Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444

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

Noticeboard archives



User SacKingFans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding a low res (137 × 103 pixels) image (Image:Smoke at sunset.jpg which also has no information on the images page) on Wildfire and keeps reverting my removal. I've ask in the edit summary for them to upload a higher res image and add source info to the image. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask people to do things in edit summaries, go to their talk page instead. I've left a quick note. Lets see if he responds. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast[edit]

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008
Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

  1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
  3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Alison 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We've been at least that generous to accounts much worse than Poupon, so why not? MastCell Talk 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as a note, please see User_talk:Lar#Mentorship (permlink) where, prior to recent events, PouponOnToast and I were discussing parameters of my mentoring him. I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we let him comment further, he might tell it as it is and plain talk jus aint allowed around these here parts nomore. If I had a dollar for all the spurious accounts that come to some areas and troll about the virtues of nonvirtuous websites, I could finally afford to fill up may gas tank every week. But nah...we need not make a fuss about them, they are surely here for the benefit of this website. I'd be happy to mentor advice up front is to simply stick to one account and keep sticking it to those that seem to relish in demanding we link to garbage websites that are as notable as my pet rock. Nay, only anti-WR and anti-ED folks are disruptive...the opposite could never be the case.--MONGO 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb off the Reichstag, MONGO, considering one of the folks that post regularly on WR is the one who's pointed out that while PoT's other accounts have disrupted Wikipedia's processes (specifically the Attack Sites ArbCom case, amongst others), they've never vandalized a Wikipedia ARTICLE. Even considering my past history with him, I am also willing to see PoT unblocked, as long as he's restricted to one account, without even a topic ban. And to be quite blunt, I think having you as a mentor would not be at all a good idea. When you look for someone to be a mentor, you look for someone who is reasonable, and moderate, not an echo chamber for his own ideas, "turned up to 11", as you would be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In my view and in this case Neil/SirFozzie's proposal has merit. Orderinchaos 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Sir Fozzie, indeed you are so correct once again...the BEST mentoring would surely come from someone that uses offsite venues to post links to userpage vandalism that happens here and call it "funny". Poupon, in his way, tried to encourage yourself and at least one other to not feed the offsite trolls by giving them an audience or sounding board and to not collaborate in furthering axe grinding via such participation. The question is though as to why this matter IS being discussed offsite and if any decision making is happening based on these discussions, what power do such offsite venues have in formatting decision making here. When we start bowing to the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia and or its editors, then we have a serious problem.--MONGO 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If no one listened to "the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia or its editors", then Mantanmoreland's serial socking would still be "a WordBomb false theory spread by trolls and meatpppets". There are times when they are wrong. Spectacularly so. But they have been right, almost as much as they've been wrong. I know you have a history of issues (and I understand why you would, considering what happened) with off-site attacks upon you. And as for why its being discussed, gee, I wonder why.. Someone who accuses others of socking, disruption and bad faith is caught disrupting, socking, and acting in bad faith. The irony is so delicious, I expect it to be a dish on Iron Chef. PoT had moderated his activities in the last few weeks, which is why I'm calling for an unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
While I have no particular problem with unblocking and restricting, I'd like to point out that disruption isn't limited entirely to article-space. One can disrupt the encyclopedia just as effective from other namespaces as from article space, so I'm not really sure that the delimiter "he's never vandallized a wikipedia ARTICLE..." is important. It takes no less time for us to clean it up if it's in another namespace. - Philippe 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and disruption doesn't have to be simple vandalism. However I would like to see Lar as the mentor. Would not want MONGO to take the job for the same reason as Foz gave. ViridaeTalk 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case I will be his mentor. I think the best mentor is someone who does not participate in offsite venues that have a history of sponsoring harassment.--MONGO 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose having MONGO as a mentor, as I don't see MONGO as open minded enough (a good mentor should not come from a very similar worldview, unless we are looking to reinforce cliquish or closeminded behaviour), and as being likely to reinforce the problematic behaviour that caused some of the issues in the first place, and as someone who does not have a demostrated track record of working successfully with others in a way that doesn't end in blocks, conflicts, edit wars, and so forth. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to anyone with WR affiliation being his mentor. That would include Neil who started a thread there about me and posted that he thought vandalism that happened to my userpage was "funny". Look, so far I see that he did create sock accounts, some of which were deliberately insulting wordplays on another's username. Those were made almost a year ago...the top two are more recent, but I see no evidence of double voting or vandalism. He is not UUU why are we demanding he have a mentor at all...all that need be done is get him to stick to one account and to encourage him to diversify his editing, the latter of which is voluntary of course. As Alison noted, he already apologized for his behavior and one of the rationals for his indefinite block...that he was UUU, has already been disproven. I am beginning to think that demanding he have a mentor is more and more about him questioning a few admins about their involvement in WR...we're not in the brainwashing business...if he holds that issue to be of concern, then he has that right, just as I do. Do you think he and I are the only ones that feel that way?--MONGO 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to anyone with ED affiliation being his mentor. That rules you out, because you after all have an ED article. ... or perhaps you are no more "affiliated" with ED than I am with WR. Yes I post there. I've explained why, at length. I post there to correct misapprehensions, to criticise, and yes, when someone is right about something, to admit it. Even if it's uncomfortable for me. I highly recommend admitting someone else is right about stuff, when they are, as a practice to everyone. I said I'm willing. He asked for me. I said I'm apparently not that good (but I AM willing to admit mistakes, block, and move one). He's OK with that, and said he'd be the one to break the jinx. This is the community's call, not yours or mine alone. Your objection is noted but perhaps more folk should weigh in. It's no loss to me if the community says yes, or no. Are you sure you can say the same? You seem to have a lot invested in trying to prevent this. Me, I don't think I have nearly as much invested as you do, one way or the other. I again call for other voices, enough to see if there is consensus one way or the other (lack of consensus to do this to me means... don't). I will not unblock without a clear consensus to do so, and I will not mentor without a clear mandate to do so. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Lar#Accepting_your_offer (permlink: [2] ... where this user (presumably, I didn't yet run a CU to check but seems likely to me) has accepted my offer of mentorship, acknowledged that the scope is no longer voluntary, and offered full disclosure of all socks set up with a restriction to just one account. I am willing, he is willing, but it is not either of our decisions to make alone... it is up to you all, the community, to decide if this is acceptable or not. Fair warning, my track record on mentorship is pretty abysmal, I think (just about?) every one I've entered into so far has resulted in an indefinite block at the end, rather than a success. But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See this thread...he has yet to log into any of his former accounts or the Poupon one. Maybe he will...just saying. If you aren't convinced you can "reform" him based on past failures, then don't do it.--MONGO 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that he's waiting to come clean on all his socks based on this mentorship discussion's outcome. That's a guess... nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Which was wrong. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • sighs* PoT has now stated that he has yet ANOTHER sock that he's going to keep and edit with no matter what. [3]. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record... the accounts posting at my and Neil's talk pages are not PoT per his statement. So that was a big waste of time. Got me. Well played. Etc. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for a community ban, so I withdraw that suggestion. If the good hand account does stay in article space, and no other accounts of this editor begin carrying on in the poor tradition of POT, then I'm comfortable. I do think if the editor begins using another account in the same fashion, it will be time to bid them fully adieu. GRBerry 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback BLP issues[edit]

