Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive413

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

206.78.117.227 Blanking pages[edit]

This anon IP has either blanked or vandalised pages for the past two days. It looks like they are trying to space the vandalism out so they don't get banned too easily. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a school ip -- just received a final warning, no reason to block unless they do it again after the warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As a note, it is better to report vandals to WP:AIV. — Wenli (reply here) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

attacked[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 24 hours by User:Persian Poet Gal — Wenli (reply here) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:190.17.129.41 attacked User:Elipongo using words like F***ER! . This could turn out to be more than a vandal's insult. This is the complete note --Megapen (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Their contributions were all personal attacks in the past 24 hours. Next time feel free to report someone whose comments are blatant personal attacks on WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School[edit]

Indy424242 (talk · contribs) listed Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. Calvin 1998 (talk · contribs) speedy tagged the AfD and vandal warned Indy424242. I declined the speedy and fixed the AfD. Not sure what's going on here, but seems odd. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd is right. I'm looking into it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
These are clearly students at the school. Indy424242 (talk · contribs) has edited pranks into the article. The nomination has nothing to do with deletion policy. The AfD should be closed as malformed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We delete middle schools anyway. One of those times we should just delete it summarily anyway. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that. Aside from somewhat interesting architecture there's not much to note about it. The two other middle schools in Palo Alto also have articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Middle schools aren't deleted, they are merged with the school district. So, basically same thing as deleted. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockmaster unblocking[edit]

A blind man can see the answer to that question, Deskana.

What's with the current rash of unblocking sockmasters? I mean, there's been, what, five or six threads on unblocking some perma-banned sockmaster or other, and most of them seem to be getting unblocked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Either a great step forward, or a great step back. Which one it is remains to be seen. --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A plague is upon Thebes. DurovaCharge! 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Step back imo. Too many people have been reading WP:AGF. Wizardman 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that I have problems unbanning/unblocking long term sock abusers. In the range of conduct violations, I rank socking above even POV-pushing, because with POVers, you know who they are and can revert. With socks you can never be certain who your dealing with. All this rushed embracing of banned sockmasters, some of whom refuse to admit they socked is something that concerns me. MBisanz talk 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiempo al tiempo, we will soon figure out if these are mistakes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate edit to WP:TOV by HiDrNick[edit]

This is absolutely inappropriate and really in not humorous in any way. Why disrupt this project page in such a way? Bstone (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While Nick has a valid argument he is presenting it in the wrong way. The purpose of that page is to give evidence as to why you should contact the police in a situation where there is a threat of violence (hence it being a essay), the purpose is not to attempt to disprove the information being offered, and if thats what needs to happen, it needs to happen on the talk page first. Tiptoety talk 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While I note that Jimbo did say that, it was nearly 2 years ago. He said this a little over one week ago. I think HiDrNick took what Jimbo said nearly 2 years ago, and has tried to misuse it. My 2c here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I missed the meeting where ANI became the first step in dispute resolution. Anyway, exaclty what gave you the impression that my edit was intended to be humorous? It wasn't. Do those who hold Jimbo's words in such mbox-enshrining high esteem dare to pick and choose which of His proclamations are mbox worthy, and which ones should be relegated to the talk page? Or perhaps it would be more sensible to leave His comments on the talk page, where He made them. I daresay that If Jimbo wanted to plaster His comments in an mbox on the front page of the essay itself, I'm sure He would have done it Himself---and I sure as hell wouldn't be reverting Him about it. :-P ➪HiDrNick! 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason humor was mentioned was because Gurch made several edits to that page and other pages which were justifiably excused as his way of being humorous. See above. Enigma message 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but clearly, I'm not nearly as funny as Gurch. ➪HiDrNick! 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe if you tried harder. ;) Enigma message 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, it's no secret that "Jimbo says.." are indeed used at will, and discounted at will. Whatever suits the admin and the moment, I'd presume. - ALLSTAR echo 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist threat[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: WP:DENY, come on guys... Tiptoety talk 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Found this on my watchlist, and think action is required, but what? [1] -MBK004 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the legal department been contacted? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well that's a stupid threat; made from a comcast connection in Michigan, so the FBI could find the household pretty easily if anyone cared to contact them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh God, we're not doing this again are we? Just ignore it. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I informed the TSA and DHS via their web forms with the diff. Bstone (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of pointless, the "terrorist" is in Michigan using a cable IP address, [2] its definitely someone playing a prank. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
So? If you yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded buliding, the police are still going to want a word with you. As I've stated before, there are jokes you just don't make.HalfShadow (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
They are rather common here, we should judge the situation carefully before wasting the time of government agencies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:TOV, I erred on the side of caution. It is a felony just making the threat. Bstone (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the correct action. WilyD 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
FBI called[edit]

Within just a few minutes of reporting the threat here I got a call on my phone from the FBI. The agent had already done a WHOIS and agreed with me it's 99.99% chance a kid who made a stupid comment, but that all threats of this nature must be investigated. What made it a little more concerning is that this is the first contribution of any sort from this IP. The FBI person said they will be contacting the WMF and alluded the location in which the threat came from will be getting a visit. I made it very clear to the FBI agent that I do not work for WMF, but rather am a volunteer editor and just a concerned citizen. He thanked me several times. I take threats to be serious- this one had a date/time and a location, so it passes my personal test, and as such I reported it. Bstone (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As they say, it is only perhaps a one in a hundred trillion chance that this is a valid threat. But, this could be threat number 100 trillion, so you never know. Always err on the side of caution in these matters. --FastLizard4 (TalkIndexSign) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing. It's their job to decide what can be dismissed and what can't, not Wikipedia editors. daveh4h 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake, anyone who read the message can figure that no terrorist will post a notice in :Wikipedia before acting, especially in such a childish and obvious matter, even further has anybody seen Al-Qaeda use English in their written communications? I haven't and there are some things that make it simple to distiguish between someone used to write in Arab and someone using the Latin alphabet, for example typos, puntuation and other things derrived from writting "backwards". Perhaps WP:WASTEOFTAXMONEY should serve as a redirect for WP:TOV in the same manner that WP:DRAMA redirects here... - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think that the redirect is appropriate please do it. I will, however, revert it as inappropriate humor and some may even view it as plain vandalism. Bstone (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in vandalism after spending two years without doing so, perhaps you should differentiate sarcasm from serious statements. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Bstone for doing the right thing. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, anyone not living under a rock would know "JIHAD ALLAH" is from the movie Team America: World Police. Durka durka allah! - ALLSTAR echo 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if Pranky McNumbnuts has to explain to Mummy and Daddy WHY the nice FBI man wants a word with them, has the holy living bejabbers scared out of him by the threat of felony charges, and takes away the appropriate lesson (that being, "don't be a fecking idiot"), then the universe as a whole has been improved very slightly and some good has come of it all. Do I appreciate that it probably cost 1.2 million of my tax dollars? Maybe not so much--but hey, sometimes small improvement comes at great cost. But that, I'm sure, is probably just me. Gladys J Cortez 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
^Agree. The fact that junior there, and not to mention everyone watching this incident here, all learn a lesson from this not to make idle terrorist threats as pranks is reason enough to say reporting it was the right thing to do. If you ignore this stuff you only encourage it, which will make the real thing that much harder to spot. Equazcion /C 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Terrorist threats... How much I love them... Let me count the blocks... -- Cat chi? 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • what haoenned to revert block ignore?
  • all the people who don't want to call the feebs: you don't have to. dont stop others doing it thoouh if they want too but they should'nt be making drama about t either. 10:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It always fascinates me when people do something because of the "one in a trillion chance" that something bad could happen. What a complete and utter waste of time, money, and effort. Last I checked, I can't "stop others from doing it", nor did I try, but I can point out that it doesn't make sense. Doing something because of the one in a trillion chance that something bad could happen means you don't have time to act on the thing with a one in 10,000 chance of happening. In other words, prioritize, ignore trolls, and RBI. I don't think it's a coincidence that these kinds of threats seem to be occuring more frequently now that we seem to be getting more worked up about them than we used to. --barneca (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

