Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive423

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

Noticeboard archives


Bad Call by an Administrator[edit]

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

  • Admins sometimes make bad calls in content disputes — they are human. Without saying whether or not this is one, it is not something that needs to be brought to ANI, since it requires no admin action. --Haemo (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

After someone presented a reliable source for David Bowie within the talk page of List of best-selling music artists, I added the artist into the list since it was reliable enough. Not long after, an anonymous IP user posted a question within the same discussion section asking why her/his source was removed when it was also published by The New York Times, which [1] I located and repalced it with this [2] (this discussion, by the way went on also within the section of Michiya Mihashiwhere we had a similar despute). However, the same anonymous IP user claimed within the section of Michiya Mihashi That article is now 20 years old, as it was published in 1989. The other reference is more recent, and mentions she had sold more than 80 million records. Due to the nature of this article, the NY Times reference is not of equal quality. And this was reverted by Administrator --Rodhullandemu whereas the WP:RSUE clearly states Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. As for the source provided before for Hibari Misora, it's simply illegible.

Such a poor call by an administrator opens a door for future stubborn vandals who will add whatever unreliable source they wish to after the page protection expires and even though, I and others who have been trying to keep the page as vandal free as we possibly can, we're not going to be able to argue due to this. Part of this discussion landed here earlier [3]--Harout72 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Already dealt with here. It makes no sense to have an English-language source twenty years old just because we can, when a more up-to-date source which is usable within WP:RSUE is available. This is not a matter for this board anyway, it's essentially a content dispute. --Rodhullandemu 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A reader is not supposed to go to Google-Language-Tool like place in order to turn the PC screen full of question marks into a lousy translation which most of the time does not make sense, besides, we can't tell whether the source it comes from is reliable or not. --Harout72 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, no admin action is required. You may want WP:RS/N, but just because you can't easily read it doesn't make it an unusable source. Are book sources limited to only books that you own? Mr.Z-man 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I know that this isn't an admin related comment, but I cannot believe that WP:V - in relation to the en-WP - means that any reliable source is sufficient even if 95% of the readership are unable to verify because the link since they cannot read the language. It sort of defeats the object. Just my 2,055ψen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. People will just go "eh? random!" inside when confronted with the page. We could always use both refs? Sticky Parkin 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The reference is from the government website for Shizouka city, and it is detailing a published book. I believe this to be more than a content dispute. Harout72 has a history of replacing references to "downsize" certain musicians on that article, as evident here [4]. Those references were written in English, and were not disputed. In that same edit, Harout72 entered new musicians to the list that do not have reliable references, something this user is complaining about here. I took the matter regarding the references for "Michiya Mihashi" to the reliable references board, as per request of admin Rodhullandemu. This was disregarded by Harout72. I do not believe this user has good intentions for the article. (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First, that screen isn't full of question marks ... it's got very readable Japanese on it, and it seems to cover the topic nicely. Perhaps you should go to the languages tool on your PC and check the boxes that allow it to display Asian character sets? People get far too excited over foreign language references. They are verifiable, even if many people have to use tools to help them with the verification. Far less trouble for me than when someone cites an English book: no tool will fly me to the States so that I can visit an English-language library and verify the citation. That said, if there is an English language source, it should always be included. That doesn't mean that Japanese sources should be excluded.Kww (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, the differences between the references should be mentioned. (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to concur with Kww. The source is very much readable on my computer, and knowing a scant amount of Japanese, it is very much readable and passable as a source. While an English source is always preferable, a Japanese source can work out just as well. If there are two duplicate references, include both, or perhaps link to a translation. No administrator action is required here, and frankly, I don't know what you are expecting out of this. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What am I expecting out of this? 1) From this point on, anybody will have the right to add any artist they wish to with any sort of unreliable sources written in a foreign-language. 2)We won't be able to remove them because a major scandal might take place mostly due to this kind of an administrative approach which you guys are demonstrating here. 3) A reader has to be able to tell whether the sales figure presented within the source comes from a reliable source or not.--Harout72 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to verify them yourself, Control Panel->Regional & Language Options->Install Far Eastern Languages, then learn Japanese. Otherwise, we have a noticeboard for questions about reliability of sources and we have native Japanese-speaking editors. --Rodhullandemu 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe these are your own words from here:

Sometimes I think we forget that we are writing an encyclopedia- specifically in the English language- for readers of that language. Such readers are entitled to say to themselves "how can I be sure that fact is true?" and that is why we are required to provide reliable and verifiable sources. This is not negotiable. I have reviewed the sources cited above, and am not persuaded that any fulfills those criteria. The Excite translation, even if its source is reliable, is so full of strange language that no reader could reasonably be expected to believe it. Another two are in Japanese and illegible to an English reader. Another, in English, is of uncertain provenance- it could be a blog or fansite, for example- but that cites no references itself. The whole purpose of verifiability is to establish truth, and if that cannot be done within the policies we have, we cannot have the content. It is also policy that it is the responsibility of an editor seeking to add content to justify its inclusion. I suggest that anyone seeking to have this statistic in this article should raise it here.

I brought this issue here because you as an Administrator need to be disqualified for turning 180 degree from your own original statement. In other words, it does not seem like you are very certain of your duties as an Administrator.--Harout72 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure I changed my mind having referred the editors here. Why not? With the information I could see at the time, I couldn't be satisfied that the references met policy. Better information means better decisions. And you forgot to highlight the "if" in my comment. That's what it all hangs on, and is the breaker as far as policy goes. --Rodhullandemu 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Veering away slightly from your original view would be understandable. What you demonstrated was not slight, but rather, it was clear indication that you lack both the knowledge as well as the ability to serve the Wikipedia as an Administrator.--Harout72 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, I resign. WP:RFAR is ---> thisaway --Rodhullandemu 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Harout, I hope you never change your mind at work, because that might disqualify you from having your job and you'd get fired.
... See how ridiculous that statement is? This is a non-issue, and certainly not an adminship issue. Give it a rest, Rodhull is not going to get desysopped because he changed his mind about something. - Revolving Bugbear 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Rodhull mentioned "for now" and requested I take the issue to the reliable sources board. That is what I did promptly, and I will quote Rodhull after my misunderstanding "I am now quite happy that the RS board advice is correct" That is why there is a reliable source board isn't it? It is funny that Harout72 is complaining about unreliable references. The user has added many references with dubious addresses, as I pointed out above. Including this reference[5] which remains on the article. However, for some reason this appears to be accetable, and confirmed foreign references should be banned? I find that interesting! As a suggestion, can there not be a "confirmed tag" placed by an admin to prevent future attacks on foreign references? (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

User: Tedickey[edit]

