Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive448

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

Noticeboard archives

Avril again[edit]

Resolved: someone seems to have fixed it

--Allemandtando (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

see here. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Job queue. (I think I already tried to explain offwiki :D) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek/BG7[edit]

Section header modified by GDonato (talk) was: "Emergency"

I was asked to comment here. I will not be commenting on wiki, but several people have been emailed. Feel free to pass these on. All I will say, is that I know i'm innocent, which is what matters. I am retiring from Wikipedia indefinitely. Also, if needed, my IRC nicks are Bluegoblin7, Bluegoblin7_ and Bluegoblin7|away. I occasionally use some such as Bluegoblin7|mibb when i'm on Mibbit. Thanks to all who have AFG'd and trusted me. BG7 out for good. BG7even 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG need a break from an article[edit]

Resolved: Not an AN/i issue. Try dispute resolution for disputed content, or WP:AE for Arbcom enforcement, if even necessary. Beam 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher I am asking that JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) be asked to step aside from editing the related article. For a week now several editors have been going line-by-line in reviewing the article and editing it. Along comes JzG who bans one editor (who was a sockmaster but then making good edits, per consensus) and blanket reverts to a highly POV and non-neutral version, all against consensus. Further, JzG is bordering on violating 3RR on this article. He has lost his objectivity and needs to take a break from this article. Bstone (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the context: this article was the subject of an ArbCom case due to the volume of single-purpose meat/sockpuppets trying to whitewash the article. It more or less faded from everyone's radar, and Guy was on a wikibreak, during which at lesat 6 or 7 single-purpose meatpuppet accounts showed up to pick up where they'd left off. No admin except Guy really watches this article. I tried to step in and rein in the meatpuppetry, and was the subject of a coordinated campaign of wikilawyering, admin-abuse accusations, etc which made me appreciate the work that Guy did/does all the more.