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) keeps rollbacking the removal of bad-links from talk pages of articles. I've already brought it up on their talk page and the BLP noticeboard with no success.--Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, he's restoring comments with external links to Uncyclopedia that you're removing. Is there some policy against linking to Uncyclopedia on talk pages that I don't know about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They are on the talk pages of:

They are being removed as they are of no value and intentionally mock the subject which violates WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what admin action you want. On the one hand, it's customary to grant wide latitude to editors making comments on talk pages and be extremely circumspect about messing about with others' posts. On the other hand, the posts don't seem to have any relevance to article improvements and off-topic posts can be deleted, especially if they're seen as excessively disruptive. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, you're supposed to notify another user when you start a thread about him on this page. You didn't do that, so I did. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How does "intentionally mock(ing) the subject" violate WP:BLP. Mocking is constitutionally protected. I realize WIkipedia is not directly subject to the Constitution, but there seems no way that mocking is excluded by WP:BLP. Furthermore, it's Uncyclopedia doing the mocking; with the exception of David Icke, there's no trace of mocking in the text itself, and the mocking there seems justified by the context. Need I mention WP:TALK#Others' comments? (And thanks, Steven.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps those (other than David Icke's) are not related to article improvement. But neither are transwiki requests, technically, and two of the comments looked like "transwiki to Uncyclopedia" or "take this discussion to Uncyclopedia". Furthermore, Otter is continuing to remove the talk sections, despite having no support. Is WP:3O appropriate for a dispute covering multiple articles, or do we need to take this to a content RfC to see whether there is any support for Otter's position? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to violate the BLP policy, on the face of it, since there is no other information other than a link on the talkpage. Either way, you should both stop edit warring before one of you ends up blocked. Not often I see an admin involved in blatant revert warring. Avruch 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive IP user calling me a liar and slanderer[edit]

User: has called me a liar on several user and article talk pages. I was going to wait for an apology until I looked at the time difference. He has done this on all his contributions to talk pages today [4]. I've responded a bit on his talk page User talk: Can his edits be deleted? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OWN on WP:RADWP[edit]

Resolved: ANI is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and admins are not going to play umpires in bickering over a trivial non-mainspace project. Please reach a compromise off-Wikipedia. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
On Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia, User:StewieGriffin! is trying to own the project. Among many other things, he has
  • Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and I joined from 5 full episodes.
  • Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes".
  • Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument.
  • "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission."
  • Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself".
  • And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against".
Would a topic ban be appropriate? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban on what exactly? RADWP? Considering he's the only broadcaster, it would end the project. However, WP:OWN is a policy, and I will speak to the user about this again. No one can grant permission once it's released into the public domain; it's there for public use (hence the term). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
me, User:Red Thunder, User:Xenocidic and User:Vhoscythe contribute to the project. We can certainly carry on.
And yes, a topic ban from the page of WP:RADWP. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Stewie: Here are the options open to you:
  • Broadcast only off Wikipedia from now on. If you wish to own your work, don't upload it here; simple.
  • The same cannot apply to your previous broadcasts. You released those under a free license. You even said, and I quote, "this sound file is in the public domain".
  • Permission is not something that exists for public domain work. PD is without limitation.
  • If you do decide to withdraw your work, it will likely be continued in your absence by the contributors above.
  • Let's see where this goes before a topic ban is implemented.
--PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I simply said the fact that, I don't understand why we need it there. I prefer it here. Plus, with our website in development, that's just another source. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I also put up the episode limit because of one user just put them as staff. Every user who wants to be one, can't just put themselves as staff. Vhoscythe hadn't even hosted an episode! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and Shapiros10 joined from 5 full episodes. Because of people just adding themselves as staff
  • Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes". Yes, if he hasn't listened to these. How can he comment about iTunes.
  • Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument. Subscribers are all well and good, but it is for Wikipedians, and we can see our listeners here
  • "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission." For my reasons
  • Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself". Because if it gained majority support, I would do it officialy, not Red Thunder's Media. And I would at least put the episodes up daily.
  • And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against". To resolve this
I suggest Red Thunder renames the podcast and updates it daily. You can put my episodes on, but I will not be involved with this. I do not like the idea, and I will continue to upload it here. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, first off: you kept raising the limit when we actually met the criterion. What's up with that?
You don't have to be able to listen to it to comment on where it should go. I know for a fact that Gears of War can only play sound files using iTunes, so that's why he was able to comment, because he wanted to listen to them.
Seriously, why do we need to track our listeners? It's in the public domain.
And "your reasons" are a violation of WP:OWN.
Why, do you think you need to do everything officially just because you founded it? WP:OWN.
But the argument of "A staff member is against it". Do we vandalize because a WMF board member said so?
Stewie, I suggest still contributing to Radio Wikipedia, but not wanting to do everything yourself. And raise the Episode limit back to 2. Red Thunder has done only 4 so far. And Xenocidic hasn't done. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my guys, come on. How about building the damn encyclopaedia instead of arguing between yourselves about a radio show about the encyclopaedia. What the?! Alex Muller 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to just chime in and agree with Alex on a point: Rather than spend time arguing, build the encyclopedia. On another point, I'd like to say Stewie has stated multiple times that as "Founder", "Head", etc, he holds the ability at his discretion to add, change, or remove various points of the episode and the main page. If the project was one's business, the situation would be different, but this is Wikipedia, and one doesn't hold the ability to exert power over others, especially if that power exertion goes against policy and/or consensus. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some pretty disturbing diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8]