does no one else think that phone call was worth it just so we can imagine the looks on some kids face when the FBI knock on his door. Seriously though, you say theres a one in a trillion chance of this being a real terrorist threat, but even that miniscule tiny chance is enough to make it worth the effort, even if its just the projects safety we're guaranteeing. If you heard about the school shooting threat that was on here a few weeks ago, you may have seen that wikipedia got a fair bit of stick for not reacting earlier. Imagine if one day there is a real threat of terroism reported on here(touch wood), and its reported and found to be real and stopped. Suddenly, wikipedia will come under massive scrutinity, and so it'll come out there have been more threats, some of which we ignored. The public backlash to something like that could destroy any credibility the project has--Jac16888 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was a waste of time, because you never know. The FBI, I'm sure, tracks thousands of false leads every year and are used to it. They probably don't mind false leads, because they get paid either way, and a false lead is less likely to result in an agent getting shot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a one in a trillion chance; that was someone else's made up number. But whatever the actual number, I'm saying just the opposite of what you're saying; that if there's a nearly infinitesimal chance that this was a serious risk, then no, it doesn't make sense to make that call "just in case". It feeds the trolls, and encourages, rather than discourages, imitators who think they're smarter, and won't get caught, but who notice the attention it gets. Just like in real life, we're allowed to use our judgement. I don't think you and I (or, to be more accurate, most of the people on this thread, and I) will agree on this, as we seem to be coming at this from completely different perspectives, but I'm just hoping that someone reading this thread realizes that at least there isn't 100% community support for feeding trolls, and if they run across obviously silly stuff like this they really do have the option of WP:RBI, and not report it here, without being a horrible person. --barneca (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It only feeds the trolls if they know about it. I think these kinds of things should be handled behind the scenes rather than openly here. That's what e-mail is for. Someone reports the incident, nothing else is shown here, then it turns up "resolved" with no added comments, thus depriving other trolls from knowing what happened. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the chance that by calling the police 400 people could be saved from certain death was 0.0000000000001% and the chance that calling the police would result in the prankster's unsuspecting mother being shot by a paranoid SWAT team was 0.000000001%, then calling the police was irresponsible. The same argument applies if the chance that a police officer who would otherwise stay behind his desk is caused to drive to the kid and dies in a car accident with a 0.000000001% chance. Paranoia is not rational. This particular instance of paranoid behaviour seems to be an example for what is known as zero-risk bias. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense and apparent credibility do figure into it. But the idea that we shouldn't "bother" the FBI is a risky attitude. They are there to do a job. There have been a number of threats in America that weren't taken seriously and which resulted in murder and mayhem. Better to take the cautious approach and contact the authorities, and let them decide, rather than us playing guessing games, as to whether a "threat" is real or not. That's their job, and it's what we pay them to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
All of you stating that this is just a "harmless" prank and that we shouldn't "waste time" in contacting the proper authorities are the reason those authorities exist. For your protection. I don't care if it was a 6-yr-old kid playing around, as stated previously there are things you do not do - like yelling "fire" in a theater, saying "bomb" in an airport, and making a terrorist threat - joke or otherwise. It will be a valuable lesson learned for this child and his/her parents when a federal agent calls or knocks on the door to investigate and sternly let them know the severity of such a "harmless prank." Do not try to argue or lecture about tax dollars unless you work in the budgeting department of one of these agencies. As a military man, I must say I am proud of those above who took the action to call and point out the threat. I commend you all for a job well done. For those who cry about it being trivial, I tell you stand aside and let others take charge of protecting you. Rarelibra (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the action of contacting authorities on this matter. Not so much because I think there is a remote possibility that the threat is real (in all likelihood it isn't, but that's not my call to make), but because simply making such a threat is in and of itself unacceptable (and depending on circumstances, in many jurisdictions, unlawful) behavior in a civilized society. Reporting it has not wasted anyone's time or anyone's tax dollars, it was the person who posted this threat who has done that. If posting a threat like that brings a stern consequence, then that will discourage this person, and others, from making "jokes" like this. No, the consequence of making such a threat should not be five years at Guantanamo, but a visit from an FBI officer should be enough to put a stop to any further temptations like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Possible minor's contact details[edit]

Resolved: Edits oversighted - Alison 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this, on the [redacted] page somebody has posted personal details saying that they're a twelve year old girl- I may be cynical but the phrase "I am a hearmless 12yr old" seems odd to me. I haven't clicked on the link because I'm at work and suspicious, but this might need admin attention? Thanks MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It's been sorted now. Good call, indeed! In future, you can always request that these edits be permanently deleted or "oversighted" by clicking on this link and following the instructions there. Thanks again for letting us know - Alison 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputive edits of 68.5.250.146[edit]

Please see the long log of vandals by this user of it's another ID user:Nyisnotbad.
There is long priod of vandals by this man, And too many discussion were had no results.
Now Mazandarani language inaccurately protected and protected to the false version with no proper, honesty none of sources talked about it, And was a copy/paste of references i entered before, Thank you for your care. --Parthava (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, part 5[edit]

Please note that this move is being bold. This thread was heading towards 100k, and I feel as a result it should be moved to a new location. Please keep all discussion centralized there for consistency. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Prison IP vandalism or threat?[edit]

{{resolved|Likely vandalism, RBI}}

Unresolved: BoP notified, but I still think someone ought to contact the person referenced in the edit.

Okay this is probably just somebody being a nuisance but what makes it moderately scary is that this IP comes from a prison. The diff is vandalism because the David Sobel article is about an "education writer" not the lawyer from Tulsa or his daughter. I checked and yeah there actually is a lawyer from Tulsa called David Sobel - and that's what's worrying.