Currently there are a handful of actual (non-meatpuppet) editors working on the page, including Bstone, myself, and Orlady (talk · contribs). I think Guy's block of the meatpuppet accounts was reasonable, certainly in the context of the ArbCom case and surrounding issues. That said, I think there is room to improve the article, and discussion was moving in that direction on the talk page. I'd just say we should thank Guy for being willing to deal with yet another abuse of Wikipedia, and kindly ask him to give discussion amongst actual editors on the talk page a chance to move the article forward. Surely we don't need WP:AN/I for that? MastCell Talk 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to love the "need a break" bit - Bstone skimped on his research there. He also failed to mention that I have justified my revert on the talk page, not least by reference to the fact that the disputed text was introduced by banned users, and is used in the main to obscure the fact that the school, identified as "worthless" by the BBC, lacks any provable accreditation and has, uniquely I believe, caused the GMC to rewrite its rules on foreign medical schools. Sure it's in some directories, it's probably in the phone book as well, but it's a scam. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, scam or not (which is highly disputed, as their graduates are practicing medicine all over the world, with full medical licenses in most all locations), you are blanking and reverting consensus-approved edits to a version which is highly POV and not neutral. As an example, there was a conversation on the talk page here in which we all discussed, debated and finally agreed that listing the IMED listing was relevant and appropriate. Yet you have undone that edit based upon your own opinion. This is a violation of WP:OWN. Instead of following consensus, you simply deleted it, saying that listings in directories are not valid. Again, you did this against consensus and discussion. Why? I am incredibly eager to hear as, currently, you're editing against consensus and it's highly confusing. Bstone (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Highly disputed? When the GMC changed its registration procedures and struck off the only doctor they could find in the UK who was a graduate? Every single reliable independent source which gives any kind of critical evaluation of the place, characterises it as substandard, including several US state governments. I would not call that highly disputed. In fact, I'd say the only people disputing it are the people who run the school. Obviously you don't have as much experience with diploma mills as some of us do, on wiki and on OTRS, so you may not be aware that use of directory listings which also include legitimate schools, is a standard technique used to obscure lack of accreditation. Being duped by the whitewashers is forgivable, pretending that everybody else is the problem, which you seem to be doing here, is more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The page is currently protected (by User:Ryan Postlethwaite). Also, although its fairly obvious, you've failed to note that you are editing against JzG. And judging by *your* comments on the talk page, its not just JzG, you have a problem with Orlady too. JzG has just blocked some socks on this article; that is rather more a matter for ANI, *if* you have any concerns about that action. All of which adds up to me disagreeing that JzG should be asked to step aside William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit puzzling that the only person with whom Bstone doesn't have a problem appears to be the banned user. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. Bstone seems to want an editor with whom he disagrees with removed from the article. I definitely do not condone behavior like that. I see no admin action needed, at least with JzG. Beam 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely it a content dispute, tho since this article has an ArbCom case behind it, and JzG is supposedly enforcing those ArbCom sanctions, it needs to be discussed here. Further, as JzG refuses to discuss edits (other than in his summaries) and is ignoring consensus, AN/I is the appropriate place for discussion. Further, the ArbCom case broadly allows for individual editors to be blocked from this article. Bstone (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the ArbComm case. The only things the case empowers admins to do is to ban single purpose accounts from the article and related pages. Nobody with a lick of sense would call Guy a single purpose account. If you think any of the blocked socks were not single purpose accounts, you could take that to WP:AE and ask for a review of their block. But for your content dispute with Guy and others, you need to follow the usual methods, which don't involve this page. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Guy just got back from a 7 week break from Wikipedia, so asking for him to take a break from an article is more than a little ludicrous right now. GRBerry 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, the sanctions being requested have nothing to do with the case being cited. Its also rather discomforting that in addition to trying to stretch the limits of the Arb case, Bstone is also making other false claims, like stating that JzG isn't discussing his edits when the talk page of the article clearly shows otherwise. Bstone, you might try working on the dispute for more than a few hours before suggesting that someone "take a break" from the article because honestly, between that, the not quite so true claims you're making here, and your comments like "scam or not (which is highly disputed.." it really looks like you've developed a strong POV on the issue and you're trying to cut out the other side of a dispute here.Shell babelfish 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • JzG is, however, going beyond the ArbCom sanctions, which only permit the imposition of page-specific bans, and limited-time blocks if the page-bans are violated; there is no authorization for indef blocks such as he issued. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Admins don't require special authorization to block disruptive agenda-based meatpuppets, though the ArbCom case is useful background and context. Indefinite blocks are the standard administrative response to such disruption, ArbCom case or no. I don't think you'll find anyone who will seriously argue that these were anything but the latest batch of the same old agenda-based sock/meatpuppetry, so it seems a bit academic to argue the letter of the ArbCom decision when the end result was to prevent an abuse of Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think even Mary Poppins would have trouble concluding that this is anything other than the same banned user returning time and again. The edits, the style and the article focus are the same in every case. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Judgement Call[edit]

Resolved: Seems fictional. Beam 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this okay? I mean, I know it doesn't violate WP:USER in any obvious way, but...well, let's just say I have concerns about this user already, per some of his other edits.Gladys J Cortez 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your concerns with the userpage exactly? Skomorokh 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't like the posting of what could be personal information. I'd highly recommend that get deleted, probably oversighted (although it's a lot of revisions) and the user strongly warned and/or blocked. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious, blocked? I'm not sure Erin T. Femaleboy, Fludder the Butterfly et al are in a position to protest the publication of their personal information. Skomorokh 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So it gets stupid later on. That doesn't change the fact that most of the earlier entries could very well be real people, and the latter ones, as dumb as some of them may be, could be attacks against real people (Erin T. Femaleboy, for example). The content of the page is inappropriate, and merits speedy deletion under G10 or WP:IAR. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the names could be real people and all but a few are minors. If they are real people personal information is being posted.— Ѕandahl 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Wow, talk about over reaction. I have this crazy idea, and bare with me while I say it.... don't stop reading I'm going to drop the bomb.... why don't you guys ask him about it? Beam 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To me that page looks like the user is testing table layouts or something. None of the entries can seriously be taken as meaningful.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If this user is who I think it is, he's not gonna answer any questions. But yeah, we could ask. (Incidentally, since others have taken this to a slightly different place than I was originally headed with it: My original concerns about the userpage is that it reminds me of a blocked user who had a thing about his "soap opera", mentions of which he shortly-thereafter spammed all over creation. Is this "personal info"? Doubt it--those names are a little...um, creative....to be actual live humans and/or....um, does anyone know what a "Moldy Gode" is?? That was never my original concern--between that, and some other edits which concerned me (resembling those of a DIFFERENT blocked user) it just seemed a little WTF-fy and I wanted a sanity check, that's all. I wasn't overreacting, just curious.)