RedThunder 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but are any of you actually asking for admin help with anything? We're not going to run your project for you. – ırıdescent 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No...just a topic ban from that page. I think that's an appropriate action. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say that. RADWP is a little project for Wikipedia news, why don't we stop wasting our time and actually contribute to the encyclopedia? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Because you'll keep thinking you own in unless something is done. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously guys, take the hint from Alex, Iridescent and others above. This isn't an admin issue and there is no way you are going to get a community sanction for this so the other party 'wins' and can take over 'ownership' of the project. There's just no way that is going to happen. If anything, Shapiro, when other admins start to look at your own history and the fact you are on probation, they're going to start wondering if sanctions ought not come your way, too. Please take the bickering somewhere else, preferably off Wikipedia and reach some kind of compromise about this project. Shapiro, next time you want to make a report to ANI, I would request that you run it by your mentor first to receive confirmation that it is a suitable complaint for ANI. I'm archiving this section - please go and sort this out privately. Thank you. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't care now. I'm running my own podcast (pay-for-advertisment) so will be busy with that. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. You are complaining about me, wheras Red Thunder was supposed to do yesterday's episode. Was it done? And Shapiros10 was supposed to do todays, has he done it yet? They just want the project to themselves? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stewie, I'm archiving this section and I really recommend that you stop responding to Shapiro about this subject on ANI. There's not going to be a community sanction against you without there also being one against Shapiro as well. Community sanctions are for serious offences and are used as a last resort and there will not be a consensus for a sanction, but you both may well get blocked if you guys can't resolve this quietly. I can really understand you not wanting it published on i-Tunes or whatever under the name "Red Thunder Media" but that is part and parcel of the GFDL and I can only advise you to either find a way to work together or if you just don't want others to participate then you will have to do as you say and take it off-Wikipedia but if you do that, I think it will be very unlikely that your listeners will follow you because a core principle here is working together and collaborating with each other. And so if you refuse to let others have a turn then I can't imagine very many Wikipedians being interested in following you on your own to another site in order to listen to a Wikipedia Radio show. You will notice that all the other similar multi-media projects have lots of people working on it together, as a community. Whatever you decide to do, please remember everyone is equal on Wikipedia and no one owns any page or any project here so you can't just assign yourself in 'power' positions and you can't retract the GFDL. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Abusive language[edit]

I requested an editor, Fennessy (talk · contribs), to observe NPA and CIV and his response was a personal insult, calling me a crying Jew saying he's surprised that I'm not crying antisemitism. i.e. suggesting Jews always follow some mold of pointing a finger and whining "antisemitism" every time they face adversary. Comment: I initially summerized this issue as 'calling me a crying Jew'.

The diff contains his initial offensive comment, my request that he observe civility and his offensive response.

1) Calling people who disagree with him 'pro-Israeli Bigots':

"practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is an Israeli or pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind." - Fennessy, 09:09, 5 July 2008

2) Abusive language towards Jews (and me):

"I'm actually surprised by your tone that you didn't cry antisemitism at the first given opportunity". - Fennessy, 13:09, 5 July 2008

The fact that he suggested it to be unique that I'm not crying antisemitism is extremely insulting. I was pretty miffed at his first "pro-Israeli bigots" comment but this one raised the bar quite further.

Anyways, to try again and avoid conflict despite this double insult, Durova noted him about the problem of using the term 'bigot' and suggested he refactor it, to which he responded "Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been."