This IP (User:206.138.130.3) has a litany of final warnings for vandalism - the latest issued by myself at 19:42 (UTC) on Friday (may 2nd)[3]. The edit in question was made about an hour later. This IP also has a previous final warning from April 28th that was ignored by this user and has not been acted upon. I was going to report to AIV but since it may or may not be a threat I thought more eyes would be helpful--Cailil talk 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand; what is the problem? Rudget (Help?) 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I could be over reacting but this IP belongs to the Federal bureau of Prisons and the person using it made a post about the daughter of a lawyer. I could be putting 1 & 1 together and getting 11 but this looks "ify" to me--Cailil talk 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to point out that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is a government agency that administers federal prisons, not a prison itself. —Travistalk 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's likely a prison: Today, the Bureau consists of more than 114 institutions... The Bureau is responsible for the custody and care of approximately 201,000 Federal offenders. Approximately 85 percent of these inmates are confined in Bureau-operated correctional facilities or detention centers[4]. I think oversight is called for here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is highly unlikely that it is a prison. The IP resolves to Washington, DC, the the land of federal agencies. In any case, oversighting the comment by the IP, “David Sobel is also a lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Father of Amanda Sobel. the sweetest girl I've ever know,” seems to be overkill. —Travistalk 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said I might have over reacted - but if you're sure there's nothing sinister here what about the fact that the IP has ignored two final warnings?--Cailil talk 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP winds up at bop.gw.customer.alter.net. Following this, "gw" could be a two letter code for their prison facility in Gilmer, West Virginia. I wouldn't be startled if the billing info for a national network service pointed to Washington DC. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about network naming and addressing, the fact that gw is between bop and customer makes me think that it stands for the BOP gateway from AlterNet. —Travistalk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it could easily mean gateway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How is a (possible) prisoner vandalising any different to a normal shared IP? Just revert, warn/block and leave it. There was nothing threatening about it...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the worry is WP:BLP. It could be a taunt that someone is aware of the true name of a family member. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Dendodge if I was a lawyer and a "(possible) prisoner" was making strange posts about my daughter I'd be concerned. But as I said I might have watched one too many episodes of the Sopranos and am over reacting. Not sure that we need to go to oversight though--Cailil talk 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One last comment then, only for more context, looking at the IP's posts, they seem to be feminist-related. gw could also stand for a "satellite" women's camp at Greenville, Illinois. [5] Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:RBI, can we again mark this as resolved? —Travistalk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking (and for your patience). Since I now think this could easily be someone killing time on a prison Internet connection at a women's prison, yes, I think we can mark it as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it Travis and sorry if I over-reacted by posting here--Cailil talk 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
RBI except for the fact that no one did step 2, apparently. Enigma message 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Given it's a shared IP and has settled down for now, maybe the block won't be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... I do think it is at least plausible that the edit was made from a prison, and, even if it's not, this would still be something the Bureau of Prisons ought to be notified about. Since no-one participating in this discussion seems to have actually done that, I've just fired off an e-mail to info#bop.gov (munged to avoid spambots). I think it would also be a good idea to notify David Sobel of Tulsa, Oklahoma himself, but I haven't been able to find any contact info beyond the address and phone number(s) on this page, and I'm somewhat reluctant to start making transatlantic phone calls to random attorneys myself. Could someone closer by maybe handle this? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Ilmari Karonen. I too thought it was an "ify" one but I'm unsure whether it is as Travis thinks just a run of the mill nuisance or something more sinister. Like you, I can't be making transatlantic phone-calls so perhaps somebody in that region should look at doing that. Even if it isn't harassment by a prisoner the BOP's Ip is being abused by someone so notifying them was, IMHO, a good idea. I've never notified a server admin about IP abuse so I wasn't sure how to go about doing that.
And BTW I think the fact that this has been a vandal only account for months and has ignored a number of final warnings should be addressed - if not now when it vandalizes another page--Cailil talk 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Smsarmad[edit]

Despite warnings, User:Smsarmad has been changing the denomination from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam in many articles on Pakistani politicians, and did so a few weeks ago using this anon. He first started removing the "Shi'a" part, then started replacing it with "Sunni". See this, this and the history pages of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Ayub Khan. He has decided to ignore the warnings and continue to impose his POV on these articles. See also WWGB who has been doing the same thing to these articles by removing references to "Shi'a Islam". LahoreKid (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see a content dispute, and I don't think most admins are familiar enough with the subject to even begin making comment about which reference is more reliable. I suggest that you take the matter to the Pakistan WikiProject for some third party opinion. I would also suggest that people ignore the sectarian rhetoric being bandied about (by ip accounts generally). There is nothing that admins can do in this instance, I fear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have got nowhere in my efforts to resolve this matter. Again this is a matter of possible sectarian pov editing, and the complainant contends that the majority of persons editing the Pakistan related articles and belonging to the Pakistan WikiProject are both Sunni Moslems and also unreliable in matters relating to the sect of article subjects. While this is a disappointing attitude I regret that I cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand - there unfortunately being precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia - and I am looking for opinions on how to progress this matter. Generally, I am looking for authoritive sources relating to various Moslem/Pakistani subjects in the matter of which sect they belonged to. Can anyone point me to one, or confirm that WikiProject Pakistan is populated with trustworthy editors (no matter their particulars of belief.) Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why I wasn't contacted after a discussion was started on me, even an administrator(a responsible person) is also involved in the discussion here. First thing please do see my edits at the article pages mentioned by the complainant, one can see that I even tried to add neutrality to the articles which was again reverted by the complainant. Secondly it is clearly a racist comment by the complaining editor that WikiProject Pakistan has majority of Sunni Muslims(an OR by complainant and that too a wrong one), can someone ask him that where did he find that majority of members of the project belong to the opposite sect to his. Here are some lists that may be useful for you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members, Category:WikiProject Pakistan Members, Category:Pakistani Wikipedians. Other thing is that whenever the disputed articles are vandalized the complainant thinks that it is being done by me and unreasonably put blames on me(like this and this and I can't accept that so please make a Check User case and ask him not to blame me unless check user confirms. --SMS Talk 04:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't contact you because I tried to resolve the matter of the basis of the alleged vandalism via the complainant - I was unable to take the accusation of bias at face value (simply because I am not familiar enough with the subjects) and I wanted there to be a definitive answer before I started contacting people and start trying to sort things out. If you believe that WikiProject Pakistan is sufficiently neutral to deal with this matter then I would gladly leave it to the Project. As I said right at the beginning, this is not a matter for admin intervention unless it can be established that there is vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right that it is clearly a content dispute, resolved at one page after a 3rd Opinion was asked by me but still remaining at the other article. And it will be better if some neutral person contact the project instead of me(being an active member of the project), because WikiProject Pakistan is still not aware of this dispute. Secondly please ask the complaining editor not to put blames on me blindly for sock puppetry, if he is so much strong in his this belief then ask him to make a case against me at WP:SSP or even would be better to do that at WP:RFCU. --SMS Talk 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace[edit]

As there is a continuous EditWar and confussion about the formation of the above institute at the article Diana, Princess of Wales, I like to acknowledge the following information.

The above institute is initiated by me on 31st August, 1997, the day Late Diana, Princess of Wales passed away and entered the initiation of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" in her condolence book for Late Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster House, Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 03rd September, 1997 and informed officially to His Excellency David Tatham, CMG the High Commissioner from the Court of Saint James to Sri Lanka at Westminster House, the same day.

(The above details are mentioned in the Articles of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which is formally incorporated as an association in Sri Lanka on 30th June, 1998.)

(The condolence book is currently kept at Kensington Palace.)