IP 89.132.227.181[edit]

Resolved: No admin action to be taken at this time. Beam 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I hope this is the right forum. IP 89.132.227.181 continues vandalizing Convergence criteria (and now other articles), at the beginning I was asking to source the changes and I was reverting them. Now it turns that the editor is changing even sourced data (like the recent changes done to Hungary and the euro). I have warned the user several times, even in the talk page and the editor continues doing random changes without sourcing them. Can this IP be blocked for a period of time?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use WP:AIV, for future reference. I can't block the IP at the moment (logged into the wrong account) but it should get handled shortly. (Note, I didn't review the edits, but this does sound like obvious vandalism. Complex cases do belong here.) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 03:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the trouble, I was told by another administrator to use this forum instead, will use WP:AIV going forward. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I just tried WP:AIV and true, it was considered a stale report, since that IP has not done any changes in 36 hours. Shall I just wait for another vandalism to happen and try there then? Or shall I leave it to this forum? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you have reason to believe that the IP is static and will be used by the same person tomorrow, just revert the vandalism and move on. AIV can stop them in the act, but for most IPs the original user will never know and a new user may be prevented from contributing. If there is a concerted attack on some article, there is also requests for page protection. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist, edits in Cladistics and other articles[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for WP:SOAP and WP:OR by User:LessHeard vanU. Beam 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Consist (talk · contribs) who also edit as 83.254.23.159 (talk · contribs) is still editing the same way (inserting his own research in the article contrary to consensus and posting long texts on talk pages but not on how to improve the articles). See the earlier threads Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Consist and the Cladistics article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice. He has been warned several times, but it is obvious that he has decided to enforce his own point of view, I will "work together with editors" in any media as long as they accept facts. If they don't, I will enforce facts anyway. FYI the same user is permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account for violating (and commenting that they will continue to do so) WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Other editors have also detailed other policy violations at the user talkpage, all relating to the same matter. I suggest that an eye be kept out for sockpuppets, since this appears to be someone whose mission absolves themself of any regard to considering other peoples concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you also block the IP.Sjö (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The ip will be autoblocked for 24 hours. I would only be happy with blocking the ip upon further disruption, not as a precautionary action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi protection of The Jew of Linz[edit]

Resolved: As result of a content dispute protection was given in hopes of conversation. Beam 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a few Ip addresses that have been placing blatant original research on that article since July 10th. see this page for examples.... Albion moonlight (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I will do that if the problem persists. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have sprotected for 72 hours. Perhaps a discussion will commence on the article talkpage..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Leszek Jańczuk and orphans[edit]

Resolved: This is not an orphanage. ;) Situation to be discussed elsewhere. Beam

Hello -- User:Leszek Jańczuk has been removing dozens upon dozens of "orphan"" tags incorrectly, possibly using an automated tool, judging by the speed of his edits. Can anything be done to halt him/her and roll back those edits? (I hope this is the right place to post this.) Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see him occasionally making two edits within the same minute mark, but there is usually more than a minute between his edits. I see no evidence of anything other than manual editing. He seems to be removing 'orphan' tags because a few links to the articles do exist. Could you provide specifics on the articles where you think the tags have been improperly removed. -- Donald Albury 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and have you notified him you were posting here? You didn't wait very long for him to respond to your message on his talk page. -- Donald Albury 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the user is going through the list of all orphaned articles and removing the tag for articles where "What Links Here" is non-zero. Mostly good work, although some of them, while technically no longer orphaned, should probably still have the tag... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In which case the question of when an article is no longer 'orphaned' should be discussed with the user. I don't think this merits attention on this page. -- Donald Albury 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to notify him -- I'll do that now. The Orphanage criteria are much stricter than "have at least one incoming link." That means that instead of doing "good work" he's undoing a lot of hard work the orphanage members have put into tagging those orphans. According to his talk page he's been approached about this before, and I'd previously reverted at least one such edit of his with an edit summary pointing to those criteria. Since he appears to have made hundreds of these edits that need to be inspected and most undone, I was hoping to get some assistance fixing the damage already done and preventing further problems. Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
User Jaysweet gave an answer. I thought before, links from lists are enough. For instance we have List of New Testament uncials, and some of articles have links only from this list, and no one marked them as orphaned articles. OK, I will read about the criteria for orphans. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Leszek -- thank you for responding, and thank you for reviewing the orphanage criteria. In response to your remark about the List of New Testament Uncials, orphans are marked only when someone who knows to mark them stumbles across them -- much as any other maintenance tag is applied. So thank you for bringing that list to my attention, andI'll look through it later today. In the meantime, would you prefer to move this discussion back to User space? -- Avocado (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 part 2[edit]