Tedickey (talk · contribs) has repeatedly vandalized German American internment‎, Italian American internment, and Japanese American internment. He has also violated WP:3RR. His talk page shows that he has an extensive history of vandalism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on what we call vandalism here. These look like category disputes to me. Please take any 3rr violations to WP:AN3. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They are category disputes, but I note that Tedickey's edit summaries are getting less and less civil, one said 'reverting some of the vandalism', implying JCDenton had done more than what was covered in the one reverting edit. Further, JCDenton has certainly supported at least one of his assertions, I note that Tedickey seems to be more interested in ignoring those supports, to some end of his own. I already looked in at Japanese American internment, and have restored the category supported by evidence on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I did ask Tedickey to stop using the word vandalism so freely and he may be calming down with that, at least. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"vandalism" and "rvv" are much the same here. For better context, I read through the last few dozen edits, including this. It would be nice if someone would caution JCDenton2052 about his use of the term. Tedickey (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone would caution Tedickey about his potential violation of WP:COI in editing Berkeley Yacc, CDK (Mike Glover), Dialog (software), Lynx (web browser), ncurses, tin (newsreader), vile (editor), Vttest, and xterm. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain this further and provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is who I think it is, I believe the COI might have to do with the possibility that this is the account of Thomas E. Dickey, a rather well known open source software engineer who is the current author/maintainer of those software packages listed above. He's a decent fellow, if somewhat opinionated about autoconf (oh the rants). I will note that our policy does not preclude him from editing those articles if he does so in a way which complies with WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(tin (newsreader) is maintained by a different person, noting that Thomas Dickey does maintain tin's autoconf script, as well as the other programs mentioned ;-) Tedickey (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, please forgive me for that oversight. I use the emacs newsreader, gnus, on the command line because I'm lazy... --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious too, since I try to be neutral and use reliable sources which are easily verified. Note that I'm editing and improving several articles in each topic that I have some interest in, keeping in mind both the letter and spirit of WP:COI. Tedickey (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Might I recommend you give WP:Twinkle a try? It's a java script that adds a number tools which are very helpful in fighting vandalism. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at it briefly a few times, but, am usually editing with Opera (due to startup time and runtime overhead), found that its window wasn't that visible (recalling from last week, was hard to read), and just to check on this machine, Twinkle's window isn't showing up (yes, I do have JavaScript enabled). I might look closer depending on what I'm working on. Tedickey (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please delete my account[edit]

Resolved: Deletion impossible, other options offered. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been reminded of the arbcom's harassment campaign, and am disgusted that I ever returned to en-wiki. Please delete my account. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted, but you are free to invoke your right to vanish. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I hereby release all my edits into the public domain. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be good, but the software doesn't allow deletion of accounts for the reasons above, so we can't even if we want to. Try activating WP:VANISH instead. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you RTV, you're supposed to actually leave. A quiet name change is allowed if you're staying. This doesn't seem to be a vanish issue, though, but rather someone who's upset. There doesn't appear to be any action to take here. - Revolving Bugbear 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So Long! And Thanks For All The Fish! --Dragon695 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The user created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbcom. Cenarium (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the above, given that he exercised his right-to-vanish and that the page was not completed in the least bit. If anyone finds that controversial, or if there is a more formal process to go through, feel free to restore it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Please see the images he's uploaded, probably all of them are copyvios. I don't have time to look over them at the moment so I'm posting them here. Yonatan talk 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Mickey117 had access to a lithograph machine back in 1924, so it is very unlikely he did make the images as stated in the rationale (certainly not the older ones). However, it is possible that the older ones are in the public domain - they look like the freely distributed publicity/poster images that would have been used in campaigns. However, since they are currently being used in a list of Lebanonese Presidents rather than the individual subject articles I would suggest that they are zapped until the licensing issues are clarified. (Please note that I have no expertise in this field, although I play dumb on the internet). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I see a number of logos for Lebanese political parties as being public domain. I don't know the Lebanese copyright system but I would assume that copyright is respected[citation needed] and so, images like Image:Muslim-Ulama.jpg would a non-free logo[citation needed] which would freely belong at Union of Muslim Ulama but not for illustrative purposes like it is being used at List of political parties in Lebanon. I think the images are fine (and very helpful) but problematic licenses and usages[citation needed]. Just needs a little help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide evidence for such assertions. We do not have any such treaty with Lebanon, the last time I checked. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What would we need a treaty for? Its unclear whether the images are public domain in Lebanon, and its unclear whether they were published long enough ago to qualify for public domain in the US. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, we assume that they are still under copyright protection. Mr.Z-man 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars by sockpupetters[edit]

Resolved: Tiptoety talk 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ibrahimzai (talk · contribs) and Mullberry (talk · contribs) have edit warred on several articles, IPs have also disrupted these articles. It is suspected that the users are sockpuppets of, respectively, Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and NisarKand (talk · contribs). Cenarium (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny I just asked for Full Protection of Hammasa Kohistani. Can you prove they are socks? (no need to I looked). Rgoodermote  01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Article I mentioned is now fully protected for 3 days. Rgoodermote  01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's likely, the contributions, and they accuse each other. Their personal war has been during for some times now, according to their CU pages, Wikipedia:requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam and Wikipedia:requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Maybe they should be updated. Cenarium (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other pages they have been warring on? I didn't check the pages they edited on. Rgoodermote  02:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. This should be enough time for a checkuser on both of them. Blueboy96 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That alleviates my fears that they were still edit warring. It seems IPs were involved. Anything done about them? Rgoodermote  03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that Ibrahimzai (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Beh-nam. Tiptoety talk 04:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser has confirmed all of those accounts along with a few others. Resolved. Tiptoety talk 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: User says sorry, but report again if continues behavior

This user is constantly removing deletion templates on Marco flores, an article he created. Do something about it! This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 09:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

John Howard article and talk page issuses.[edit]

John Howard and Talk:John Howard are still warring[6] over each other[7]. Really it's a mess that shouldn't have happened and I can't see it ending which also puts anyone off from improving thee article. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, and I agree that protecting it will not help because whichever version it gets protected in will mean that the supporters of that version will be disinclined to discuss it. I see that there have been previous attempts to form a consensus (by an evil vote) which seems to have just consolidated the opposing camps. I think an RfC with more outside voices would be an avenue to explore, verily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the not protecting the article as really it doesn't solve the issue. The past RfC I came in as an outside view (I'm not a person who has a one side view and wouldn't bother me if it was or wasn't included back into the article) but the main issue I have is how we seems to have groups which are just attacking each other rather then trying to improve the article which puts Wikipedia project in a bad light with editors who can't seem to work with each other. Lets hope there is some way to get the article back on track. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with restored article[edit]

Resolved: wrong tag (remember to check them!)