I have sent a copy of the articles of the association to OTRS.Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


A question for the above editor. I noticed that you had not edited wikipedia for over a year. What prompted you to check this particular article, at this particular time? It seems to be rather good timing, and I wondered if there was anything behind your return. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Heads up: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam. This could use administrative eyes. The editor was notified of the sock investigation three days ago, but doesn't mention that case here. Either needs guidance or possibly forum shopping. DurovaCharge! 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Further to all the "hoo - haw" arond this article/information let me say here and now. I'm done with the both articles and the surrounding wikidrama. Both the primary contributors in the dispute are at fault here and probably for a number of different reasons. I feel that they both have quite a history with Wiki and this subject before I arrived on seen and at this point can not AGF with either one (or their socks/additional accounts). I'd like some admins to have a good review of the whole thing but, am not willing to get any more deeply involved. Let me say sorry to anybody that I may have caused any aggravation to along the way. As I said at the Sock case please if you are Sennen goroshi or Bermudatriangle or them in any other guise don't bother contacting me in anyway shape or form until such time as I say I'm prepared to AGF again. Thank you everyone. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Feel free to show any form of evidence you wish that I am a sockpuppet, if you cannot back up your accusations, then don't make them. I consider the above to be a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Take your time to cool off. After reading your message elsewhere, I consider any dispute between the both of us to no longer an issue. I think everyone involved (including myself)could have chosen their words a little better. What is important is not some petty argument, but the article and the edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Users taking advantage of Mediation restrictions[edit]

I've noticed a few users taking advantage of the injunction proposed (and agreed to) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender and removing the tags from the articles in controversy, all of which were placed by the Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). I'm in particular concerned with Cozret (talk · contribs); he's removing tags calling them "anti-RPG" when in fact there is no such evidence of them being so. As I'm involved (having reverted tags due to there being no assertations of notability and myself abiding by the restriction), could an admin talk to Cozret? -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to hold removing more of Gavin.collins tags until they are done moderating. However, once it is established that he did nothing more then cut and paste a block of tags into every RPG article he could find. I'm going right back to preventing the removal of the hard and honest work people have done. --Cozret (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And as for your blatant assumption of bad faith towards Gavin? ("[...]Gavin.collins standard issue anti-rpg[sic] tagbox") -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How is blatant barnstorming every posting about RPGs with a cut and paste box of just about every tag you can think of not bad faith? I'm not sure how someone is suppose to take such an action. If you issue is with my view that it was in bad faith, I'd ask you how such an attack isn't in bad faith. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Because he has tagged other (unrelated) articles with such boxes, and in most cases they appear valid. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So, his random tagging process hit a single correct issue . . .and this makes it all good? --Cozret (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you read through Wikipedia policies - most of his tags hit correct issues. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So, that's the Wikipedia policy is it. Run through, slap the same block on every page you can find rather then engaging the authors about why you feel the page needs it, see if the page can be improved and help get it up to standards, then move on to the next? No wonder people think that just running through like a biker from hell slapping notices on everything will climb them up the ranks. --Cozret (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you read anything below this? Black Kite and Merkinsmum, both of whom are uninvolved, agree that the tags are (for the most part) legitimate. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes. The great league of notice box posters thinks it's all just grand. However, your appeal to popularity doesn't make something correct. "Policy" and rule-lawyering, doesn't make something correct. Now why not answer the question I put to you. --Cozret (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the correctness (or not) of all Gavin's taggings, what definitely isn't correct is removing tags that plainly belong there, such as your edit here which removed the primarysources tag from an article that is clearly only referenced by primary sources, or this edit removing the notability tag from an article that clearly asserts no notability at all. Black Kite 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please do stop - I know you're not an involved party and didn't agree to the restrictions that the rest of us agreed to, but nothing's going to kill the mediation process faster than attacking when someone's laid down their weapons to discuss a peace treaty, so to speak. All we are saying, is give peace a chance. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And how are you going to ensure that those articles, that people put a lot of work into, aren't going to get auto-removed while you all try to talk reason to someone who might or might not understand? I will hold until you are done, but I want to know how you are going to keep peoples work from being lost between then and now. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't ensure anything. However, if someone else other than Gavin tries to do something to them (which would also violate the spirit of the voluntary restrictions), then you have every right to grab someone's attention (or report it here), and I hope you do. If Gavin himself were to do something he agreed not to do, then that would show a lack of good faith on his part, but I can't see him doing that and I think we're all going to behave in the meantime. As one of those people who put a lot of work into various D&D articles I'm asking you to trust me for now. BOZ (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) A comment- A lot of the RPG articles do have notability issues when it comes to WP:RS such as you would find in a google news search- there are none or about one from an obscure fanzine or something. What is being done to Gavin.collins because of his attempts to remove what he believes (and I often agree with him following WP:RS) non-notable articles from the wiki is a form of bullying IMHO. See where the fans ganged up on him, but uninvolved members of the community saw the valid notability concerns for these articles (and no he hasn't tagged every one- that would be impossible as the fans have written so many) on the RfC which the fans with a disproportionate sense of these subject's importance (IMHO) made Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins.Merkin's mum 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Merkins, I'm a fan/DM, and I still find his tags correct. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked through Gavin's most recent taggings. For example Carceri - 5 tags (notability, in-universe, unsourced, OR, plot) - First 3 correct, fourth one correct but unnecessary because of sourcing tag, fifth one probably unnecessary. This seems to be representative of Gavin's taggings - most are correct, but some are unnecessary, and too many tags are ugly and irritate people working on the articles. In most cases, unless there's a pressing other issue, I'd stick to the notability and sourcing tags - if those issues are fixed, most others are too. Black Kite 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Gavin, Jeske, myself, and a few others involved in that case are under voluntary restriction until the case is over, to neither add nor remove tags on D&D articles unless we all agree on them (which, of course, we probably won't all agree) - this is why it is a problem for an uninvolved editor to add or remove possibly controversial tags, because none of us can do anything about it right now. Otherwise, Jeske would probably have reverted the changes himself. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree with Kite. Although his methods aren't the most endearing to believers in these articles (understandably) he's entitled to his usually valid opinion on notability and sourcing. Fans tend to respond to any questioning of notability with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith etc, not just on these articles but that can happen over any articles, a gang of fans attack someone (not saying all people on an article are like this.) I can understand his dislike of articles he and others uninvolved consider non-notable- but he should try not to let it overwhelm him to the extent that he adds other tags. But he should get some backup in terms of supportive vibes and understanding from the wiki IMHO (and I think he does a bit.) What he's trying to do with the sourcing and notability etc efforts and AfDs etc is good, and I'm impressed at his tirelessness in the face of what leads editors like me to quickly give up trying to do what needs to be done to a lot of these articles.:) Merkin's mum 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I should probably point out that I've seen Gavin post on other editors talk pages since he agreed to these restrictions, using the fact that he's involved in a RfM to suggest that anyone removing tags he placed prior to that point are attempting to take advantage of his situation. That in and of itself comes across as a subtle form of bullying, and certainly doesn't assume good faith towards any other editors. That said, the heavy removal of tags by Cozret isn't exactly helpful at the moment, and it risks making Gavin look like the victim here when mediation is attempting to address many editors' concerns towards -his- actions. Many of Gavins tags are correct, if heavy handed and annoying along with the tone he takes towards other editors all too frequently, but I wouldn't remove large numbers of his tags without addressing the issues (if and when they exist). Other articles such as one where he openly admitted knowing nothing of the topic, yet tagged dozens of points at random with OR tags (including some where the source was listed within the very text he tagged as being OR) are a more pointed view of what many of us see as a long-term, systemic problem that hopefully mediation can begin to address.Shemeska (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
See, there's a number of people who've reacted very badly to Gavin's mass taggings, partly because they feel they aren't valid (and in my view they're usually wrong about that) and partly because of the hostile feeling there is to it. Gavin has even, sadly, been the target of vandalism seemingly because of this. However, there are a number of us who agree with the majority (or at least a lot) of Gavin's tagging, but take issue with his reaction in the cases where there is reasonable opposition to some of the tags. There are other issues (regarding behaviour both from and towards Gavin) that could be talked about, but they're not major and life's too short. As a final note, the restrictions as I understand them allow Gavin to replace tags that were unilaterally removed; there seems to remain a question on tags removed with general consensus, but not Gavin's agreement. SamBC(talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree that the tags are usually valid, downgrading it to frequently valid. On the article Eilistraee, Gavin has placed 5 tags: Notability, In-Universe, Weasel, In-Text Citations, and Context. Of these, only two are valid. The use of the weasel words template reeks of someone simply trying to blanket an article he doesn't like in as many tags as possible. The claim that the introduction of the article has insufficient context is also quite untrue. While the notability is in question, Gavin tagged the article as non notable fictional location, when Eilistraee is a character/diety. To reiterate what many have said before, it is this carelessness and demonstration that Gavin does not read the articles he tags that people have the issue with, not that he tags them in the first place. See also this version [6] of Lady of Pain, noting the same batch of tags placed and the incompleteness of the edit summary. 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Elections are historical[edit]