It goes without saying that he did not refactor either the 'bigots' or the 'crying Jew' comments. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) clarify user 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) fixes 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At my request, Jaakobou held off from posting this while I contacted the user at his or her user talk page. With each post on the subject Fennessy repeats the offensive insinuations. DurovaCharge! 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
And at least you didn't call him a 9/11 celebration denier (good form). Judging by his talk page, these particular personal attacks and incivility are not an isolated incident. — CharlotteWebb 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Left a brief note. Will keep a loose eye on things. Interested in further developments, should any arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that in the cited text, Fennessy did not use the term "crying jew." Edison (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't call you a crying jew at all, this is a false report if I've ever read one. Beam 03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I've asked Jaakobou for a correction. What Fennessy did say, though, was far from unobjectionable and he maintained it three times. DurovaCharge! 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not an error. You'll note that Jaakobou did not not say he was quoting Fennessy when he referred to the phrase "crying Jew" is splitting hairs to the point of silliness, however, to ignore here that what Fennessy is actually saying, is that anyone who might raise a claim of antisemitism is a whiner. Whether he actually said Jews who cry (call out) "antisemitism!" when it raises its head are "crying (whimpering/weeping/whining) Jews" is immaterial at this point...that he didn't say the exact phrase does not excuse that that was exactly what he meant. Villainizing Jaakobou for quoting Fennessy incorrectly when Jaakobou wasn't quoting Fennessy at all, is disingenuous and counterproductive to resolving this clear breach of WP:NPA. Tomertalk 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Uncalled for, intentionally provocative language. Note left, and further violations should result in measures being taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, he's saying he's surprised you don't cry antisemitism, not that all jews cry antisemitism all the time. You shouldn't take offense for all jews. And his assumption that all users are Israelis or Pro-israeli bigots is a poor assumption. Then again, if you had assumed good faith you wouldn't have taken these as personal insults. I don't know. Warn him, no block seems necessary from these excerpts. Beam 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam I didn't say all users. Change the word "bigots" to "bias" & be done with it. Enough already. The reason I choose that word is because the article I was talking about —just from its title alone— smacks of the worst kind political POV pushing and intolerance of others, singling out a small country for an extremely negative grilling over the actions of a few. To take one word and run with it to the point where you are evoking heil Hitler salutes is really such a stretch. ʄ!¿talk? 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that you shifted discussion from content issues to the potential motivations of contributors in a provocative manner: without evidence, and in a way that made accusations of bias the focal point of discussion rather than the substance of the article. That kind of shift damages morale and does nothing to help build an encyclopedia. Please refrain from that line of discussion in future unless you have specific diffs to back up the assertion. And Fennesy, the only one here who has demonstrated Godwin's Law is you. DurovaCharge! 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova, it will probably be a chore but go back through the edits of this page— I assure you, Jaakobou compared a misrepresentation of what I said to a heil hitler salute. It probably got edited out when he modified his previous post(posts?) here.
As for evidence of what I said, review the user pages yourself, it's pretty clear. Maybe I'll list everyone there that is obviously pro-Israeli outlook when I have time. Or maybe not, I'm bored of this. ʄ!¿talk? 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart needs to be moved back and protected from moves[edit]

Sometime on July 4, Sponge1987 moved Wal-Mart to Walmart* [9]. This was reverted by CoolCaesar [10]; and then on July 5, ZippyGoogle moved the page to Walmart Stores [11]. No discussion was taken on the talk page, and no consensus for the move was reached. I cannot move the page back to correct the situation because "a page exists at the old location" (the redirect from the Wal-Mart), so presumably, I need an administrator to do this. I would request that the page is moved back and protected from moves since there is no consensus for moving. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that apparently, ZippyGoogle has been blocked, based on his talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. Moves like that need to be done via WP:RM. BTW, I also un-semiprotected the article since it had been sprotected for almost a year! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To really do it right, it should say Wal-asterisk-Mart. I've got a hunch that would cause practical problems. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they've changed their logo to Walmart(asterisk) [12] Yeah, that's just a blog, but that *is* the new logo. So it wasn't random vandalism. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Awright! They' switched from a good old American five-pointed star to a six-pointed star. I'm waiting for the conspiracists to claim that Walmart-asterisk is part of the Zionist conspiracy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect AfD closure[edit]

Resolved: Notified user that close was inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (4th nomination)? It was closed as keep by a non-admin who had already voted in the discussion. BradV 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck his signature, signed it myself, and warned him about issues with close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. BradV 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of article that just finished AFD Malik Abongo Obama[edit]