Suspending a moot sanction[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.
The purpose of the sanction was to separate Martinphi and ScienceApologist. If Martinphi is active, the sanction remains in force; if not, then it is suspended (as best I can tell, once all the tedious fighting of old battles and banned users on open proxies are sifted out). MastCell Talk 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were under a community sanction designed to ensure that the two editors disentangled from each other (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi). Martinphi has since retired from the project. Some discussion has taken place about this matter.[1] Myself and the other editor (Nealparr (talk · contribs)) that were the principal architects and proponents of the editing restrictions both feel that it is largely moot at this point. GRBerry (talk · contribs) recommended raising the matter here to ensure there is community approval to suspend the sanction. It was intended purely to separate two editors who had a difficult time extricating themselves from each other and it would seem to serve only as a one-sided weapon if left in force (since only one of the two editors is active in the project). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "suspending" is a good way to describe it. It can always be reinstalled if they were to 1) both be active editors and 2) continue to be at each other throats. Otherwise there's really no need for it since it only applied to edits regarding each other. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi has edited Wikipedia this month, so I would be reluctant to say that he's completely gone. If he is absent for a few months, then it might be worth revisiting this, but it probably really will be moot at that point. Also, for those who are wondering why this is even an issue, it's because ScienceApologist today abused the "undo" button to specifically target an edit of Martinphi's[2] from March.[3] There have been several edits from other editors in the meantime, so ScienceApologist could have easily just edited the article to his preferred version. But that he is going through article history, looking for edits of Martinphi just so that he can undo them, tells me that the ArbCom restriction is still necessary to avoid disruption to the project. In any case, this probably isn't a discussion for ANI... A better venue would be a request for clarification at WP:RFAR. --Elonka 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not completely up on the latest incident was that caused this note, but if Martinphi has left, why would it matter if the sanction were in effect? Shouldn't it be rather impossible to interact with someone who's not present or, if this is a case of ScienceApologist selectively reverting Martinphi's edits now that he's retired, should we still be discouraging that? Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the method here, but I think if ScienceApologist were to make editorial changes to articles Martinphi had edited instead of specifically undoing Martinphi's edits, it probably wouldn't even catch anyone's attention. Shell babelfish 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Shell - Am agreed with you in principle, but in practice it's tough to read that and quickly understand that it's really only meant for SA-Martinphi interactions. To save everyone time and headache, I'd support suspending this, just so there's no ambiguity. Antelantalk 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion, I obviously support it. I had proposed suspending it so long as one editor has been retired for two weeks. Since 23 June, MartinPhi has commented on his retirement, but not edited anything but his user talk page and user page. The last edit to the user page could be interpreted to say he might consider returning, but since he is quoting someone else I think it would be a stretch to put that interpretation on it. He might, he might not. I wouldn't object to a longer term prior to suspension, so long as it is defined. (Also, this is a community sanction rather than an Arbitration sanction, so the community is the right venue to modify it.) GRBerry 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


This is pre-mature for a couple reasons, not the least of which is that people usually come back. Let's look at the restrictions: "...should not enter into discussions solely to fight against..." I don't doubt that some of the discussions Martin participated in (before leaving) are still ongoing. "...should not make a comment about..." We should not condone attacks against departed users any more than we should condone lower content standards for, say, articles about dead people (but unfortunately we still do). "...should not edit policies or guidelines based obviously on his interactions with..." Sounds like open season. SA's marked difficulty in abiding by the restrictions is not a strong argument to lift them. I would recommend waiting a few months, both to see if Martinphi returns and whether ScienceApologist's behavior improves during this likely brief hiatus. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point out the elephant in the room, but this is about the 3rd block by Elonka on SA that is dubious. It's time to see what this is and that's Elonka on some mission to reform SA via blocks, blocks and more blocks. Shot info (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support suspension. On the one hand, if one editor is gone, this sanction is inherently inapplicable. On the other hand, it is easy to miss that point, making suspension worthwhile with respect to reducing drama from accidental applications of an inapplicable sanction. Antelantalk 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion[edit]

