed on my comments in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look like socks to me.--Phoenix-wiki 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I did remove the SPA tags about User:Nsk92 as obvious vandalism, as a quick look confirmed that Nsk92 has a long and varied editing history. The three users arguing for "keep" on this article, User:Melissagoethe, User:Linlikai, and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY have made no edits outside the topic, and the latter two accounts were created today (probable sockpuppets). The article itself looks like a complete hoax and can probably be speedied unless somebody can provide credible sources this person actually exists. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a suspected sockpuppet case concerning these users. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Melissagoethe. TheMile (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear administrators, I refer to the article with great disappointment in the moral standards that I have been exposed to in my short while attempting to contribute to this community.
Firstly, I object to User:KleenupKrew for editing the article to skew it in his favor, repeatedly, especially in the practice of various tags, without mention. And further more, deleting parts of my edits without due mention. While he prides himself for "cleaning up", I beseech the administrators to look into cleaning up his choice of morals. User:Nsk92 has kindly looked up for his misdeed for me as proof. [11] He should be prevented from further malpractice of such. I cannot accept that he has harbored an agenda against me and refused to justify it with me - something which I'll be happy to be answerable to. I am in no knowledge of why he has chosen to align me with various other members whom I have no knowledge of via the SPA tag: please do a whois to validate that I am speaking the truth. In fact, why would I choose to leave my message in which I have answered to User:Nsk92's post yet remove his post by proxy? Please see the third reply.
Secondly, with regards to User:Nsk92. I do apologize for the matter that I have mistakenly placed him responsible for User:KleenupKrew's misdeed (see above). However, this does not free him from fault. He said, " have got some nerve accusing me of being an SPA. Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" I see not why he is implying that he has a certain superiority for being registered for less than a year longer than I have. Quantity does not imply quality. He used his 'contributions' as a premise, but upon a quick look, what time he had spent earlier here has not shown his standards to be any better. For example, see his repeated undoing of revisions at [12]. Here, it serves a point to question: he is quick to cite WP policies for his backing, but he has failed to mention one of particular poignancy for his case [13]. I see not why he is practising double standards on this matter. And for his information, the person in mention in my article does have a Friendster account which outstrips his term of presence as a registered user here: but I had fairly omitted that as a source for it cannot produce a proof with neutrality. She also has a set of notes as a TA at MIT on the OCW - dated back to Fall 2004, but I had chosen to omit that as it does not provide anything useful for my article. Does August 2007 mean anything? No. Absolutely nothing when it comes to merit.
Thirdly, I address User:TheMile. As seen [14], he had adopted a very lax set of standards in proving his point and inquiring on the matter. He has made passing remarks and fleeting attempts that would obviously not have generated a find of any relevance to my article: be it on his supposed status as a doctoral candidate (for which his candidacy and the truth of this claim I doubt) He also claimed that I had made logical fallacies in my good-willed responses where I clearly have not. I had also provided means of finding articles, kindly, for which he refused to, giving a generalization that everything should be in English as he wishes.
Fourthly, it disturbs me insofar that I have been accused of all matter of ethics pertaining to my integrity in this place, and where I have been falsely accused of creating multiple accounts, creating single-purpose accounts, creating this, creating that, everything on the grounds of surface value. In all, this place proved to be a disgrace: one where term of registration is equivocated as merit, one where hypocrisy is intertolerated between members of equal standing, and where double standards are practised in the misquotation of policies as tools to prove their points. These standards far deviate from that I have expected on an encyclopedia, one which I wished to contribute to. Thank you for showing me that this is a place where my ethics will degrade: for I will desist to condescend to these users' standards and comment further. I also hope that other new users get to see this: what they're getting themselves into. For these users, I recommend you to lay low for a 8 to 9 months, then you can start to act like User:Nsk92, claiming credit and merit where it is not deserved - just because you chose to register 8 to 9 months earlier.