I nominated Manpower Incorporated (Honorverse) for deletion May 18 but an administrator restored it, saying I hadn't tagged the article itself with the afd1 tag. I use TW, which like all the tools his its quirks and doesn't always work -- but, TW managed to create the discussion page and log entry fine. Can someone check the page history to confirm that there really wasn't an AfD tag on the article? --EEMIV (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You put up a prod tag on the 18th (not an AfD tag) which was quickly removed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, which is why I hit the xfd button on the Twinkle bar. I'm just trying to ascertain whether this is a Twinkle bug -- it just struck me as odd that it created the user page notification, the log entry and the discussion page not a tag on the article itself. Anyway, thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If there was an AfD tag, 1) I and presumably other editors would have been aware of AfD discussion and would vote there and 2) I wouldn't have undeleted the article. Since there was no AfD tag, and thus interested editors who watchlisted the article were not aware of the discussion, I have restored it so it can be properly AfD tagged.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
A glitch, a bug, a gremlin, software, wetware, I see no worries here, the AfD's on again and editors'll know it's there. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


If you look at the history of this user you'll see he's been blocked multiple times, and a large percentage of what he does is flame and vandalize. I don't know him, have never had a beef with him, but still he's not playing legit. --Mrcolj (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is stale. The anon in question hasn't edited in almost three weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Would anyone like to give some input into this thread on my talk page? I'm being asked to rename an article, however there is an objection to that editor's request. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User being disruptive, now has extended to personal attacks[edit]

MLB 07: The Show is an article on a game that had a rather large trivia/OR section. It was originally removed by User:Socby19 ([8]) on the basis of being OR, trivia and Wikipedia not being a game-guide. It was swiftly readded by User:HPJoker ([9]) without any reason but he likes it. A few months later, I found the article and removed the section on the same grounds, and User:Baffler readded it as he was the main author of a large number of them. I removed it again, and got a third opinion from User:Billscottbob which agreed with my position that this section is not suitable. He left it alone after the ensuing conversation on the talk page.

Troublingly, User:HPJoker has returned and decided to be somewhat aggressive in doing so. He originally readded it stating [10] "we decided to keep this in a long time ago. keep it here.", despite the fact there had only been one person agreeing with him to keep it, compared to 3 against (including the 3rd opinion). I removed it [11], and continued to press the point of it being wildly against policy on the talk page (same section as linked above). Last night he decided to readd it with the edit summary "for spite." [12] suggesting no intention to actually build the encyclopedia but simply push his own opinion on the matter, and then followed it up with a personal attack on the talk page, blasting me for, uh, being English, not watching baseball for that long and supporting the wrong team (although quite what this has to do with my opinion being valid, I have no idea...). He also stated "Well this is a fourth opinion. And that other user is an admin so that should be enough." when no such admin ever posted on the matter, as far as I'm aware. Any help in this situation would be great. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your action is correct. The removed items are trivial gamecruft and are longer than the rest of the article combined. I will drop a note on the talkpage and HPJoker's talkpage to that effect and see if we can't defuse the situation. Exxolon (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not call those personal attacks. If you want to hear a personal attack, just tell me.
BTW I made the first edit without reading it, just assuming that some prick might've just came along and removed it. BTW AGAIN I DIDN'T PUT IS BACK JUST BECAUSE I LIKE IT. THAT IT 100%. I just don't see whats wrong with them. HPJoker Leave me a message 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You are seriously not helping yourself with this sort of attitude. Wikipedia is not a Battleground. The information is being removed not because there's anything wrong with it but because it's against policy and unencyclopedic. Trying to bait editors by offering to attack them is really not constructive either. I've just posted another lengthy explanation on the article talk page - please read this. As I said there editing against policy is not very helpful - either try and get the policy changed or open an RFC on the article and solictit more help, discussion and opinions. Wikipedia works best when editors are polite and constructive even if they differ on the best way to construct things. Exxolon (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable images[edit]

Resolved: hopefully user will take notice this time

Could an admin versed in image policy take a look at this? The user created Hydrogeochemistry as an amalgam of material copied and pasted from various websites. I have a feeling that the images that he/she uploaded are wrongly tagged as {{PD-self}}. For example, it looks as if two of the images are from and BuddingJournalist 07:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The UGSG works are public domain (although {{PD-self}} isn't the right tag there), while the images from the private website are blatant copyright violations and can be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. That being said, leaving a nice note on their page pointing them to the policy on non-free content and explaining that they should provide sources for even freely-available public works would be less bitey than taking everything down. I would do it myself, but sadly I'm just about to shut down and step out.... --jonny-mt 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the infringing images and changed the tags on others to be correct (and informed the editors who uploaded them). Black Kite 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if the user has re-uploaded the infringing images and once again tagged them with {{PD-self}}. BuddingJournalist 16:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've done the same again, and warned them this time. Since they've created an entire article (even if it was a copyvio) they can hardly claim they don't understand it.Black Kite 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible mistake?[edit]

Can anyone look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj Apologist where the result was delete. But the article Imperial Apologist is still present with AfD notice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a red link.Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Whoever closed the AfD only deleted the redirect but the discussion was clearly about the article, which I have deleted following the consensus of the closed discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the article name was changed during the AfD discussion. What about the transclusion? 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tamr007 copying user page[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.
Move discussion to the MfD. Tiptoety talk 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A new editor, Tamr007, created a complete copy of my user page on his user page[13]. I removed it, asking him to not just copy and paste someone else's user page to his user page. I removed it again with the edit summary of "please be a little more mindful; its fine if you use the code to make your own, but just copy and pasting outright is rather rude, as is accusing someone." He again put it back, this time trying to hide it with comments.[14]. I went in and removed all the "borrowed" content[15], but he put back again[16] and again[17]. With 3RR all out the window, and frustrated that Tamr007 seems to just be putting it there to be annoying as he blanks all talk page messages I've left with stuff like "cool", I nominated the page for MfD [18], noting that I felt it was an "inappropriate copying of an entire user page." He responded by quoting "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." [19], blanking his talk page again (which I accidentally reverted thinking he'd removed the MfD from the user page itself)[20][21], partially restoring the copied page back to his user page[22] and again blanking his talk page and replacing it with "Cool." He followed up by also quoting "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles".[23]

This editor has done view other edits, which consisted of creating an inappropriate Television task force that I userified and explained how to properly start one, which seems to have been what started this whole silliness. He initially seemed to start as a misguided, but well intentioned editor, but seems to have decided to just go nutty because his task force was rejected. I feel his copying of my userpage, including some semi-personal details and gives the impression he/she is claiming credit for articles I've created or worked on, is inappropriate and would like it removed and his behavior stopped. Is this copying a violation of WP:USER or something else? Can the page be completely deleted to remove the copied stuff from history? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I left the AN/I notice as required, but he also blanked it[24] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
He is allowed to blank messages. Also per rules. He is allowed to copy our userpage as long as he does not claim to be you. He is in the right as I do not see him claiming to be you. Rgoodermote  03:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
His original copy does[25] and its word for word copying of everything written on my pages except he reversed the HE/SHE at the top. As the original includes lists of articles I've created or taken to featured status, that is a defacto claim of being me, I would think. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had people copy my user page and have edited it somewhat but I don't have an issue as long its not a page trying to make it look as if it's my account. It maybe wrong for them to copy your user page but I don't think there is a policy on Wikipedia which states you can't copy other editors pages (I could be wrong and happy to be wrong). Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
All pages are licensed under the GDFL, so anyone can copy/modify them to any end. If you feel a page misrepresents the contributor's edits, it should go to WP:MFD, as there is no rule against copying other people's pages. MBisanz talk 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but GDFL requires attribution, by my understanding, which is why we don't delete merged pages and why, when merging, we're supposed to note where the content was merged from. We have to keep the history to ensure proper attribution. His straight forward copy and pasting does not meet that requirement, by my understanding? It is also at MfD, but his responses (and lack there of) seem to indicate that he is doing it just to be disruptive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well he would need to attribute it, a line like "I copied my userpage from Collectonian's" would suffice for GFDL purposes. But unless they refuse to attribute or recreate after an MFD, I'm not seeing the pissue. MBisanz talk 03:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to sound rude, but who cares? I mean it is just a userpage. We are ultimately here to create a encyclopedia (I am starting to sound like a broken record) not another myspace, if he wants to use your userpage, no big deal, granted that he replaces your username with his. I say move on. Also, may I note WP:OWN. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Would your response be the same if it were your user page he were copying, including all parts referring to being an admin? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it would be, and I have actually have had my userpage copied a few times before. In regards to the admin part, that is completely different, there are policies that restrict users from impersonating site administrators and as such I would remove that content from the userpage. Tiptoety talk 04:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to assume we need to resolve the problem (noted per Tiptoey above), my take is:

  • The relevant section of the license is #4, "MODIFICATIONS", seen at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.
  • A) is met by being a different userpage, B) is met by listing "From [[User:X]]" (assuming there is no other authors of the page, vandals dont count by virtue of being reverted), C) is met by linking to [[User:X]], which implicitly notes the original publisher is Wikipedia, D) is fine per the GFDL thing at the bottom, E) per D, F) per D, G), per D, H) per D, I) arguably requires you to link to the history of [[User:X]], J) per C, K) per B, L) per D, M) is not applicable, N) per M, O( per D.
  • From that, it seems that all is required is a link saying "Copied from [[User:X]]", and if X wants to get really pedantic, a link to the history of [[User:X]] as well.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead an placed a notice on the user in question userpage. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah, that looks like an eye-chart Daniel, but accurate in its GFDL wording. MBisanz talk 04:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand (after reading that over and over) is that all that is required is that the copied userpage clearly states where it was copied from, and now that it does I do not see any violation. Looks resolved to me. Tiptoety talk 04:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come on, copying somebody else's User page is harrassment. Corvus cornixtalk 04:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the problem here is not in GFDL compliance. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It was one element of the problem. The other is, obviously, whether this was a disruptive bad faith copying, and whether misrepresentations have been deliberately made. Daniel (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Harassment? This does not appear to be anything but a new user who wants a userpage and saw one he likes from someone whom he likes (per his userpage). I mean has WP:BITE gone though anyones mind here, I mean it appears to be a good faith account. Tiptoety talk 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
May want to read through the edit history...that's him being sarcastic after first saying I was a stalker. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any indications of a newbie trying to edit under good faith. Corvus cornixtalk 05:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Mark Hanau[edit]

The creator of this article (who is apparently its subject) blanked the page and tagged it G7 CSD. I, on my first day as a wide eyed admin ploughing through a CSD backlog, checked the first edit, saw it had been made by the tagger and hence deleted the article. I was later told the article had a history of contributions by other editors. So I restored the article because it's not a speedy and my deletion, going by the tag and first/last edits, was a mistake. This article has almost everything, COI, BLP, OWN, suspected socks, sourcing disagreements and a very upset editor/subject who today, wanted the article gone. I'm watching it but I think it's going to need all the eyes it can get for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold here and deleted. I think all in all that is the best option, with the huge COI here. Let's allow this article to die. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a great use of WP:IAR to me. Tiptoety talk 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. A dispute of this sort belongs in AfD. not AN/I. DGG (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there was an AfD, but it didn't seem to help. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gathered that the thinking on this is, it's a big nest of worries for such a marginally notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if someone disagrees there is always WP:DRV. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent mulitple IP vandal[edit]

This case has become too complicated for WP:AIV because the vandalism is occuring from different IPs, but all IPs are through Hughes Network Systems. The same erroneous information has been added to Christina Ricci multiple times over the past few weeks. No edit summary is ever given, and the vandal has been asked several times to explain. Some AIVs result in a block; others don't because it's the only vandalism from that IP on that day. Here are the diffs for the vandalism:

[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].

These are the IP addresses:

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for 2 days while a range block or other option is considered. I didn't see much ip activity other than the above range and a couple of independent vandals, but would be unwilling to protect it for longer without consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we get consensus the usual way: Discuss on Talk:Christina Ricci? Or should I go to WP:RPP? Ward3001 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, you do it the way that you believe is most effective! I think opening a discussion at the article talkpage is fine, which may conclude that going and requesting protection at WP:RPP is best. I would also wait and see if some tech minded editor could comment here on whether a range block might be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin[edit]

The Prem Rawat area really needs an uninvolved administrator to step in. See here and here. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those threads looked archived to me. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he means the actual area needs someone new to step in. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero is correct. I apologize for not being more clear. The area of dispute is fairly narrow, so it would not be particularly difficult to monitor. These are long-term ongoing issues that show no sign of abatement, even after the completion of an ArbCom case and despite an ongoing mediation effort. I agree with Rlevse's closing, but some firm and consistent enforcement is really needed to bring that area under control. Vassyana (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate block of until edit to Antalya can be investigated[edit]

I was "validating" a new addition to Antalya external reference, a presumable .com site, most likely spam, but no big deal. May have been a "mere" coincidence but my computer crashed. It has firewall, etc. the whole nine yards. Reported it to Microsoft of course.

This user who is probably an ordinary spammer (no big deal if that turns out to be true) - we will handle him per normal channels. BUT he needs to be kicked off until the question can be resolved. This will not impact him nor Wikipedia in any major way given his history of editing. BTW, because I crashed, I will not be doing the investigation! :) I hope some admin will. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: The link in question is the official travel guide of Antalya, and worked fine on my machine [Windows Vista/Firefox], probably just a coincidence. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:48, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
Works fine for me as well. Time for a Mac? Kevin (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is removing SSP notices from your own talk page allowed?[edit]


I know that removing warnings and such from your talk page is allowed, but is removing SSP notices allowed? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Month old. :P Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the answer is "yes". --Akhilleus (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked for 24 hours. In the future, please take this to WP:AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked immediately, severe personal attack and vandalism. See [35] and [36] and [37]. Kilmer-san (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor[edit]

--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia and as of yesterday, I have only posted here once before. I recently attempted to post some information on the Sally Hemings page. I have a history degree and I have studied this subject extensively. However, as soon as I would post it, it would disappear. As I am new, I did not realize that a disruptive editor (Ward3001) was deleting my posts as soon as I posted it. Not knowing this, I continued to repost thinking it was my computer. I also didn’t realize that there was a message center. Once I happened upon the message center I saw a barrage of messages from Ward3001 accusing me of edit warring, which until recently I did not know the meaning of.

Ward3001’s first contact accused me of copyright violation, which was unfounded. Quotations are not copyright violations as long as one indicates who the quote is from. Again, I did not know how to respond to him. I attempted to click on his page and send an email but he does not receive email.