I retired partly because my sanction devolved into having an admin (who was quite well intentioned) looking over my shoulder and banning me because he thought I wasn't right about what the sources said- even when I explained fully how I was using the sources. I can't base my editing on what I think an admin, who is no expert on the subject, might think of the content. I retired mainly because I saw no hope that Wikipedia would come to its senses and notice that debunking is not NPOV. I will remain retired as long as Wikipedia doesn't wake up and notice that debunking is no more acceptable than promotion of fringe ideas. People must recognize that WEIGHT is relative to the subject of an article-- Mainstream science is highly notable in an article on Creationism, but doesn't really have a lot of WEIGHT; certainly not more than Creationism (I don't edit that article). And Creationism is notable in an article on the science of evolution, but not very notable. And I remain retired because of the absolutely abominable actions and nastiness which debunkers heap upon pro or neutral editors in the paranormal articles. I remain retired because of the double standard which applies to debunkers versus those, like me, who oppose debunkers. This double standard allows debunkers to get away with almost anything, while those who try and follow the rules but nevertheless oppose debunking, have to endure month after month and year after year of abuse, even when they don't desire to make the articles sound positive toward fringe ideas. I see little hope that this will change, and so I intend to remain retired. Wikipedia has already suffered because of the debunking: its articles are much less developed, most of its editors who know the subjects have been driven away, and the negative tone is the best way to make people reject mainstream science. Even if mainstream science is wrong about some fringe things, this is a very bad outcome.

However, I might come back if Wikipedia wakes up (though I do feel I have lost the joy of the thing). I monitor the situation, but so far Wikipedia seems to be ascending into a flight of chaos (see the ArbCom situation). However, at least some people are making a noble attempt, including Vassyana, even though I disagree with part of his method as relates to me (being a judge of content). ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your editing, I hope you let us know when you decide to come back. If we were to change the NPOV policy, your modified version of WP:WEIGHT that you summarize here could certainly be considered. Antelantalk 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Views are being pushed against policy from both sides of the fringe debates. Non-scientists are being presented as scientists and their speculations are being presented as science. For example, James Randi is not a scientist, yet in many places he is cited as the scientific view - here [4] for example. But with me gone there are few if any people left willing to do something about it. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This account appears to be operating from a proxy. The contribution list of this account makes it appear to days old at Wikipedia, an assumption that is incompatible with such knowledge of the SA/Martinphi controversy, and incompatible with antagonizing SA on his talk page. Therefore, the next good-faith assumption is that someone is using this instead of their real account in order to avoid backlash on a topic in which they are involved with another account. This behavior would be in violation of the sockpuppet policies. Finally, this could be a banned user such as User:Davkal, back to push his agenda. It is unclear which this is, but none of the probable options are allowed by WP policy. In other words, this IP's comments should be ignored or perhaps stricken. Antelan 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
An article about Santa Claus should not consist mostly of scientific rejection of his existence. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that minority viewpoints can have articles specifically devoted to them. But this could not happen if in every case the mainstream view dominated the content of the article. For example, Creationism should not be turned into a duplicate Evolution article. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate your novel reinterpretation of NPOV's WEIGHT clause. Antelan 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think that Creationism should be turned into a duplicate of the Evolution article. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've never said anything that even resembles that, it's just pure baiting on your part. Antelan 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop using proxy servers to try to evade blocks and bans. Antelan 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Debunking is POV?! So Wikipedia should knowingly propagate discredited information just because some people believe in it???
Debunking can be WP:OR, but not inherently. If a reliable 3rd party source presents facts that prove a fringe theory is false, then Wikipedia better present those facts. Or should we modify Coriolis effect to say that toilets flush the other way in the Southern hemisphere, just because most people I know believe it to me factual?
The day debunking becomes pov is the day Wikiality has taken over. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Do not support. Many of you assume that Martin dislikes SA and that is the reason for the altercations. If you took the time to review Martin's edits, you would see that he opposes SA's edits, not the person. SA is very skeptical, and by his own admission on his personal page, his skepticism leads him to be a strong protector of the status quo. His way of doing that has been to push what he thinks is the status quo point of view at all cost. Martin has only tried to balance SA's tactic.
With that said, Elonka's first reason to block SA--edit-warring with Martinphi, using "undo" to remove an edit of his from March as "irrelevant"[5]-- acknowledges the reason for the earlier sanctions. SA made exactly the kind of point of view edits that has brought them in conflict in the first place. The article was "...it says that it..." and SA made it "...it admits that it ..." "Admits" establishes a denouncing point of view by innuendo.
It is clearly the operational policy of Wikipedia to preserve the process by which it has arrived at what it is today. Unless you plan to kill off Martin as an editor, the processes are still alive and active. I am a little astounded by how quickly SA supporters have seized the opportunity to unleash SA from this one enforceable requirement that he be nice. The reasons for him to be nice are still active. Tom Butler (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No one is talking about lifting the ArbCom-imposed civility parole (to my knowledge), which is the only "enforceable requirement that he be nice". Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By now you should know that any disagreement with SA results in him not being nice. Being "nice" also means respecting consensus, discussing changes and not being so determined to characterize subjects in as negative a light as he thinks he can get away with. I have to admit that I am disappointed in your studied determination not to see that all of this is just reinforcing the fact that SA is untouchable. Instead, it appears that you admins have teamed up with him to attack any admin who may be so foolish as to attempt to modify his actions.