A couple of hours ago the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama was finished with a delete, and the article was redirected (and remains so). However the identical material has been recreated at Malik Abongo Obama (a variation on the name of the person). Someone tried to speedy it as A4G4 (recreation of deleted material) but someone else removed the template (why that's even allowed for an A4G4 I don't know). Oddly the creator immediately nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Seems to me it should be speedied asap, and the parties involved advised to proceed to WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm spread thinly here, so I'll be brief: By self-nominating the article after adding sources, the creator made a de facto deletion review. He should be applauded for doing so, saince he was actually doing the right thing in a slightly unusual way. - brenneman 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any admin attention is needed (other than what we already have). This is in fact an unusual case, and the creator might not of know of drv? Regardless, the AfD should go on as it is, for the true fate of the article. — MaggotSyn 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To anyone contemplating this I removed the speedy as being out of process. It clearly doesn't fit the G4 criterion because the article as recreated overcame the reason for which the article was deleted in the first place, namely notability. The new article includes a number of sources that were not previously in the article and were not considered in the deletion discussion. One need not go through deletion review to recreate an article in this way, though the person should have either done that or actually integrated the new sources and revised the article prior to recreating it. However, now that the article is here it would be pointless to speedy it because that would leave the notability question unanswered. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you have it wrong. The closing admin has stated that the article was near indentical to the original (save a few external links) and is in fact subject to speedy. But a speedy is not subject to G4. — MaggotSyn 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I meant to show this diff instead, taken directly from the AfD, and not his talk page (although he says it there too). But to expand for a second: No, this is why we have DRV. To bring up things such as notability that in which were overlooked or were not discussed in a prior afd, and allow for recreation. Relisting at AfD could have been a likely conclusion, and since there is an AfD open, it should stand. This should summarize whats going on at this moment. — MaggotSyn 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe Wikidemo has simply mistyped in mentioning G4. I nominated the article under A4, and he removed the Speedy. While I disagree with the judgment, Wikidemo is, I believe, claiming that the article is not "substantially identical" because of the addition of some references. I'd still prefer Speedy and DRV, but the closing admin has stated a desire to let this be "DRV by other means". LotLE×talk 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, G4 really is the one that (perhaps) applies... it was me who mistyped in the original speedy nomination. LotLE×talk 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, A4 doesn't fit either, so I doubt it. Unless I'm just completely confused. — MaggotSyn 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
G4 not A4 - ooops. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to the community that I didn't know how to do a review of an AfD decision. Incidentally, where it only had two sources, the article now's got more than eight and contributors (well, primarily User:Wikidemo) have doubled the bio's length through additions of new material.   Justmeherenow (  ) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions in contested cases accomplish nothing, they just leave the issue open. AfDs have the sometimes annoying tendency to require interested passers by to clean up articles so as to overcome the objections of those who wish to delete. DRv doesn't do that so well so it's perfectly appropriate to recreate an article in different form if that addresses the reason for earlier deletion. Just, as a matter of decorum, it's best to wait a bit and introduce it in already-rewritten form. In theory notability should be based on the sources available, whether cited or not and whether or not integrated into the article - notability being an attribute of the article subject, not the article. But that's not always how things work in practice. Perhaps this is best addressed on the talk page of the AfD. Certainly nothing here that requires administrators to step in and police things. At this point it's a routine, if slightly unruly, AfD discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This really should have been G4ed and sent to DRV. The current situation is just making a mess --T-rex 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Mostly a content dispute, but User:In23065 and User: given a short block for edit-warring. All sides strongly encouraged to build consensus on article talk page. EyeSerenetalk 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In23065 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me. He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with the Big Brother articles mainly Big Brother 2004 (UK). In a reply on his talk page he replies "No there not, who told you that. I am not going to change my mind but I will let you contribute if you promise not to add these nominations" to[13] Sounds like WP:OWN to me.

His conduct on both Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and User talk:In23065 to is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia. Also by having Big Brother 2004 (UK) semi-protected when there was no real vandalism prevents from making contributions.

He also has a habit of uploading high resolution logos for mainly Big Brother UK articles instead of lower resolution logs as per Wikipedia fair use. He also edits high usage templates like Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame to suit his own style which has also affects other Big Brother articles indirectly.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most considered about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alucard 16[edit]

Alucard 16 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me.

On this page he has said "He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected", however me and him discussed this and he agreed that it was an OK thing to do. Sounds like a bit of a bitch to me.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with all Big Brother relating articles.

His conduct on Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and other page relating to Big Brother to [[[User:In23065|In23065]] is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most concerned about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. In23065 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two near-identical, equally lame threads merged. This is an incredibly lame thing to edit war over. The difference between your two versions is virtually nil, yet neither of you will concede any ground because you both believe "you are right". Alucard 16, it is lame that you thought the best place to resolve a minor, minor content dispute was to report it to admins to try and get your opponent blocked. In23065, your copying of Alucard 16's message here was equally bad.
I suggest you both drop this, and go and find something better to do; at this point, anything would count as something better to do than this lameness. Counting blades of grass, or idle whimsy on just how orange is an orange. Neıl 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Red or tangerine? All lameness aside though, looking at the various pages In23065 does seem to have some ownership and civility issues, and both users have edit-warred. BTW, I notice the page protection on Big Brother 2004 (UK) should have expired yesterday, but the page is still showing as semi-protected... am I reading this wrong? Anyway, I've left notes on their talk pages. EyeSerenetalk 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
May I comment on my behalf here, I do admit to being in disputes with him but I never agreed on having all the articles related to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected as you can see here I said if they need protection then fine and I also said he could go ahead if he wished but it will most likely be declined which was the case. And his complaint against me for the most part is word for word my complaint against him. I have never talked to anyone that way and I was reporting him based on his conduct towards the anonymous user he was talking to. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic smears or innuendoes[edit]

I am against wasting admin time but this is becoming farcical, it is the fifth time in one year. Could someone bring to order two editors with a rap over the virtual knuckles who have laid against me, in lieu of source-based arguments on the difficult text we are editing, tag-team accusations to the effect that I am an antisemite (and this supposedly explains my edits in wiki). The two editors involved are Amoruso (diff) and Shevashalosh (diff) on this page [here]. I have explained why, despite Amoruso's prevarications, his remarks constitute an antisemitic accusation, on my talk page here. Shevashalosh appears to have a poor grasp of English, and therefore I find this first offence excusable, since it may be overreading remarks he cannot quite understand. But Amoruso also seems to be engaged in WP:STALK, also, since he, after a year, had edited the Shuafat page immediately after I began to edit there. If the two have the slightest evidence to corroborate these grave charges, I would appreciate someone inviting them to present the evidence at the appropriate noticeboard, since if this were so, I should be banned from editing Wikipedia immediately. Apologies for the disturbance, and thanking you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on WP:AE. Regardless, I've notified Shevashalosh of the ArbCom sanctions, and given him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You're supposed to notify other editors when you begin threads about them here. You didn't do that. Since Phil seems to have handled this and I don't want to import unnecessary drama to this page, I won't either, but please take note that it's supposed to be done. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last few minutes Shevashalosh has acknowledged that his earlier comments were out of line. I'll continue to watch the page, but I'm not convinced that a ban is necessary at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies then. I have stayed clear of all complaint pages because I've seen far too much abuse of them in incredible haggling, 'unnecessary drama', that takes time off editing. I don't understand the rules governing them either (notification, which page). I didn't even intend to make a thread about the two, merely get this sneering innuendo stopped in its tracks. As PhilKnight notes, Shevashalosh has withdrawn his comment, and that's more than enough to make me happy. As to the other, the problem is incorrigible, and bickering and whingeing on the appropriate page won't fix it. (Though I have posted a note of apology on Amoruso's page for my oversight, which is due to ignorance) Apologies for any trouble caused to all then, and thank you, Phil Knight. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shared and disruptive account[edit]