ALl the hallmarks of the Civil POV Push we so often discuss but so seldom do anythign about here on AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who has a history of not following consensus. The main problem with his edits is that "potential" and "declined" candidates are not candidates at all. So they do not belong in candidates' lists. They could be included in the body of an article if there are valid journalistic sources with linkable citations. But some of those names in the articles currently in question do not have valid citations or have become dead links. I've posted warnings about citations which have become dead links already for the appropriate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Questioning on the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page[edit]

Crass conversationalist has just come back from being inactive, and at last count had added 50+ fact tags to the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page. Since it's a 9/11 attacks page, I thought the admins should be notified. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Way too may {{fact}} tags - just think of the people with screen readers trying to wade through all that. I've removed them all and stuck a {{refimprove}} tag at the top of the article. Neıl 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left them a note informing them of the 9/11 arbcom sanctions, and the perception that the tags were excessive. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IP ban requests[edit]

Resolved: Anonblocked for 24 hours.

216.19.47.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 12.159.135.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for repeated vandalism. Chris M. (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, but this is more properly handled at WP:AIV. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Off-wiki canvassing at AIDS denialism[edit]

Along the lines of the ongoing ArbCom case on off-wiki canvassing, there has been a recent influx of editors at AIDS denialism and related topics. This thread on an AIDS-denialist message board may be a factor. Since this is not a heavily traveled area, a relatively small number of recruited agenda accounts can be quite disruptive. I'd like to request some admins to watchlist the article and keep an eye out or be a resource for dealing with issues that might arise in connection with the off-wiki canvassing. MastCell Talk 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Users attempting to abuse, game, or mis-use Wikipedia via this message board can be sanctioned per the precedent at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign#Sanctions, can they not? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so (and have acted along those lines in the past), but as I am involved with this article, I'd like outside admins to be aware. To be clear, I don't see anything particularly disruptive yet - just the usual soapboxing on the talk page. It's a request to shine a bit of light in this corner and just have people keep an eye out. MastCell Talk 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

User:Imad marie is busy with POV-pushing in this article. I've tried to neutralize the article (with proper sources), but Imad marie reverted my edits, considering that Internet Infidels site is not reliable source. I've tried to discuss with him, but he's ignoring me so far. Abdullais4u (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like a content sourcing dispute over a religious article. You might try looking into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't see anything an admin can do for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia enforce its policies regarding behavior, but not content? The problem with dispute resolution (regarding content) is there is not a single step that is binding. People can just ignore dispute resolution regarding content. All that matters is being in the majority. Life.temp (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean if a decision is made regarding an article's content, that decision should be enforced in the future, and any deviation from it should be reverted? I dunno. Probably something to bring up at VP policy. Would make for a very interesting and controversial argument, I can tell you that. Equazcion /C 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. Not to the point of specifying what an article should say. An example of what I mean would be a decision--with authority--that something violates a content policy. An editor repeatedly going against that decision would be blocked from the article. Now, no step in the dispute resolution process involves a ruling on violation of content policies. Obviously, there are many rulings on violations of conduct policies. Life.temp (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if a user repeatedly acts against decisions resulting from mediation requests etc, that is a conduct issue, and can be handled here. Equazcion /C 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no obligation to participate in mediation, and the results are described as non-binding. There is simply no enforcement of policies about content. Life.temp (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands" of socks?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Alison.

This user [7] claims to be following up on a previous item, now archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive411 - look under "Implied_threat_of_bodily_harm" - and is issuing threats of a sort. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands?" - nahh - Alison 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yawn Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't talk to it directly, but I will report it if it posts on my talk page again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like trolling, and the user has been blocked. I think this can be marked resolved. Hut 8.5 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Insight in Dereks1x[edit]

I happen to be watching the saga of Dereks1x and have some insight on the real facts. I think people are going about it the wrong way.

Even I have been labelled as a Dereks1x sock but I can swear in court and by lie detector that I am not Derek. I do think I know who the real Derek is.

What happened was that the original Derek was not just one person but possibly three people. The original ban and early blocks could have been done with more tact. Some wrong conclusions were made. So one person could truthfully say "I am not Derek and I'm being blocked because of Derek, that's not right". So when you look at things as black and white (we are all good, he is all bad), it's not accurate. That's why the battle has continued for over a year. You can do what you want but given that length of the saga and that more than one person is affected, I think that it is a potential battle of years.

Adding to that is some of the anti-Derek people have POV agendas of their own. I am not too familiar with all the day to day events, but one sticks in my mind. Barack Obama is actually a junior since his father was senior. This is fact, nothing negative or to be ashamed about. However, the POV pushers, like Tvoz, attacked the user just because of that and would have none of this "junior" thing in the article (eventually he was overruled). That kind of behavior should have been noted by the administrators and would have calmed some tensions and put Tvoz in his place but administrators just ignored it and always take Tvoz' side.

Recently, some very different kinds of personalities have been accused of being Derek. (The POV pushers like Tvoz often use made up similarities to prove their point!) This could mean that the checkusers are siding with Tvoz and including anyone with the same ISP in this region as good enough evidence. Even the checkuser said that the ISP is very large with many users. If so, the battle could continue to decades.

A better idea might be to use the idea of HailFire (or was it Italiavivi) who suggested that Derek come back with ONE name.

Another idea would be for mediation and separation into who is Derek and who is not. Then you could get the person(s) who are not Derek to start cooperative editing. I think this is the best way but is unlikely to happen because some administrators are bent on killing others. I think there is already restraint on Derek's part because Derek socks have ALWAYS edited consecutively, never as several people at once.

I've asked my friend who's an administrator to help but he won't, too scared. That's telling.

What needs to happen is a very mature and fair administrator who can be a moderator. That's if Wikipedia wants to solve the problem or just likes to continue to play the whack/ban/block game. It's like the Palestinian issue. As long as they have some legitimate grievance, the issue will continue. If you ban, block, kill all Palestinians, or say they are all one sock, you will not solve the problem. As for me, I don't care if I'm blocked as I just edit occasionally (but always very good edits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend of NrDg (talkcontribs)