It is your wiki now, but don't be dismayed when some of us decide to complain in public. Tom Butler (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a breath and a step back. You're replying to one of the admins who has stepped forward on multiple occasions to intervene against SA's favor. (Such as, apropos for the discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement.) On the other side, despite my actions against them, I've maintained polite (and even friendly) lines of communication with Martinphi and DanaUllman. Taken together, the situation is nowhere near as one-sided/two-dimensional as you'd present. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your point, but after being abused by SA and his friends for so long, being called a moron, a fraud and accused of lying, seeing him abuse others and outright drive off constructive editors, basically telling admins to butt out and seeing articles he edits become more and more biased toward his myopic point of view, I think my response is pretty modest. However well intended your efforts have been, and I agree with Martin that you intended well, your actions have apparently been the last straw and I literally see no editor willing to even attempt balancing SA's excesses. It is a one-sided/two-dimensional situation from my perspective.
I know this is not the place to right great wrongs, as SA is so fond of saying in his kinder times, but Martin is right. Until the rules are changed so that categories such as fringe are no longer relevant because it is not permitted to characterize subjects (probably not a good paraphrase of Martins intention), Wikipedia will continue to be a platform for people like SA to push the skeptical viewpoint. Until you see that, I really cannot see how I can think of Wikipedia as something in the best interest of our country. Please do not argue with me here about this. Just show me with deeds that I am mistaken. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tom and MartinPhi. Removing comments from Anon editors is another example of protecting the Golden Boy. Of course all critical anon users must be banned users! --71.18.216.36 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does every discussion about ScienceApologist get derailed into a string of attacks on his character? This thread's purpose is essentially procedural, and we have gone far askance. Antelan 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because in the last six months SA has breached his civility and AGF restrictions on over 300 separate occasions. Or maybe it's because in the last six months he has edit warred articles until they were locked over 25 times. Or maybe it's because he has about 6 sockpuppets or IPs on the go at any given time. Or maybe it's because he goes to 3RR on multiple articles virtually every day. That is, maybe it's because hundreds of editors have now had enough of the perpetual abuse, edit warring and seeming untouchability of someone who, when all is said and done, contributes virtually nothing of value to the encyclopedia. You think I'm making this up? Would you like to see the diffs? 66.96.243.12 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering that SA is under a specific ArbCom restriction to only use one account, yes, it would be very helpful to produce diffs of suspected sockpuppetry or usage of anonymous accounts. Even better, file a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Elonka 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how to revert a "redacted" (you all are creating a world of your own) But every user has the right to an opinion here and as SA has shown us, using your "real" screen name does not matter. Antelan, stop deleting legitimate comments! Tom Butler (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, the IP that posted this is an open proxy, the use of which is (as far as I know) forbidden on Wikipedia. I blocked it until sufficient evidence is shown to prove that the IP belongs to a normal ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
what does "redacted" mean? Does it mean "censored"? Is this part of wikipedia's new [WP:ScienceApologistIsAlwaysRight] policy?--feline1 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourselves with the policy on banned users. Tom, please particularly see the portion of that page that deals with removing comments made by banned users, and the portion that deals with posting information on behalf of banned users. The policy on no open proxies may also be of interest. Antelan 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, while I respect the spirit of Wikipedia rules, I question wether or not they are intended to be used to promote your viewpoint. It does seem that you are always close at SA's side and taking such actions appears to me to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps explaining why you felt the comments were so harmful to the discussion and offering some evidence to support your claim would diminish the appearance of impropriety.
It seems that this might be a good time to ask you to accept the offer to see the diffs or move to close this discussion without a decision. Tom Butler (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate how this extended commentary on ScienceApologist relates to the purpose of this thread, I'll reconsider. First, please reread the many sanctions on him, and make sure that you are familiar with which of the many of the SA/Martinphi sanctions that they are talking about suspending. I'm convinced that even you wouldn't mind lifting this sanction, which applies only to SA&Martinphi - an interpretation which has been endorsed by the very creators of this sanction. Once you have demonstrated this to me, I'll be happy to continue talking with you about whatever you'd like (on one of our talk pages). Antelan 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of you to offer to continue talking with me ... after I demonstrate an understanding of the sanctions. If Nealparr thinks it is a good idea to close the sanction, that is his choice, but he and others made a proposal that was accepted. Having been accepted, it became policy. I do not agree with the idea that it is now "largely moot ." I am under the opinion that the sanction was set in an effort to modify behavior and I have not seen that happen. The only way that it would make sense to remove the sanction is if you permanently banned one or both parties. As it stands now, there has been no contrition and there is no reason to believe that the sanction would not be needed again, should Martin decide to return to editing.