I also accept the administrators' decision to request me to stop commenting on the AfD, which I see the rationale for. Melissagoethe (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not "claiming credit or merit" for anything, I am just claiming that your accusation of me being an WP:SPA is blatantly false, and my long and varied contribution history of editing on multiple topics is proof of that. Regarding "laying low" for 8-9 months, I did not do that either. I did not do much editing in October-November but I have been actively editing since January 2008, as a look through my contribution list proves. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You, describing your motive under a different light, do not hide what is unequivocally obvious in what was typed: "Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" Anyone with the slightest comprehension of the language can catch the nuances when you made it clear, "What about you??" Benefit of doubt COULD have been given if this wasn't there, and I would have sincerely apologized for that matter - BUT, it wasn't such. Furthermore, I did not mention laying low as something you have done, but I explicitly advise people who wish to add weight to their cause to follow your example of attributing merit to your time as a registered user if attitude of your kind is to be condoned. I did, however, state that a look through your contribution list shows up works that do not show the consistency deserving of someone with merit. Compare: I have been glad to revise my sources where discussed to meet the community's needs within my short list of contributions, yet you, on a quantitatively comparable extent (I refer to your contributions in August 2007) have perpetually undone revisions on a repeated basis. Technically speaking, you have indeed a single purpose account: and that seems to be grounded in perpetuating your ego (continually undoing revisions to an article in your favor, referring a matter as this to administrators as a major disruption on my case although I have been fully cooperative to listen and answer to constructive and unconstructive criticisms alike etc.) I also question the correctness of "single purpose account" for my case: I have just started my account - of course my first article contribution would appear as a single purpose: because I can't possibly have that many 'purposes' when I'm busily working on one single article. This brings me to question why user:KleenupKrew's false allegations, one which TO THIS POINT HE HAS NOT ADMITTED, were condoned while I, mistakingly, and acceptingly of my mistake, have to be lambasted. I demand a whois, and if proven that I have no connection to those you have been falsely drawing relations between me with, a public apology otherwise an equal treatment to him as I had received, in all fairness. Melissagoethe (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissagoethe (talkcontribs) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Edit x2: Correction of grammatical errors as well as signing off.
I read the lengthy arguments by Melissagoethe, and they amount to WP:LAWYER wikilawyering, convoluted accussations of bad faith against User:TheMile, User:KleenupKrew and User:Nsk92, and refusal to admit any wrongdoing from her part.
Notice that Melissa is requesting a checkuser (a "whois") to be conducted on User:Melissagoethe and her alleged socks User:Linlikai and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick note that I blocked him for edit warring, even though I was one of the editors who reversed his inclusion of information about him in May 12. If there's any objection, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. BencherliteTalk 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You bad boy, removing non-notable information from articlespace. Terrible. Have a cookie. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]


block log NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made the following legal threat: All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.[15] Please block him. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That diff's a week old, and doesn't strike me as a clear legal threat. Why is this suddenly an issue, so far after the fact? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Luna here, this isn't a clear threat at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's suddenly an issue because he made more last night in a sudden burst of incivility, example [16]. It's also in issue because of the Arbcom case these pages are under. See [17] for more links and discussion. RxS (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That just strikes me as a rant rather than a legal threat, to be honest. Probably best just to post civility warnings at the moment, though his last edit suggests he's left for a while anyway. It wouldn't appear to be a great loss if he was blocked, though. Black Kite 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the former link should be placed with the other evidence shown at the latter link? If it is being discussed at AE I'm not sure that it needs to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It was placed there last night. See the full (such as it is) discussion with links. [18] See the Arbcom case here [19] I'm stupefied that we have to put up with this crap. RxS (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that the link shows the contribution being made a week ago. As RxS writes, the message was placed at User talk:Haemo last night. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I'm an idiot, apparently. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I previously marked this as resolved, as we are in agreement that this is not a legal threat. Can we re-resolve it now? :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's we? It's very clearly a legal threat. All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.? That's pretty clear. In any case he's been blocked now...RxS (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We = everyone but you so far (with the exception of Ice Cold Beer). The statement made is not a clear threat, just a general observation (whether its a correct one or not remains to be seen as I'm unsure of edit histories being admissible in court). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it could definitely be taken both ways. I read it more like "someone's going to get you eventually" than "I am filing papers in Florida" but whatever, the discussion is over. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinated Distruption?[edit]