Once I figured out the use of “history” I went back to my original post and made a reference to what I believed were his motives were for disruptive editing. Then on top of copyright violations, he sent me additional messages and he added “POV pushing, edit warring, and personal attacks,” much of which is news to me.

  • Comment: Personal attack in edit summary here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted quotations from reputable sources founded in the historic and scientific community. What kind of encyclopedia is this if you can’t list quotes? In fact, I have seen quotes listed on Wikipedia many times.

Also, it appears that another editor, Ave Caesar, felt the need to get involved. Ave Caesar warned Ward3001 not to violate WP:3RR. I don’t even know what this means. But if another editor has to get involved to tell WARD3001 not to violate the editing rules, then that does not speak well for Ward3001 as an editor. Thanks.--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Msmariah, please note that I gave you a more formal warning for 3RR. I warned both sides in this situation. WP:3RR means that you are allowed only to make 3 revisions, in whole or in part, to any one article during a 24hour period. Ward's edits did not necessarily violate 3RR, in my mind, however since he was reverting what seemed to be copyright violations. My warning/note on 3RR to Ward was more informal for that reason. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that's not what you seemed to indicate when you and he corresponded on your talk page. --Msmariah1 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmariah1 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you might try engaging in discussion on the article's talk page. Go back to the Sally Hemming article and click the discussion tab to the right of the article tag and place your comments about the article at the bottom of that page. Discussing edits on an article's talk page is much better than edit warring.--Ave Caesar (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I didn't even know what that word meant until today. I'm reporting a disruptive editor, which I'm entitled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed sock of Tweety21. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is my first and only wiki account. Now this really is harassment. Stop stalking me. Go ahead and check; I have no idea who this tweety person is.--Msmariah1 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001 you are an absolute lunatic! Now that's a personal attack that you can claim. I AM NOT tweety-whoever. I have a dynamic ip address. My IP address changes randomly every day or so. I have no idea who this tweety person is or whoever else you're accusing me of. I feel sorry for the next person who just happens to have that ip address you blocked! I have no idea who you people are trying to link me to.

If you want to ban me then fine but don’t lump me in with someone I have no clue about! I am reporting this to the FCC and the Attorney General's Office!

Good riddance fascist! ~msmariah1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above should remove any further doubts. She did this before, too :/ - Alison 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So I'm going to get reported to the FCC and the Attorney General? Oh noez! (lolcat, someone?) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Rollback by user:Gulmammad[edit]

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

Gulmammad keeps using rollback to revert content and not vandalism. Furthermore, he is using it on Armenia Azerbaijan article for which there have been 2 arbcom decisions where users must discuss there reverts in talk. He neither discusses things in talk or provides any edit summaries as rollback doesn't do this. See subsections below.

Rollback abuse[edit]

01:50, 20 May 2008
11:12, 20 May 2008
18:18, 21 May 2008
19:56, 23 May 2008
18:21, 24 May 2008

Evidence that I tried to discuss Gulmammad's use of rollback with him[edit]


After you left a message in my talk page I didn't use the rollback. --Gulmammad (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Arbcom decisions[edit]


I am not being involved in any of these (even I haven't heard of it!), so please don't try to push me into any of these. I am an editor whose aim is to improve wikipedia by making contributions in any area. You can check it by investigating my edits here. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other reverts contrary to WP:ARBAA2[edit]

18:18, 24 May 2008

Please revoke user:Gulmammad access to rollback and please place him under supervision as per WP:ARBAA2. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me, whether an IP made the edit or not. I have temporarily removed his rollback rights with no prejudiced for them to be given back. Tiptoety talk 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call Tip Toe. 1 != 2 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I also recommend he be placed under supervised editing and revert limitations for the manner in which he performs his reverts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this to be planned personal attack to me. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


To revert the last vandalism, 18:21, 24 May 2008, I used undo. Please be accurate Pocopocopocopoco!
Here are explanations for my actions those I've done using the rollback tool:
  1. 01:50, 20 May 2008: Andranikpasha, who is already in supervised editing and revert limitations, removed well sourced information from the article.
  2. 11:12, 20 May 2008: An IP address repeated the action!
  3. 18:18, 21 May 2008: An IP address repeated almost the same action!
  4. 19:56, 23 May 2008: An IP address repeated again the same action!
  5. 18:21, 24 May 2008: Pocopocopocopoco removed from Azerbaijan related article template {{azerbaijan-stub}} giving an edit summery "may be controversial to have a flag with a crescent on an article about christian monastery" which I didn't use the rollback but undo.--Gulmammad (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but those edits the IP's were making do not appear to be vandalism but instead good faith additions and as such you should not use rollback to revert those changes, but instead something that allows you to use a edit summary. Tiptoety talk 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC
As it is written in the instructions on how to identify vandalisms, the edits were done by unknown users, IP's (with having already warnings in their talk pages for vandalizing and making unconstructive edits), which often appear to be unconstructive or vandalism. That is why I didn't have to deal with their edits as often editors do in similar situations. I already stated in my talk page that I had placed back most of edits those have been made by after I got message by Pocopocopocopoco. That was the only fair use of the rollback tool which I did after dealing with many unknown IP's with many kinds of warnings in their talk pages.--Gulmammad (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Gulmammad called my good faith removal of the azerbaijan stub vandalism yet I provided what I believe is very good justification for it's removal in the edit summary. He used undo and provided no justfication for the revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To date no consensus has been established regarding using rollback for more than vandalism edits. Take that for what you will. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to place Gulmammad on supervised editing, nor do I see any relevant link to any of the arbcom cases you (Pocopocopocopoco) have listed above. Tiptoety talk 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I see, there's a bunch of IP addresses reverting the articles in support of User:Andranikpasha, who is placed on revert parole by the administrators in accordance with the arbcom ruling. This is not a first incident of this kind, previously there was another bunch of anonymous IPs doing the same: [38] I think it is time to semiprotect the articles in question, then the use of rollback will not be an issue. Whoever stands behind the anon IPs would have to use his registered account if it's done. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And also, removal of {{azerbaijan-stub}} template from an Azerbaijan related article by Pocopocopocopoco [39] is highly questionable and disruptive and deserves attention of admins. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I gave a rationale as to why a flag with a crescent and star might not be appropriate for an article on a christian church/monastery, especially an Armenian one. It has also be discussed in talk here. Furthermore, you have no evidence that those IPs have anything to do with user:Andranikpasha. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Tiptoety, according to the arbcom cases WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBAA, any editor which edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan in an aggressive manner can be put on revert parole and supervised editing. user:Gulmammad's edit qualify as such because he would make repeated reverts without leaving an edit summary and he would edit war with those IP addresses. Note that other editors have received blocks for even less on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. For example if you scroll down this subsection, it says that user:Meowy was "blocked for 24 hours for failing to discuss a (in itself, questionable) reversion". user:Gulmammad on the other hand has made 6-7 questionable reversions and has abused the rollback tool in the process. At the very least he should be put on supervised editing and revert parole. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy was on parole and limited to 1 rv per week, as he has quite a history of POV editing, Gulmammad is not. Your reasons for removing a stub template are no good, and you should stop doing that. And the IPs should stop edit warring, if they are not related to any registered users, they need to register an account and stop hopping from one IP to another to revert the articles to the version preferred by Andranikpasha. Grandmaster (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That is why I suggested supervised editing instead of a block. Also, I don't need your approval or permission to make edits. The edit I made was discussed in talk previously and I provided a good rationale in the edit summary so it was a perfectly reasonable edit. Also, if you have a problem with IPs making edits to wikipedia, you should take it up at WP:PUMP. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:William Ortiz - disruptive editing, accusations, and now possible sockpuppetry[edit]