I have removed this thread. The account in question has been blocked and their edits will be oversighted. east.718 at 21:19, July 7, 2008

Update: all problematic edits have been removed. east718 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

alternative medicine dispute tags[edit]

I'm having trouble with keeping a dispute tag on Alternative Medicine, on the section Critics' explanations for the appeal of alternative medicine. ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin keep removing the dispute tags I enter, preventing any broad scale notification of the problem I see. see these diffs: here, here, and here. the tag is appropriate, and while I am happy to discuss the matter on the talk page to reach a resolution, I cannot get proper feedback unless the dispute tag remains in place.

I mean, it would be one thing if this were a content dispute, but removing dispute tags is just petty and ridiculous. can an administrator please assist? --Ludwigs2 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page. I don't see why you need the tag in order to get feedback OTOH I don't see why they feel the need to remove so hastily either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed stalkish attack post[edit]


Resolved: Blocked indef. A waste of electrons. --Rodhullandemu 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coloneldoctor (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)

Thoughts? Avruch 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Woo, and a special winner here. Avruch 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban him. Now, please. Bstone (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was musing on that but awaiting some more consensus...oh wait, I see above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking through his contribs, his user page and talk page, he seems to have started reasonably enough but has apparently turned into a sneering intellectual with a superiority complex. I doubt we have room for editors like that. That's my view anyway. --Rodhullandemu 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse indef. Unlikely to make positive contributions at this time, and has clearly abused many people. If they decide to stop playing games and want to treat the project seriously they can apologize and appeal, but an indef is appropriate now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

GianniRBergonzoni (talk · contribs) seems to be new but has been making a massive number of page moves that go against WP:MOS. Article names should follow the most commonly used name of the individual. This user is changing article titles to the birth or other names of individuals. There are far too many moves made to try and undo each one. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand[edit]


Moved to subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. —Wknight94 (talk)

Issue is marked as closed, I think it's ok to archive now. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 48 hour block for User:Blechnic[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Blocks are designed to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blechnic has seemed to have settled down and the edit warring and incivility has ceased. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on his abuses of AN/I and his rampant hostility, and the obvious underlying tantrum, I'm requesting a 48 to 72 hour block to allow him time to rethink his current repeated vandlaism/ edit warring path. While 'chill out' blocks are bad, blocks which prevent edit warrign at AN/I are good. He's not listening to reason, support, or anything. Block him before he gets himself community banned next to Carol Spears. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe through my previous run-in with Blechnic, that you're using the wrong gender specific pronouns, but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, double public apology then. One, i no longer think the block is needed, per a reply on my user talk, and two, I don't know gender of most editors, and default to 'he' because i'm anti-PC like that. ThuranX (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just say they or there if I don't know there gender. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Or "their". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) chillax, mate. BLechnick's just venting. If he has some problem with Carsolspears, who IS a banned user for a reason, he should be forgiven for lashing out at bit as a communtiy that he believes betrayed him. Just let him vent his frustrations, he'll cool off after a few days or weeks, and he'll contribute very wel. Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse a block, based upon the blatant incivility in this edit summary, and the above drama-mongering and edit-warring. Being pissed off doesn't justify his/her behavior, no matter what SmithJones says. S. Dean Jameson 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If so, ThuranX should be blocked along with him for his extreme incivility to administrators and CarolSpears.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's extreme incivility? Hahahha. I laugh at you. Go back and read all the lead-up to this. Some admins DID call him a stalker, and support Carol Spears, and they are flat out wrong. You want to stir up trouble and get an internet flame war going, you can go have fun with that, but you'll be doing it alone. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, I guess many people already laugh at this closed show. Keep up the good works.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, ThuranX's post was entirely reasonable - it was simply saying things as they were, but not in an offensive way. Orderinchaos 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You may want to read above about the gender. ;) Also I don't think a ban would cool her down. I think it would fire her up more which would lead to a Community ban. Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
With no comment to Smith Jones's post, I believe that a block is unneeded, at least at the current time. Things seemed to be calmed down now, and the flames need not be stoked again. —Kurykh 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The whole Carol Spears thing needs to die down, and blocking yet another editor won't help that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a class of victim who seem to enjoy self-immolation, in sometimes Wagnerian style. My opinion is that a block would merely stoke the fires under the pyre in this case. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I d have to agree again with this users. The idea that we should bully and toy iwth a user who appears to have withdrawn from the project (retired, as per his rtalkpage and userpage) seems punitive, which is furthermore against the policy of the adminsitrative block as humanly possible. Besides, if we blocked her we might have to block a good user like User:ThuranX who has expressed simialr views in the past as per: Caspian blue and that would be an and of itself a travesty and a defiance of the policy of WP:aGF
IF he comes back and does the same nonsense, then blocking her might be appropriate. Now, it wuld be inordinately punitive. Smith Jones (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In all fairness, he's been goaded quite badly, by CarolSpears (who claimed that fixing her copyvio, etc, was harassment and stalking, and kept reverting attempts to fix the copyvio) and a few of her defenders. A block will only aggravate the situation and serve to drive him off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still going on. When I made the request, Blechnic had just run a little edit war falling on her? sword here on AN/I, and removing all comments of support with quite hostile commentary. When I Posted that I no longer saw a need for it, it was because after reverting MY note of support, she? Then visited my user talk, and left a note that had the tone of someone who was moving into the quiet cooling off period after a tantrum; as such, I then felt such a block would ONLY piss her off and stoke the fires unnecessarily, pushing her back into trouble. That everyone here is now commenting, without regard to my follow-up seems like a tinge of the dogpile, or 'me too' thing. As for Smith Jones' comment, well, that's sour grapes for my comments supporting a block on his AN/I thread of a couple days ago. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, dont snap at it Me, Thuran. I feel that blocking anyone in this case is ainppropriate at this time and that your comments on her talkpage were immeterial to this discussion. I only mentioend it above because I was baffled as why to his was mentioned at all? Smith Jones (talk)