I call for the question. Count your votes and move on. Tom Butler (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed as a suspension (and as I proposed it only when the other editor had been inactive for at least two weeks) precisely because if the departed editor returns I want the sanction to go back into force without any need for a drama thread. The two editors need to be kept apart, and the community has realized this. If one editor is retired, they are apart. If they are both active, the sanctions will be back in force. GRBerry 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is why I wanted Tom to reread the sanction and your proposal. From his previous comment, it seems that he thinks that the proposal makes much more sweeping changes than it actually does. It is "largely moot" until Martinphi decides to start editing again; this !vote simply makes that even more clear. Antelan 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that Martin is busy here in AN/I enabling a banned user [6], does this mean that in fact he is (inter alia) editing again? Also, does this qualify under the restrictions per the policy (see WP:BAN and WP:MEAT? Shot info (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One, have you established he is enabling a banned user and two, are you saying that he is not permitted to advance an opinion of a respected contributor? Since as I understand it, SA is the purpose for the ban of the person you think Martin is enabling, should we also be talking about reinstating that person so that we can benefit from his input? As I see it, SA is the cause of that ban just as he is the cause of so many editors abandoning Wikipedia.

You tread on dangerous ground. I recommend you have your vote and go on. And for the record, I am aware of the finer points of this discussion and see nothing to change my mind. Some of you have turned from releasing SA from the sanctions because Martin is gone to condemning Martin for not being gone. Win at any cost? Tom Butler (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Potential case of proxy editing[edit]

Hi, chaps. There's been a long-running squabble at Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz recently. A couple days ago I blocked one of the main participants, Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs), for 1 month for continued disruption. Jack didn't bother to appeal this, because he has two equally SPAish mates, Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs), who have just kept on fighting for him. Please see also this thread on my talk page. The main opponent of these chaps is Rsradford (talk · contribs), whose conduct has not been absolutely perfect but has been much better than the other side: far more importantly, Rsradford has done a much better job of presenting the academic mainstream.