User:William Ortiz has been repeatedly adding unencyclopaedic material to Nigeria. After I reverted this edit by User:William Ortiz, the user undid my edit with the edit summary "(Undid revision 215063894 by Mr. Carbunkle (talk) per WP:SOURCE)" and left a message on my talk page that similarly accuses me of being indef blocked User:Mr. Carbunkle. I am not. A brand new user, Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) has now started making the same change to Nigeria that started this whole episode. Can someone take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretmaybe's revert may very well have been due to an edit conflict. William Ortiz' editing however is strange indeed. --Ankimai (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Pretmaybe as an obvious sock of William Ortiz. The fact that this account was created in 2007 but only started editing two minutes after one of the edits in question shows that not only are the two linked, but that User:Pretmaybe appears to be a sleeper account. And as we all know, where there's one sleeper account, there's more--I'm going to file a request at WP:RFCU. --jonny-mt 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonny! I note that Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) was welcomed shortly after creation by AR Argon (talk · contribs), who seemed to be very welcoming that day (check contribs for 27 August 2007). AR Argon was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Connell66. Just sayin'... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was adding relevant sourced material to Nigeria that I spent hours researching the sources of. Animai decided they like to destroy my hard work. Later I accidentally made a mistake when I thougt I was fixing a spelling error and it prompted Delicious carbuncle to wikistalk me ever since. Delicious carbuncle has never been before to Nigeria and then just suddenly he went around there following me and editing warring. Then he mysteriously comes here and files a big report. Wikistalking! This part never addressed that these were good edits I did. I'd also like to see the results of that checkuser as I very much down that Petmaybe even lives near me and even if they do then you likely just got lucky. That user also didn't go and do any adding things in and it looked like they got caught in an edit conflict doing multiple edits. I have tried talking to Akimai that user doesn't like to respond and I'll just wait and wait, but they are very fast to revert. Carbunkle also mysteriously put up some stuff I made for deletion. Stalk stalk stalk! Plus he is complaining about me asking if he was Mr Carbunkle but he created the name see logs [40]? He did make that user! William Ortiz (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than fixing that "spelling error" where you changed Chanel No 5 to Channel No 5, I don't think I've worked on any of the same articles as you, with the exception of Nigeria. If I see something like that I usually take a look at the editor's contributions. I would have reverted some of your other changes, but other editors got there first. Your diff shows that I registered User:Mr Carbuncle as a doppelganger account after you asked me about it, not User:Mr. Carbunkle, but I suspect you know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Ortiz --William Ortiz (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to confess that I'm surprised. The repetition of edits, the timing, the sudden burst of activity, everything pointed to User:Pretmaybe being your sock. But you can't argue with technical data, and so I offer my sincere apologies. That being said, there are still other issues to deal with above, and I still believe there's something strange about Pretmaybe's edits, so I'd like a little more time to review before I unblock. If any other admin decides to unblock in the meantime, though, I'll trust their judgment and won't consider it wheel-warring. --jonny-mt 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article Nigeria it is unfair that a single person who wants to use an article purely as a promotional piece to make a subject look good and only that are given priority over Wikipedia's policies like WP:RS. And the other one, Delicious carbuncle his edits are purely reverting and I see no content adding, and I also see a lot of following people around. Content adding takes time and work. William Ortiz (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hereward77 and NPA[edit]

I suggest that this edit to Alex Jones (radio) be deleted, per NPA and Hereward77 (talk · contribs) be further sanctioned. I can't do it mywelf, as the injured party of the personal attack, and previously having been involved in the edit war. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That is not a personal attack, I am stating a fact here. Your friend Mr. Paul Erdos once said of Karl Marx: "I do believe he was a great philosopher." [41] --Hereward77 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • One could agree that he's a great philosopher without agreeing he was ever correct. But it would still be a personal attack, even if it were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both editors are coming off a block for mutually 3RR-ing each other, so that should be taken into account. That said, regardless of the veracity of Hereward's edit summary (which is questionable in and of itself), in context it was clearly meant as an ad hominem attack. If Rubin has a problem with the edit summary, I think the admin tools should be used to strike that edit.

      • It is a historical fact that Erdos was given privileges by the Hungarian communist tyranny. Arthur Rubin's article states that he was a associate of this man, and Mr. Rubin is smearing an ideological enemy of communism. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as further sanctions, the edit warring needs to stop, first and foremost. Might I suggest that both of you find some different articles to edit for a little while? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I added anti-globalism to the knownfor field. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise, as both appear in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the problem here? If there were a conspiracy theorists Hall of Fame, in Roswell NM, Alex Jones would be greeting visitors at the entrance. We don't need to skirt around the issue. Jones is a conspiracy theorist. All we have to do is examine his output. He is a role model for conspiracy theory. I think he's even put out a set of DVDs on how to be a conspiracy theorist. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Alex Jones never mentions UFO's. Again you are smearing him with lazy innuendo. He is a political activist and an American patriot. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
SIGH --Pete (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And I notice you didn't challenge that DVD box set. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Your silly remarks prove that you don't have an argument and that you have a political agenda against Mr. Jones. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 4) OK, I won't edit the article until a clear consensus is (re-)established. Perhaps an article RfC is in order, although I believe it had already been done. Still, all four of Hereward77's edits are NPA violations, and need to be removed. (And, although I appreciate Pete's support, the question of correctness of the article is not appropriate here, only on the article talk page and/or RfC.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that all the edits in the past few hours except Pete's be deleted, and both Hereward77 be put on an article ban for the next few days? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll accept an article ban for the duration of the block, although I may comment on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Can somebody do something about this nationalistic SPA account. Without reasons he is deleting great parts of articles ( first and second example) . Similar to that he is deleting statements confirmed by sources ( [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] ).