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

Uncivil and NPA remarks by User:Beamathan[edit]


Nothing for admins to do here. Orderinchaos 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) left quite a nasty remark on my talk page after I asked him three times to place comments about a particular project on the project page. I am really confused and do not understand why this editor thinks I am insulting him, thinks I am a jerk, etc. Perhaps an admin can remind him of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other appropriate policies? I see he has been blocked several times for incivility and other similar infractions, so perhaps this is more epidemic? Confusingly yours, Bstone (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup, isn't it? Beam thinks that some comments are better off not on Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee and you think that they do. When these opinions collide, lots of nasty things happen. I'll go and leave a message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, x42bn6. Can probably mark this resolved. Bstone (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not resolved at all. Bstone, you still have not read my comments apparently. The comments were not about the project, they were about you. Hence, I put them on your talk page. You posted a problem on an Admin Noticeboard regarding someone reverting your addition of a policy tag. You claimed you had consensus, they reverted because you don't. As i say on your talk page, I just wanted to make sure you saw that you didn't have consensus, at least that pump. I didn't want you to keep making false statements, looking foolish. It had nothing to do with the actual project itself. Instead of reading my comments, you belittled me by ignoring them and saying I should post them somwehre else. I tried again to explain the purpose of the comments. Yet AGAIN you said post them somewhere else...again i explain the purpose and then you mock me, using italicized "please" and telling me that was "the sum" of your dealings with me on a talk page. You completely acted like a jerk.

Instead of actually reading my comments, or admitting you understood them you mocked me. I pointed this out and what do you do? You come and try to blacken my reputation within the community. I'm sorry your project does not have consensus. I thought it was out of ignorance that you claimed it did. I was trying to help you, so you don't look foolish in the future. You acted like I didn't understand what a talk page is for. Those comments were about you, not the project.

And, regarding my block history, since you cared enough to bring it up, perhaps you'd care enough to check out the history between me and that particular Admin, as well as the conclusion and resolution of all those blocks through mediation. Hint: it's not as it appears.

I will consider this resolved when you apologize, or remove this attempt at making me look bad within my community. This is the "sum" of my comments towards you Bstone. Beam 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested both parties apologise to each other. To me, Bstone gave the impression unwittingly that he didn't take Beam's comments into account while Beam persisted with posting on Bstone's talk page despite being told to take it elsewhere. Whether either one is correct is immaterial since there's little point in dragging such a small issue through the mud. Bstone has enough drama on his hands with his OmbCom proposal, so <<shake hands here>>. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As a note, after reviewing the comments at his proposal for the project Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal I think he may have acted like he did towards me out of frustration regarding his latest attempt at this project failing. Bstone, I have nothing against you personally and I'm sorry your project isn't going too well. There was still no need to act like that towards me. Beam 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Beam, please, sir, please assume good faith. You made some comments regarding a project which I had to ask you three times to refer to the project talk page. You believe I was mocking you, acting like a jerk and another nasties. You're clearly not assuming good faith as I never desired, intended nor actually did mock you, act like a jerk, etc. So, without further ado, I will move on and hopefully you'll stop referring to me as a jerk. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No. You haven't read my comments yet! They weren't about the project. They were about you. I didn't call you a jerk, you acted like one towards me and I pointed it out. And you did mock me. Faith has nothing to do with it, just the facts. And if you call that an apology, you may want to head over to the Wiktionary. Beam 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Can an admin please intervene here? We're getting nowhere and I grow weary of this drama. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you grow weary of the drama, I would suggest from personal experience that you unwatch this page, at least temporarily. Short of that, I don't think an administrator acting in the capacity of an administrator—i.e. blocking, protecting, etc.—could help resolve the issue of "getting nowhere" or drama/conflict: surely neither issue merits a block? --Iamunknown 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I support Iamunknown's suggestions. I don't want you blocked Bstone, :) Beam 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring under multiple IPs[edit]

It started with an anon revert warring of a piece of material in Charlotte, North Carolina: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30].

Editor also vandalized (at least) my user page [31].

Editor was blocked. He came back and persisted and so was blocked for longer.

Then an anon with a different IP reverted the same piece of material, but stopped on the 3rd change to avoid a 3RR block:[32][33][34].