It seems like you're asking for a chronic sockmaster to be unbanned and allowed, what, several accounts? I dunno. Perhaps if there were some good contributions to justify an attempt at rehabilitation?
My introduction to the wonderful world of Dereks1x socks was User:watchingobama, who created a coatrack article and was tendentious and disruptive during its AfD, before being identified as a sock of Dereks1x. I can see no reason why that account could not have quietly made good contributions to Wikipedia. So what would be the benefit of unbanning Derek? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that the creator of this thread has also been blocked as a sock of Dereks1x. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't, he added it himself. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Silly me, just looking at the page and not the block log :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 :) Does that count as self-admitted sock? Not that you would want to of course! Rudget (Help?) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have some laundry I think that needs washing.... Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to concur with SheffieldSteel - the issue isn't so much the use of socks, but the fact that many of the socks identified as Derek's are engaged in unacceptable editing practices well before being tagged as socks. Watchingobama is a good example, where every reasonable attempt to discuss the issue at hand was met with accusations of bias and racism, followed by disruption and a block. If Derek had picked an account and edited reasonably, yes he would be evading a ban - but no one probably would notice. And there's a report of disruption every day, literally - Derek must be reasonably intelligent, surely he is aware of the results of trying the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. The way to get Derek unbanned is for an account with, say, 3 months of quiet article building behind it, to post saying "I am Derek and I hereby demonstrate that I can be a good contributor". I would support an unban, I think, in that case. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really work... -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not, if the user's identity is discovered by someone else, if the contribs are not good (for example, people complaining about civility issues, stalking, etc.), and if people are angrily debating whether or not they are only sorry for getting caught. I don't want this to turn into another Jack Merridew thread though. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[out]This individual has shown himself to be a bad faith editor who is determined to disrupt, no matter how many identities he needs to assume. This thread is just another example - one of his perennial favorites, being a "friend/wife/husband/coworker" of a blocked user who comes here to help us sort it all out. This username was blocked as well - look again. I appreciate the desire to assume good faith, but it is misplaced here - the history is long and very clear. Tvoz/talk 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting spam email from ...uh... someone who was alerted to my post by his secretary (that's novel). It seems the author of the mail VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is blocked as a ... anyone? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Reblocked with email disabled. Nakon 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:AIV[edit]

Resolved

I need some help over at WP:AIV - there's been a flood of activity.-Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a really big backlog at WP:AIV. Corvus cornixtalk 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merged both warnings here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a third: AIV is hovering around 12 reports at this time, a severe backlog. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorted, thanks all. Black Kite 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it was really bad and as I mentioned at WT:AIV, for some reason the bot didn't add a backlog tag. I manually added and removed it. Mentioned it on AIVHelperbot's page. Enigma message 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility related to Jeremiah Wright controversy[edit]

I've been editing Jeremiah Wright controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently and trying to keep the lid on some edit warring, but I've gotten too involved in the dispute to make a neutral judgement. There was some edit warring there a few days ago; I reviewed the edits, and found that three users (CyberAnth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Ewenss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Trilemma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) had violated 3RR, and blocked them accordingly. More recently, Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been editing rather tendentiously. He's been uncivil ([8], [9], [10] and has violated 3RR. Since I had been arguing with Cryptographic on the talk page, I thought it would be inappropriate for me to block him, so I filed a 3RR report; there's been no action so far. Other editors are complaining about Cryptographic's behavior ([11] [12] — note that the latter is by Trilemma, whom I previously blocked for 3RR violation). I've tried repeatedly to engage Cryptographic on his user talk page, with no productive result. I'd appreciate any feedback and/or action by uninvolved admins. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: EdJohnston blocked Cryptographic hash for 48 hours, which takes care of the most immediate concern. I'd still appreciate any feedback on the state of the article and how to encourage the parties to discuss rather than revert and insult each other. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. [13] He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and user talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. Thank You,75.31.210.156 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729[edit]

I'm having slight problems with this user. Recently I've removed the French Muslims category from the Franck Ribéry article as it was in clear violation of WP:BLP. The user reverted my edit and called me a vandal in the edit summary. I responded by leaving the user a warning and reverting his edit, pointing to WP:BLP in the edit summary. The user, however, reverted me again and left a copy of my warning on my user page.

According to WP:BLP: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.",

so the category has to go, but I'm afraid I'm just gonna get yet another revert if I remove the category (might be worth mentioning that the user has received a 3RR warning before and is also, apparently, a suspected sockpuppet), so I'd appreciate a little bit of help here. Cheers! BanRay 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm game for a quick read, with a possible revert and I daresay a Talk page message to the user in question... ETA Done. Let's see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, hope this helps BanRay 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

re User:Agent007ravi[edit]

Resolved: Deleted by East718.

I have noted my concern regarding the detail posted on this editors userpage here. I should like some opinion on whether publishing this detail is appropriate for a minor, or whether I am fussing over nothing. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A 10-year old publishing e-mail, AIM, etc? I'd say that not too smart to do. I do think your suggestion to his on the talk page was a good way to start though, hopefully he will remove it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a father of three, I would probably freak out if my kids posted that much info on themselves on the internet. Listing his email address does not bother me, but giving his exact birth date, weight, and town he lives in is just asking for trouble. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And it appears the page has been deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
East718 got it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Topic ban is extended to an indefinite topic ban. Pseudoscience probation extended to one full year (from today). Current block may be extended for likely abusive sockpuppeting, pending checkuser results. — Scientizzle 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready (talk · contribs) has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban. He is banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Mccready has been notified.[14] Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested review[edit]

Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has requested a review of the above topic ban.[15] Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Update. I have reset Mccready's block to one month for canvassing on this issue. I am not taking any action on a longer block or alterations to his topic ban until the conversation runs its course here. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since his response to the topic ban reveals a lack of understanding of his wrongdoing and a lack of repentance, I suggest a longer topic ban, or an indef ban. Nothing he has said indicates that he will change in any way after the ban is lifted. He has no intention to reform. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is the response I am referring to above:
  • "WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the many editors said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous." Mccready [16]
  • That response doesn't indicate any degree of understanding that can lead to improvement. -- Fyslee / talk 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per Fyslee. Keep the ban, and extend to a year if there is additional disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. (This is posted on behalf of Mccready.[17][18]) I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
    • Further response.[19] Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.
      • Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.
      • Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006
      • Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)
      • Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.
      • Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
    • Comment: Notably, the above passage is by far the longest comment that Mccready has made on a talk page in many weeks if not months. During his most recent round of edit warring on Acupuncture, he reverted 15 times between April 3 and April 26 (see archived AN/I thread). In that same period of time, he made exactly zero contributions at Talk:Acupuncture (cf. page history) despite being invited to discuss. His typical explanation is that he has a slow internet connection and "doesn't have time to do detailed battle with believers". Yet he seems perfectly able to write at length when sanctions are imposed (see his talk page). A chronic problem editor with major blind spots, imo. (As for his criticisms of me, why is it that I manage to work just fine with other skeptical editors, like Orangemarlin and Eldereft and Fyslee?) --Jim Butler (t) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Note Two points: first, it is transparently false that only "altmeders" have said Mccready does more harm than good. Second, FWIW, Mccready's assertion that I objected to material he added on cultural bias in acu research is incorrect. He added the material on 6 February 2008, to the lead (as he habitually does for new material, notwithstanding WP:LEAD). On 14 February 2008 I added the material to the appropriate section of the article (and expanded it a little). I've never objected to its inclusion. --Jim Butler (t) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that we as a community need to make a clear distinction between insistence on high quality references and POV-pushing of fringe sources. Mccready is without a doubt guilty of edit warring and generally showing an abrasive personality, but the value of the research argues for leniency. I think some quality time with WP:Dispute resolution or a posting to the fringe theories noticeboard might have saved some headache, but here we are. The disruptive behavior merits a ban. A 0RR on acupuncture and chiropractic might be considered some weeks or months hence if their confrontational editing style softens. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Mccready's positive contributions are good, but not unique, and are far outweighed by the negatives. On Cochrane Collaboration reviews, I restored a bunch on 5 February 2008 (the same ones Mccready would later go on to attempt to add to the lead section, redundantly and via edit warring: see 15(!!) diffs here). On cultural bias in research, Mccready added two good sources on 6 February 2008, however, I had likewise added refs on that subject on 11 January 2008. So, sure, he had made some good contributions, but they are not unique; other editors are equally capable of doing straightforward Cochrane and Pubmed searches. What most other editors do not do, as we know, is endlessly edit war and disrupt. That's why I believe that little of value will be lost via a topic ban, and a great deal of harm will be prevented. And I'm all for allowing him to contribute and improve his collaborative skills in other areas where his bias is not so intractable. --Jim Butler (t) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse increasing indef site ban There is canvassing afoot, I will disclose to another admin or an arb if this is disputed. I recommend a longer topic ban. MBisanz talk 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering the user has no understanding of the term WP:CANVASS (subsequent activities to my first post) and that they've now insulted my reputation via email, I support an indef site ban. MBisanz talk 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Make the topic ban indefinite: The last time Mccready was topic-banned (in September 2006, by FloNight), he simply disappeared from WP for about a year (see contribution history) only to return with the exact same behavior pattern. He learned nothing from that ban, is impervious to advice, and is oblivious to the extent of his editorial misconduct. Some editors seem to be "incorrigible" in this way, and he is one of them. Make the topic ban indefinite. --Jim Butler (t) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note Further evidence of Mccready's misconduct can be found archived here, including evidence of edit-warring against 5 editors, disingenuousness (leaving a message on my talk page and then saying, just half an hour later, that I'd "ignored" it), and possible COI. --Jim Butler (t) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment When I see this, it makes me sad: "I don't contribute to discussion...? Since when do edit summaries not count?" I'm sick of seeing edit wars where both parties justify their actions using only their edit summaries. That, to me, is not contributing to discussion. It says to me that the author just doesn't get the wiki process. If there's a solution to this that allows Mccready to return to productive editing in this area, I think it has to start from that realisation. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I've just declined Mccready's most recent unblock request as it continued to display bad faith and a complete disregard for consensus. Since he was blocked for bad faith and this discussion is still ongoing, it seems inappropriate to unblock him while he's still accusing others and we're still discussing his fate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For ease of reference: Mccready's unblock request.[20] Hersfold's decline.[21] My comment to Mccready, expressing healthy skepticism about his unfamiliarity with conduct rule.[22] Vassyana (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I originally tried a less harsh restriction, which didn't work out. I would suggest the topic ban be kept until such a time Mccready has demonstrated an understanding of the problems with his editing style, which have been explained to him by me and several others. henriktalk 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comments? Vassyana (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep topic ban From a review of the statements by the editor, posted by Vassuana, the thrust of Mccreadys request appears to be that everybody else is wrong, likely to be biased in action and interpretation, and that Mccready is the only purveyor of the truth. Under the circumstances I do not see how allowing this editor to return to an area of previous conflict is going to be anything but disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; I agree with the above statement. In the two years since I left a comment on Mccready's talk page requesting that he not revert other editors without an explanation, it appears that he's been stubbornly slow to come around to a consensus-based approach to editing. I appreciate that the topic areas he works in can be contentious, but that doesn't excuse one from fully embracing how we do things around here. The block and the topic ban should remain in place so that Mccready can take some time to consider changing the behaviour that, as he's been repeatedly told by many editors, is not productive or particularly welcome. -/- Warren 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am leaving a message on Mccready's talk page to see if he has any further or changed response based on the feedback in this discussion. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And sockpuppetry too Now Mccready is using an IP address to revert the lead section of acupuncture back to his preferred version (notice how the particular paragraph that the IP changed, in grey, is identical between the IP's version and Mccready's earlier one). (Note also that this edit ignores extensive discussion on talk [23][24].) The IP, Special:Contributions/203.102.44.230, has previously edited Chiropractic, including an episode in September 2006 when Mccready's first topic ban was about to begin. The IP is based in New South Wales, Australia, which is where Mccready lives according to the link on his user page. Pretty clearly it's him per WP:DUCK (except, as we know, this particular duck accuses everyone else of quackery). Based on this editor's escalating disregard for WP policy, I think an indefinite site ban (or at least an indef pseudoscience topic ban) may be called for. --Jim Butler (t) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Difficult communications with User:BalkanFever[edit]

He was asked to use English language with this kind request but he used a Slavic language to answer, as usual. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In case it matters, this is the translation of the message: If you'd like to know what I said, just ask me. Don't bother me with template messages. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What admin intervention does this require? SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that deliberately working to exclude editors who don't speak your language is contrary to the idea of community based editing. It's disruptive, in that it interrupts the normal editing patterns we have here. Further, it's a sure set up for problems down the line. Imagine four editors all talking in a non-english language here, deciding they have 'consensus', then implementing major changes on the page, citing their foreign language discussion as proof to any who question them. that's disruptive, plain and simple. he should be advised that all non-user talk page conversations should be in the native Wikilanguage, to facilitate the widest access to other editors. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Day to day talk page posts in Slavic text on en.wikipedia are wholly uncommunicative and exclusionary and I must say, these seem meant to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A certain amount of non-English talk is pretty common in these areas. As long as it's on user talk pages, in conversations that really only affect the users participating, as long as it's not done conspirationally (like, for coordinating edit wars or for venting against opponents of other nationalities), and as long as people are prepared to explain or translate when asked, I personally have no problem with it, and I do it myself from time to time. Of course B.F.'s reaction in this case, as a sarkastic POINT violation, using it deliberately to someone who he knows does not understand it, is rather on the incivil side – but then, he also did have a point in protesting agains the unnecessary "templating the regulars". Fut.Perf. 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, (and I disagree with the 'templating the regs', as do the peopel who continue to template me at times), hes' still wrong to use it anywhere a larger group might converse, or when asked to use a language that's more accessible. ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, why would a larger group converse on my (or another Macedonian user's) talk page, much less in the specific section? And I am not conspiring or insulting anyone, but The Cat and the Owl can think what he wants. I don't believe I've actually had a conversation with him though. He's probably more pissed off that I use the Macedonian language, which is some form of personal attack against him in his mind (look at his userpage). If anybody needs a translation of anything they can ask me, instead of starting useless AN/I threads. BalkanFever 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, wrong conclusion. An admin kindly asked me the same and since then I just use English. I don’t see why I cant’ apply the same request to other contributors, since it’s a wikipedia rule. As simple as that. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also in the past asked for translations of User:BalkanFever's more colourful edit summaries, but these have not always been forthcoming. I know enough Slavonic to know that kur means cock, gaz means arse and budal means idiot, so I assumed the edit summaries were intended as insults. Admittedly, there have been instances where he didn't understand my Greek, but his close associate User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was always there to help him out. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You don't know much at all. Gazda means boss (patrón), and "kur me boli" means "I don't care" (literally: my dick hurts). Complete translation:

This should be deleted as a POV fork (lit. "mirror") but really I don't care. Maybe some thick-head will rape the page and the boss will delete it. (The boss being my "close associate" Fut. Perf.)

The other one:

100 denars says this (the move) will be reverted by some idiot.