It is possible to see that I have not writen anything about his Greater Serbia nationalistic changes when he has changed language or nationality in articles from Croatian and Montenegrin to Serbian because this can be called editorial dispute, but blanking parts of articles and deleting statements confirmed by internet sources is clear vandalism .--Rjecina (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with the user? You know, sometimes if you attempt to start a conversation, a common ground can be reached. If you can show that you've tried to work things out and that hasn't worked, you are likely to get better response from admins than if ANI is your first attempt at resolving the problem... 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked 24 hours

Very strange, idiosyncratic edits in a combination of Spanish and English. Insists on creating nanostubs in both languages as well as nonsense. Might not be a vandal per se, but he's really causing a cleanup problem. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just reported him at AIV. Looks as if he's continuing past his final warning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Case blocked him for 24 hours. Marking this one as resolved. Re-report to AIV if problems start again after block. 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator "sasquatch"[edit]

Resolved: Travistalk 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone plz. direct me to the administrator named "Sasquatch"? My buddy said i should look him up. thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, Special:ListUsersTravistalk 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

619 in Ireland[edit]

Resolved: Sarah777 (talk · contribs) indef. blocked for disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can someone please remind User:Sarah777 that users cannot remove AFD tags? I think she has removed it 3 times in the last 24 hours and I don't want to be the only one putting it back. Mangostar (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, because that would breach 3RR and you'd get blocked. Don't make a virtue of necessity. Why did you delete 20 articles? Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the header and left the user a note. Hopefully this will be enough to discourage any future disruption.-Andrew c [talk] 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please apologise immediately for characterising my edits as disruption. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Repeatedly removing AfD tags is very clearly disruption. I'm surprised that such an experienced contributor thinks it isn't. No-one is ever going to be blocked for replacing it. Black Kite 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you refer me to the Wiki-rule that says that? Haven't come across it. The tag was a "bad faith" tag by an editor who engaged in mass deletion of articles. I happened to be the author of these articles but am aware of WP:OWN so that isn't the basis of my objection. My objection is that this Mango chap seems to be a law unto himself and is now, apparently, supported by Admins in his vigilantism. Not good. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly stated in the AFD tag itself - "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And it's pointless anyway, because removing the tag doesn't prevent the actual deletion discussion from continuing. Black Kite 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And the actual procedure is here --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On the opther hand, He's getting lots more support for delete at the AfD now that there's a call for attention there. ThuranX (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And this AfD is where, exactly? Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party? So that I can more widely alert people to its existence. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time. My concern here is that this editor preempted due process which it appears is acceptable to the dominant British Nationalist Wiki-perspective when British pov is being imposed on Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The AfD is linked from the AFD tag on the article (in other words, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/619_in_Ireland). Incidentally, your insistence on blaming everything you don't agree with on some evil Brit conspiracy doesn't do you any favours, you know. Black Kite 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Simply put, AfD tags are not to be removed until the AfD is closed. Even in cases of a bad-faith nomination (which this does not appear to be), there is no valid reason to remove the tag from the article until the AfD is closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement widely alert people is a little concerning. I just want to preemptively remind you of WP:CANVASS. -Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me here THTFY; there is absolutely no need to put things "simply" for me. I understand what is going on here rather better than most. IMHO. Andrew; that apology please. Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything Andrew needs to apologise for - he quite correctly called you on your disruptive editing. Exxolon (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only is Sarah's removal of an AfD tag on multiple occasions disruptive, but comments like The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time is completely beyond the pale, and should be repudiated. Corvus cornixtalk 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah - for a start off, the article was nominated for AfD not by Mangostar, but by User:Tim!. If you look at his contributions ([46]), he has also been adding a lot of events to "Year X in Ireland" articles. Secondly, he quite correctly informed you of the AfD ([47]). Thirdly, the AfD tag (which you kept removing) directs people to the AfD discussion, which will also be read by those who peruse WP:AFD. Fourthly, you're not going to get an apology out of Andrew because he was in the right. Black Kite 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No apology; no discussion. Mango deleted 20 articles - any of you chappies notice that? No? Why? Corvus; the truth cannot be eliminated by and Wiki-self-delusion or Wiki-political-correctness. My observations are manifestly correct. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I need to say it again; the 619 in Ireland article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And Mango has not "deleted" anything. He has nominated the articles. The deletions would come following a consensus discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah is referring to a merger of some "Year X in Ireland" stubs into a "Century X in Ireland" article by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Which makes sense to me, but paranoia is an unhealthy condition. Corvus cornixtalk 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So is denial. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC) He deleted them. It is somewhat worrying (though not surprising) that such a collection of esteemed editors can get such a simple thing wrong. Black Kite; pl don't feel you have to repeat what you've already said - no matter how often you repeat it my reaction to nonsense will be the same; the article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar - yeah!! It was deleted by Mango!!! I gotta hand it to you guys ye've got an evil sense of humour! Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) He did not delete them. He merged them. (2) The article 619 in Ireland is not deleted, it is only nominated for deletion, and that nomination was not done by Mangostar. (3) When people are trying to help you understand things that you clearly don't understand, and you tell them they're talking "nonsense", I'd suggest your best plan would be to step away from the keyboard for a while. Black Kite 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are starting to bore me (with all due respect). He deleted 20 articles in the series. You fuzzy rationalisations don't change that; you are talking nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article contents were NOT deleted. They were simply merged into one longer, more useful article. So nothing's been lost, it's merely the same information in a different format. Exxolon (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's that. Sarah, leave this alone now. The merges are something which is a content dispute and don't require any admin action - you can discuss that with Mango on the talkpages. Meanwhile, you are clearly in the wrong here, both with the disruptive removal of AfD tags and your comments above. I will have no problem at all with blocking you if you carry on, so please don't. I am marking this resolved. Black Kite 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[48] [49] [50] All a tad contradictory, and the info in the stub article was not transfered to another article with the redirect, so it was no merge, but in effect a delete. Sarah777 doesn't seem to be the hardest editor in the world to bait. (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) No - two different things going on. The 619 in Ireland article was nominated because it was said that the sole event listed actually took place in 618. The merges performed by Mango are a separate issue. Black Kite 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sad to say, Sarah's behaviour has become highly tendentious and is getting out of control. This is probably the central issue here, and this is a shame as she can be an intelligent and fun editor. Appears these days though to be interested in nothing but having a fight. Her editorial choices are dominated by strong ideology and her talk page comments are characterised by confrontation, emotive divisive paranoia [51] [52] [53], and misrepresentation [54] [55] [56]. Tendentiously edit-wars and shops, while accusing other established users of edit-warring [57] and vandalism [58] [59] [60] (etc). This has been going on for a while, but after carrying her ideology over to the talk page of a Russian football club last week, I unskillfully and unsuccessfully attempted to get her to alter her behaviour without acting as an admin, but all I got for it in the end was aggression and membership of her Anglo-Cabal. Full of bad faith too. After once getting rid of a POV-fork, Sarah did this. Since I first noticed and involved myself, I've remained passive but I have noticed it continuing to get much worse. I'd urge a totally non-involved established and experienced user to try to get Sarah to behave in a reasonable manner. Preferably this user should come from the highlands of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon jungle or another national background that would make it hard to get membership of this club, as paranoia and mistrust are a very big issues with Sarah. But it's got to stop somehow before its influence on other wikipedians escalates the conflict and tension on the articles she edits. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Zzzzzzzzzz.......Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an amazing discussion about an editor who has been blocked 7 times including harassment and civility issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee restriction[edit]

Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. Those interested in possibly applying a sanction of any kind should consider the above. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else. Originally decided because I made the (apparently) extraordinary claim that the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany. So certain opinions expressed (note) only on the talkpage in response to attacks from other editors are now banned from Wiki? Is that it? (And btw Daniel - 6 out of those 7 blocks were by Adimins for what they reckoned was incivility towards themselves in consversations outside the mainspace area; one was for an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm no apologist for the British Empire but they didn't start a six year war that cost 72 million lives and included the holocaust - it's unsurprising the claim is considered 'extraordinary'. Exxolon (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? Not in the least; the Irish famine claimed over a million lives and much more while food was exported under protection of British arms; genocide in Tasmania, countless millions in India etc etc (all debated before; all supported by a vast body of reliable sources. What is extraordinary is the limited worldview of those who'd find such common knowledge extraordinary. But it is a pretty extraordinary insight into the prevailing pov at Wiki. That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages. Dress it up in any righteous cloak of your choosing. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So, because of something that occurred off-wiki in the past, means it is perfectly acceptable to introduce anti-British commentary and clear bias into every imaginable article? Or to produce snide and downright uncivil comments, harassing other users in the process? If that is your sole rationale towards your unapologetic behavior, then I would say a community ban is in order, given that you are not willing to change your editing practices. seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been great incivility displayed by Sarah777 above and elsewhere, such as at [61]. And the comments left at User talk:Alison#Moving_Article without agreement are not that encouraging, either. There is also edit warring over tags, and/or obvious anti-British bias, such as [62] "adding a photograph" [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. There was also a lot of reverts and tedious editing at Great Britain and Ireland for a period in mid-May, and the same can be said for List of islands in the British Isles.
Quite frankly, I'd AfD most of the "XXX in Ireland" articles, such as 260 in Ireland and have it redirect to say... 3rd century in Ireland. There is no reason to have blank or nearly empty articles for decades that haven't been filled or completed in months, and it's content that can be applied elsewhere.
Adding in the above, to which there is no real action that can be taken, along with the ArbCom restrictions, I say that Sarah777 has a pretty tight leash. The lack of concern for the comments above ("Zzzzzzzz") and the general disregard for other editors and policies, leads me to believe that additional restrictions are required. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Zzzzzz was a specific response to Deacon and a reference to an earlier debate on my page - and Deacon knows that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I see it in the same terms as Seicer, Sarah. That you've done it more than once is not an ameliorating factor. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with User:seicer. Suggest restriction on Ireland-related articles. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the edits further and would find it perfectly acceptable to impose a 1RR restriction on articles regarding the XXX in Ireland articles. This is not an isolated incident, and the edit warring at other articles suggests that a revert restriction may be applicable elsewhere. While there have been no 3RR violations, such as at Great Britain and Ireland, the user has been pretty disruptive and has been essentially testing the waters, so to speak. Pretty irritating for other users who have to deal with this. seicer | talk | contribs 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd also suggest something about WP:Civil. Snarkyness seems to be the default there. Toddst1 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And "snarkyness" is? Can't find it in Chambers? Is there a Wiki-policy? The picture (one of 1,000 I've contributed to Wiki) was added to an article that is not a dab (see discussion); the rest are selective - usual stuff - for example DGAF was a direct response to an Admin who used the term; never came across it before.
I'm guessing things aren't looking good for Sarah, right now. Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that would be bad for Wiki because it would mean that charges of "incivility" and now "disruption" are being abused in the cause of blatant, naked political censorship and defence of right-wing Anglosphere pov. Anyway - it's Arbcoms choice if it comes to it. I'll seek a review by Arbcom as any further restrictions re editing Irish related articles is totally unacceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since Arbcom has already sanctioned a ban (if necessary), and Sarah's unwilling to accept a lesser restriction, where does that leave us? I just noticed the next section. Duh. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How many thousand editors do we have that have never been blocked even once? Statistically many of those editors must have extreme and irrational beliefs, but somehow manage to phrase their contributions as though they are rational human beings.Aaaronsmith (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?[edit]

Any reason we're still tolerating this? It sure looks like this disruptiveness is not new. Also, her conduct right here on the noticeboard is.. not constructive. Looks like more of the problem that's apparently been ongoing for some time. Community ban time? Friday (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, lemme get this straight: defending myself openly and honestly against a series of direct charges is...not constructive. (Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet - out of context, of course). Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you just did, and swung me over to support such a ban. I see zero constructive attitude on the part of this editor based on my brief encounter since this thread started and given the history, I think it's about time. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Todd, based on my brief encounter with you I think you were of that mind already. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Toddst1 that Sarah displays no willingness to work cooperatively or constructively. Her insistence that anyone who disagrees with her, pretty much no matter what, is part of a vast anti-Irish circle is baffling. Her refusal to accept any views apart from her incredibly extreme ones as legitimate is very disruptive, and she shows a lack of willingness for self reflection, as evidenced by the above thread. At the very least I support a ban from all Ireland-related articles for at least as long as it takes her to cool down and gain some perspective. I would not oppose a complete ban. And by the way, Sarah, my ancestors were Famine emigrants, so don't even bother with your normal rant at me. - Revolving Bugbear 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So - eh - what 'incredibly extreme' views would those be?!!! And I have denied a dozen times that I think there is any "conspiracy" re Irish articles; I have said that there is embedded cultural BIAS that is out of control and that folk beleive is consistent with WP:NPOV when it clearly isn't. How can I be 'constructive' and 'meet halfway' folks who characterise mainstream views in Ireland as 'incredibly extreme'!! And R Bugbear; regardless of where you ancestors hail from I will argue my point and kindly adhere to WP:CIVIL - I don't "rant". Had I said that of you someone would now have already added that to the charge-sheet. This is almost funny were I not the target. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Some 'extreme' views that demonstrate your complete lack of appreciation for history:
the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany - Go to Dachau one day. That will give you some perspective. Any oppression is despicable, but the barbarism of inventing an industry centered solely around mass murder for purely ideological means knows hardly a peer in history.
Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? - Yes, after Germany invaded Poland. So, no, Britain didn't "start a six year war that cost 72 million lives" -- Germany did.
I apologize for my use of the word 'rant'. But your rhetoric here really pushes the bounds of credulity. And statements like these belie your claim that you don't believe there is a conspiracy:
A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else.
Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party?
Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club.
That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages.
Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet
It is in your best interests to stop trying to defend this inexcusable behavior and start showing some contrition. You are way over the line, and everybody but you sees that. - Revolving Bugbear 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

←Having had no interaction with Sarah777 before (that I'm aware of), I'm somewhat dismayed with the behavior shown (with regard to the AfD's, POV issues, and general tendentiousness). I'd Endorse Friday's proposal, or a topic ban. (Although given her contribution history/interests, I think a topic ban would amount to a de facto general community ban). --Bfigura (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, if there were enough reasons not to nuke sockpupeteer Betacommand, based on his promises to behave, there's no reason to nuke Sarah. Apply the same standards to her. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, my experience with her has been on List of events named massacres and predecessors, and she has been a consistently disruptive force there. (e.g., this