Then an anon with a different IP did the same thing: [35][36]

Could we get some kind of protection on the page, or a block of these accounts or something?--Loodog (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought protection is a last resort when there are far too many IPs attacking the page. If it's just one person, don't we just block, with rengeblocks if the person is too persistent and the collatoral damgae not too high? hbdragon88 (talk)
Seeing as how it was denied, that would seem the next course. I suggested RFPP because the IPs were so different. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: more.--Loodog (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RFPP was denied, saying user should be blocked.--Loodog (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Report to 3RR then. Obviously the same user, so that should work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Magellan (book) article[edit]

Please see:

A new editor, Juan de Leon (talk · contribs · count), has just created an article for a new book "Viartis" is publishing and has requested we remove from the blacklist. is blacklisted as spam since links to it were persistently added in the past by General Tojo. For background on General Tojo, see:

I have declined the blacklist-removal request. The book appears to be non-notable and I have tagged it as such. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua[edit]

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

Way past the realms of constructive comment or issues requiring administrator intervention. Neıl 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is another thread. He's now gone on from IFDs to disrupting the featured article process. Of the five discussions he's joined, he has opposed all of them - four for fair use issues. Two of note include opposing the television episode FACs: "The Stolen Earth" and "The Shape of Things to Come". Of note, in each FAC:

  • The Stolen Earth - he brings up his (far stricter than the policy prescribes) interpretation to say two images fail NFCC#8. He also brings up Image:TARDIS-trans.png, claiming its trademark status means it should not be used, despite recent consensus that it may;
  • The Shape of Things to Come: opposes solely because "neither of the two non-free images have valid FU rationales". I checked their pages - they do have rationales. This is obvious bad faith against a helpful content-contributing user who passed her request for adminship yesterday.

If this was the first transgression Fasach has incurred, I'd ask for a warning. But no. I filed a requests for comment seven months ago, and he's still continuing the disputed behaviour. When are we going to stop giving him rope? If he wasn't dealing with fair-use images, he would've been banned long ago. I think he's become a net negative on the project: he's already created a chilling effect with uploading images. But disrupting FAC is crossing the line. Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this something the ANI page needs to deal with do you think? Each nominator will encounter spurious opposes. I know I have in the articles I've nominated. SandyGeorgia will judge how serious the opposes are and make a decision to promote or archive. There are some nutty opposes that can't be addressed, and there are opposes that appear nutty then start to make sense. They have to be taken into account for each FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If it was his first action, I'd note it on the FAC and not bring it here. But this user has been disruptive for eight months (and ANI archives will show) and I've exhausted all other options except for ArbCom. Sceptre (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Are these your FACs? I suggest addressing the issue directly in the FAC. If so, be honest and say that you don't think the opposes are actionable, and for what reasons. If opposition gets more heated, or even nuttier things come up, leave a note on Sandy's talk page explaining your issue. But she reads all the FACs anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
One of them is mine. The other FAC is thedemonhog's. The FAC issue is only supplementary: he's still disrupting Wikipedia process. Sceptre (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you've answered your own question on what to do next. Neıl 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
RFAr is crumbling to bits at the moment (Giovanni33, Orangemarlin, Giano). Any request for arbitration will stay stagnant for a month or two while that gets sorted out. Sceptre (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this user's conduct since the RFC, but if it's becoming a problem, then take it to arbitration - it shouldn't be too complex. More straightforward like...Yorkshirian, for instance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If your immediate concern is getting your FAC promoted, address Fasach Nua's comments the same you would any other editor's. If you disagree with it, say so and say why, being respectful, of course. That's a record for SandyGeorgia to see when she reviews each FAC. If, say, Fasach Nua gets blocked for being a pain (I have no idea what this story is, by the way), and another editor makes the same oppose, you'll have to address it eventually. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise opposed the same way, but as he is highly partisan in this matter, I don't think he should've voted. Sceptre (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only disruption here is Sceptre's. He's engaging in blockable harassment by repeatedly throwing about spurious accusations just because he doesn't like F.N.'s opinions. What has F.N. done this time? He has expressed a well-founded, serious opinion that is well based in policy. The image use in that article is questionable. There is an image in an infobox that is not in any straightforward way related to analytical commentary in the text that it would be necessary to support. Questioning that image use is absolutely legitimate and necessary, and I would personally say F.N. is right with respect to at least one (possibly two) images. If there's poorly integrated and poorly justified non-free content, the article can't be featured, it's as simple as that. Shouting "disruption" just because you don't like to hear people reminding you of policy? If you think you can get F.N. sanctioned that easily, think twice. Fut.Perf. 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About the Tardis image issue: There certainly was no "recent consensus" that the image is okay; the discussion stalled with opinions divided, and F.N. is certainly not alone in his opinion. And as for the images in The Shape of Things to Come, yes, they have rationales, but are they valid ones? Like in so many other images, they are meaningless boilerplate text with little or no individual explanation of what makes the image necessary. F.N.'s objetion here is, again, legitimate and deserves to be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it legitimate just because he's got the same viewpoints as you on fair use? Sceptre (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It is legitimate because it is a seriously considered viewpoint on fair use, based in policy consensus. You may disagree, politely. You see, I am not calling for you to be blocked or sanctioned because I disagree with you. You are doing these things. Fut.Perf. 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not the viewpoint. It's the behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What behaviour do you mean, apart from the fact that he expresses that viewpoint? That's all he's been doing. And, last warning: Stop the personal attacks. Call him a "disruptive user" one more time and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
FPaS, I don't think it would be a good idea for you to be the one to block. Let another admin decide if a block on those grounds has merits. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly hand off that decision to someone else. But I won't stand idly by as yet another legitimate image patroller, yet again, becomes a victim of a "we can shout louder" mob. Fut.Perf. 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, he's editing tendentiously. That can't be denied even if he isn't disruptive (and there's a fine line). At least nine tenths of the images he's nominated are Doctor Who ones, and he's showing no interest in helping with compliance or doing the same for other episode screenshots. Legitimate image patrollers are indiscriminate. Sceptre (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! I too do not understand the blanket amnesty these people get. There is a bigger issue at play here. If image patrollers are having so much trouble, doesn't that mean that consensus opposes the current restric