Random IPs are running through and deprodding, detagging (especially merge tags), reversing consensus based merges, and performing straight out vandalism on various anime and manga related articles. Each article is being hit multiple times by random IPs. So far, I personally have had to have at least seven articles protected to stop it, but they just keep moving on to more. During one of the first hits, one of the IPs implied in a message on Four War Gods that someone had spammed 4Chan with requests to come mess with the articles[20]. Articles I know of that have been hit so far Four War Gods (7 before RPP), Utsugi (5 before RPP), GetBackers story arcs (at this point, after 4 I sent to RPP), Brain Trust (GetBackers), TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, and TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3. Tasuku Meguro may be the next on (3 so far). I've posted in the project to see if any others have been hit.

It is possible that it may be specific against me as all of those are ones I performed the merges on, and another one hit was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate. However, I'd prefer not to be totally paranoid about it :P.

Either way, there are so many IPs doing this, that I'm not sure what else can be done by keep sending the pages to RPP, but figure I should post here to see if there are any other options. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other methods of dealing with 4chan idiocy too. Unfortunately, sometimes it just takes a lot of it before they go on to something else. Since there do seem to be some specific targets here, RPP is likely not a bad idea as specific targets make themselves known either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I really hope they get bored soon. Tasuku page is now also at RPP. It sucks that its so many IPs...can't even do any temporary range blocks :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way of determining the likely targets of 4chan guided vandals? Short periods of semi-protection should increase the ennui factor considerably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone might be spamming news of article mergers in WP:ANIME on 4chan in a way to disrupt the process because one person disagrees with it. However, I don't know of many who would take the time to copy/paste a Wikipedia link, and vandalize it, if they saw one or more posted on 4chan, unless the one spamming the links is not coming off as calling for disruption. In that case, the spammer is merely spamming the links, and disrupting the 4chan boards, therefore, the 4channers get angry at the spammer, and take out their frustration on the links the spammer provided, namely the Wikipedia articles listed above. It might not even be anything more than the spammer merely providing the links and nothing more, letting the 4channers do the rest as the spammer expects them to. It's actually quite logical when you think about it, because the spammer by him or herself can't do anything, as if they tried they'd just get blocked; it would make much more sense to gather a group of vandals and let them do the work. In that case, either we wait it out and let the spammer get tired, or we wait until the 4channers don't want to deal with it anymore and they even ignore it; or we just ignore it and revert.-- 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish there was a way to determine. I can't navigate 4chan's site worth a darn, so haven't seen any specific posts, just the one vandal who left the message about it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, more of that article[edit]


insofar that the discussion is more extensive over at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes more of that article everyone is already annoyed with: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. This time we have an admin, JzG, removing content through the protection. He did so stating there was never consensus to add it in the first place, even though its been in the article in numerous forms for months. To show JzG is obviously involved we have the following:

  • Previously removing it: [21]
  • Arguing it should not be included: [22], specific difs: [23] [24] [25]
  • Editing through protection: [26]

Can someone please revert the edit, or remove protection (less preferred) so everyone can edit equally. Also if you see the discussion only JzG and John Smith believe it should not be included at all, everyone else felt it should be to some extent, even if in a small version. This edit further was clearly not by consensus as the talk page shows, and clearly not a BLP or Copyright issue --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This was possibly an accident, so I have asked JzG as well as someone else had, to revert it. However barring that some3rd party admin intervention may be required. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a more extended discussion over at WP:AN. I suggest we close this and concentrate there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Would people care to take a look at the contributions of this new editor shown here. In particular, one at least of the images uploaded is not of the subject. I am pretty sure that the image of Clare Martin is not of Clare Martin. You can see photos of Clare here and here. I have queried it on the user's talk page, but the other images may be suspect also. --Bduke (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted this, considering it purported to have been taken at a time when Maxine Carr was still in prison. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours so we now need to clean up. --Bduke (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Between us I think it is done. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All deleted; checking, none of them were of the claimed subjects, and the metadata was inconsistent with a claim of self-making. Now, having seen no other productive edits from this user, do we hope for the best or indef as a vandalism-only account? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest seeing what he does after 24 hours. If he vandalizes again, block indefinitely. --Bduke (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