Well, the page is still there, but my move was reverted by a sock (user:Marc KJH) of user:Bonaparte. BalkanFever 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. Balkan's use of English substitute languages is less wide spread than The Cat and the Owl's marking of most of his edits as minor (even when they're clearly not) and his lack of use of edit summaries. This report is an overreaction to an issue with a fairly simple solution: if you have an issue with foreign languages being used in edit summaries or on talk pages, talk to the editor in question like a reasonable person and express your concerns in a way that won't be seen as patronizing, such as templating a regular. In my opinion, telling a regular "Oh hey, did you know about this rule" will not usually yield productive results. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


BalkansFever is a good editor. In the instance of this kind request his response in that language was obviously made because it's pretty rude to use a template. His response, while not exactly diplomatic, was made in good humor imo. At any rate, this didn't need to be brought here, as SWik points out. Beam 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan (talk · contribs)'s topic ban[edit]

Dear Community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which I implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I initially received word of this user as part of a role as an uninvolved administrator reviewing each case brought to my attention, in this particular case, by Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I have reviewed other cases before, and further discussed that with the user in question.

As far as I was made aware (and in co-operation with a further investigation that I conducted into Beamathan's contributions and block log), he looked like the regular at the log of blocks of bans at the ArbCase: relatively limited contributions in terms of broadness, creation of account around the time of Kosovo's independence and fitted the troll criteria (i.e. removal of content, telling others what to do, dismissive and exaggerated reactions, edit warring etc.) He had made some reasonable attempts otherwise within the article and the talk page, but with the broadness and severity of trolling (which is norm for those at Talk:Kosovo nowadays) I felt there was no other choice but to restrict editing in that for 14 days. With respect to the most recent comments that he has made, he implies that Husond may have exacerbated the 'wounds' if you like, and they both now have personal grudges one another. So, was I right to act upon the comments by Husond, even though that he was personally involved with the user in question? Should this topic ban be extended to the Husond also? This has been proposed by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Rudget (Help?) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good this was brought here, it's naturally useful to have my conduct perused by the community. When the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence was imminent back in January I decided to start monitoring that topic in order to help protect it against predictable disruption and edit wars, and maintain neutrality. Many times I had to intervene at talk pages and remind users to be civil, refrain from warring, and cooperate constructively with each other. But eventually some users will ignore calls for mutual respect and instead turn against me. This is precisely one of those cases. Beamathan had been warned against incivility and trolling, persisted with such behavior, thus meriting the topic ban, and is now insisting that I'm on a "crusade" against him. I have no grudges whatsoever against Beamathan. For me he's just another user whose participation in the Kosovo topic I was monitoring and deemed inadequate. Beamathan has now requested the help of administrator Dbachmann, whose participation in the Kosovo topic has also been rather confrontational. Dbachmann even questioned my adminship following a disagreement over an article merger [25], a reaction that I must say I had never experienced on Wikipedia before, and which naturally determines my entire judgment of Dbachmann's ability to communicate with other users (if not of his own character). I am therefore not surprised with his request for me to be topic banned as well. I'm okay with that, my conduct is transparent and easily investigated. If an uninvolved admin finds my participation disruptive then I'll naturally accept a topic ban. Monitoring Kosovo-related articles is not an easy task, so I was expecting occasional opposition to my job, and complaints. If my work there is deemed inadequate, then by all means I should and will step aside. But until then, I'll continue to strive for the enforcement of civil and constructive cooperation on the Kosovo topic. Húsönd 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sort of prepared to assume Husond is being serious here, but I must say if he is, his take on the situation is rather ... subjective (to put it politely). What he calls "monitoring" and "help protect" to my eye has been extremely unhelpful and biased. The 2 April diff expresses my surprise at Husond being an admin (I have actually been surprised several times over, since in the face of his completely irresponsible behaviour I had forgotten he was one several times over, and I tended to class him as just another pov-pusher based on his contributions). I have not called for his de-adminning or anything. This isn't about "admin abuse". Neither Husond nor I have made use of any admin buttons in this. Nor am I calling for any sort of ban against Husond. The issue here is that Husond managed to talk another admin into issuing a topic ban against User:Beamathan, who is a somewhat exciteable fellow, but who has evidently done his best to improve the article, tackle the ethnic pov-pushing and defend the consensus version. I am asking for review of the 14 days topic ban imposed by Rudget in good faith, but upon instigation on the part of Husond. If you review the talkpage, there are about half a dozen accounts just screaming to be topic-banned, and it is patently unfair to just slap a single user because some involved user knows a few admins. Any takers? --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to put anything politely if you're so willing to demonstrate that you'd rather not be polite. As for the "biased and unhelpful", anyone can go diff-hunt your past couple of months and check who's been biased and unhelpful. Won't be me, I'm really not fond of ANI drama. As for all the accounts "screaming to be topic-banned", if there's so many of them, how come you haven't taken any procedure to have them effectively banned? Perhaps you prefer them running amok? Or perhaps you prefer to attack someone who's trying to have them curbed? Beamathan was neither slapped nor was the single user to be banned. He was the second in a series that will naturally keep growing. Yes, I know a few admins, everyone does. Your point? Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could say something: I consider Beamathan to be a worthwhile contributor to the page/discussion, and this topic ban seems a bit long. He has done a bit of shouting lately, but that would be from the frustration that comes from the whole environment of that talk page. I have seen many trolls there, and I wouldn't group Beam with them. (Nor would I group Husond with them, btw). Maybe he broke WP:COOL, but I don't think he did much else to warrant WP:ARBMAC sanctioning. BalkanFever 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan is not a totally unproductive user, he's been helpful to the discussions many times. But lately he's been too carried away with the frustration you mentioned, and he had been warned several times about his behavior. By not refraining to moderate his speech towards users he disagrees with, Beam was causing more damage than benefit. The article is under Arbcom probation, thus a ban was in order. Again, warned several times. Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that this topic ban comment above by myself does of course recognise the good work he may have done. However, as part of the discretionary sanctions formed by the Macedonian Arbitration case. As it says there "the sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". Beamathan's contributions were, I am afraid, on a downward spiral (shown in the diffs provided above and the actual topic ban thread). As far as I am aware, he had received sufficient warnings beforehand, including a caution about recent editing patterns and their potential consequences (i.e. topic ban) here. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to agree with you saying "recent editing patterns" show a "downward spiral." Care to be specific? I have never harmed the article of Kosvo. Not once. I don't care about being allowed to edit the article for personal reasons. And in fact I don't care at all. As long as users like Balkans and Dab and others are there than I trust that article will be there when I get back.

What I don't agree with is that Husond, who has exhibited bias in the past, bitched and moaned to you personally to get me banned. It's disgusting. As Dab points out, i believe he had goaded me into making comments that, when taken out of context, make me look like an ***hole. Husond is in blatant violation of WP:BITE, I have been bitten. I also dislike the fact that the reason for this ban is "Disruption to the Kosovo Article."

That's lies. This ban, if for anything, is over WP:COOL. I have never harmed the article or disrupted the article's slow, but steady, progress towards Featured Quality. That is my issue. Did I lose my cool? Maybe. But I was only possibly uncool in defense of NPOV and Consensus. And honestly, in the arena that is that article, WP:COOL isn't followed and my actions, sadly, were not able to rise above the environment there.

14 days isn't fair. And putting the reason as "constant and sustained disruption of the Kosovo Article" is not only wrong, but it's insulting to me. Sadly this was perpetrated by Husond. Ask any contributor to that article... any one of them that isn't a POV Pusher. They will tell you that I'm a good editor, and that I've never done anything to harm that article. That's all I'll say in my defense. Beam 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'd say I felt let down by the system, but I'd just be repeating myself. Beam 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bomb "threat"[edit]

Resolved: non credible venting, IP blocked for a week. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[26] - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

non credible venting, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple vandalism should be reverted and the user warned. A new thread here for every "bomb microsoft" or "kill bill gates" edit is overkill. Nakon 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7[