User: is disrupting an ongoing AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in over 24 hours. Suggest ignore and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat, User:Nukeh[edit]


Would like a second pair of eyes here [27] please. Thanks, Fut.Perf. 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is that a legal threat? It sounds more like a threat of a legal threat. I wouldn't worry about it, though — he'll either do nothing, or make a real threat, in which case we will block him. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've extended to indef, that's clear enough to me, and even seems to refer to specific cases. If the user is willing to clarify their intents, I'm happy to listen, but no use taking chances in the meantime. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the block logs and contribs, I support the indef block. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and it's definitely a threat now: [28] - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted and protected by Nakon. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elspeth Monro socks[edit]

Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), who is indefblocked with an enormous amount of socks and IPs, is back vandalizing with yet more IPs and new sockpuppets. His M.O. is changing his old sock's pages with to "sockproven, or removing the notice altogether with poorly spelled summaries and "sk" in the summary, and generally adding comments to his own socks talk pages. All of these edits are Monro [29] as well as these [30]. And if you look at the contributions, you'll see he's created new socks as well. Simply following the path of the IPs contributing to the userpages and talks of other accounts and so on will generally bring you down a path to find HUGE numbers of disruptive Monro socks. To stop this sock talk page vandalism I suggest protecting all Monro sock user and usertalk pages (like we do with a certain other determined troll). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs in question. My solution would be to just delete all their pages, but some people may dislike that.-Wafulz (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If the only thing he (she?) is editing is their own sock talk pages, who the heck cares? If it is incivil RBI, if not, ignore it? Loren.wilton (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think in cases of sockpuppetry, it's important for admins and others who help stop socks to be able to see the accounts and contribs of the offender - this helps in recognizing patterns, and helps keep the offender from being able to continue on the same articles or with the same m.o.. If and when they try to return, this evidence makes it easier to catch them. I would have no problem with protecting the pages if the indef-blocked user is removing the sock tags. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User adding copyright content and then removing CSD I9 tags[edit]

PadmaDharma101 (talk · contribs) recently added copyright content to Brahma and the uploaded two copyrighted images Image:Brahmana.jpg and Image:Brahma hc67.jpg. Original sources for the edit/images are [31], [32] [33]. Since then the user has been removing the CSD tags, and apparently vandalizing my talk-page. Can some admin take a look ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Image Image:Brahmana.jpg is my image. if any user has any suspicion you can investagate yourself. --PadmaDharma101 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the exact same-seized image that was uploaded; and this is a link to a larger copy on the same wesbite, where the original Batik painting is on sale. Also notice the copyright notices on the website. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the images. PadmaDharma, first you upload copyrighted images and add copyrighted test to arcticles, then you vandalise other users' comments. If you continue that way, you may be blocked without further warnings. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP utilizing Semi-Protection Templates.[edit]

I've been checking the edit history of an anonymous IP user, and I just noticed this edit in his history. I didn't realize that Anonymous IP's can dole out Semi-Protection (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough. I removed the template. Obviously should not have been added. Enigma message 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Acupuncturist[edit]

A self confessed acupuncturist User:Jim Butler is edit warring on numerous acupuncture articles, most recently here[34] removing scientific research showing that acupuncture has no proven effect. He has ignored a request on his talkpage [35]. Any help in persuading him to the course of reason would be useful for the project. Mccready (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This absurd situation is explained below. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee has summarized the situation well below. I will add more there. I welcome scrutiny of my edits, because I think I do a good job here, and most editors (across the idealogical spectrum, from hardcore skeptics to devoted alt-med proponents) seem to agree. Have a look at my talk page and block log, Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log). For contrast, see Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).
With regard to the edit warring, I left a message at Talk:Acupuncture on April 10th explaining the various reasons why a long list in the lead section was inappropriate. Mccready did not respond. Instead, he just kept reverting, despite the fact that five different editors disagreed with his edits [36][37][38]