Ergo, I am inclined to block indefinitely Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs) as proxies for Jack the Giant-Killer. Checkuser says these three accounts are unrelated, but all they have done is edit the same articles pushing the same POV. I suspect an off-wiki campaign somewhere. Opinions before I dole out the blocks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Give them a warning. Yes, I know that you think they're either the same person proxying it up or are part of a conspiracy, but still.... a final warning can't hurt anyone. Beam 23:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It can waste my time. I've really had enough of these guys, and besides, they've had enough warnings already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Say Christiano, did you ever find out whether Jack is related to that other guy (I don't recall the name). — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. CU came back negative, surprisingly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't block them indef, but you can block them for a month as you did Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) (Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that. If we regard them as proxy editing/meatpuppetry for Jack then this comes under block evasion, not to mention disruptive editing in general. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets, if it's proxy editing and not sockpuppetry, A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

it is obvious that these accounts act in unison, but it is difficult to prove they are socks. Since there seems to be a consensus that some dishonest editing has been going on, I would suggest we (the admin community) impose on them a restriction of one revert per day, which will take away their sock advantage while still not locking them out completely. As Moreschi says, both sides in this disputes have not shown impeccable behaviour, and if we were to clamp down on one side only (even if it is the worse behaving one), we might be acting partially. A 1RR parole, and a stern warnining of using one account per editor is on order though. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. I'll implement that soon if there are no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom's uncertainty principle for socks is this: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." This probably could use a convenient shortcut. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These have been consistently difficult articles, with an exceptional amount of personal animus for something not obviously controversial. I've been trying to keep things objective at the Motz article, but I would be very glad for some additional eyes on it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

controversy is good, as long as both sides act above the table and avoid confusion tactics. We don't want to exclude the "pro-Rydberg" side from this discussion, but we want to enforce honest good faith behaviour. I take it we have a compromise to clamp down on this article a little bit, imposing restrictions of the "article probation" type such as 1RR, strict WP:TALK discipline, etc. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new around here. I haven't read the entire talkpage for either article, but frankly, I just can't see why Jack, Carla, and Finnrekkr are regarded as behaving worse than Rradford. Rradford refers to Jack as "the COI editor" again and again. Jack refers to Rradford's web page. Rradford "outs" Jack--or claims to have done so--and uses the name again and again. He accuses Jack of being Finnrekkr's sockpuppet. Neither side is assuming good faith, and Rradford claimed in response to me that Jack had been "outing" him--maybe I just missed that and Jack started it, but what I saw was the pot calling the kettle black and I remain bemused that Jack got blocked and Rradford didn't even get told to stop waving someone else's name around. I think it's a content dispute hinging on what each "side" thinks is significant about Rydberg and Motz. I've been tempted to wade in and Be Bold and put in a bit of this and a bit of that. But the atmosphere on both talk pages is daunting, I am new, I'm clearly missing info on the internal Wikipedia history here . . . and I don't think the blocking is helping. It looks like the admins making content decisions, because it just doesn't seem to fit what I see in the discussions. So I went away and got some practice at the unfamiliar formatting language by creating a page on something outside my main interests, instead. Can we have a bit of a cool-down on these pages, please--a bit of a "Let him put some of his stuff in there and you can put some of yours in there and then we'll refine the wording for each other," recognizing that we are not enemies, we just have different notions of what is interesting about a person's life and work, and that probably means both sets of stuff belong in an article summing them up. Of course we all have RL names, credentials, and reasons for being interested in Viktor Rydberg or Lotte Motz (the admins probably have less interest in the subjects of the articles, I think that may be where the suspicions of off-wiki conversations come from), but we all want the 2 articles to be stable and decent in quality. So can we please just do that? I am the naive newbie Yngvadottir (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: MFD closed, the sock is blocked

At first I didn't know where to take this. I had considered UAA or AIV but both seem like the wrong place at present. This is clearly a disruptive username, and the only edits have been disruptive. I assumed it could be a sock since we all know that new users just don't go straight to MfD over project namespace articles. I closed the MfD as such and I'm looking to see what transpires. — MaggotSyn 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I missed the part where they said it was a dummy account. So now I'd suggest we look into a block. — MaggotSyn 06:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the motivations of the user proposing the deletion, I don't think that your closure of the MfD as a WP:SNOW within an hour of it being opened, and after 4 comments was in order. Four people in the first hour may not be representative (or they may be). I suspect that the page will be kept, but out of process closure of the MfD is not the way to achieve that. Mayalld (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That closure is well within the guidelines. They acknowledged that it was a sock account. Its clearly snow applicable. — MaggotSyn 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree, and I have reverted your closure. On the subject of the account, the user is entirely open about it not being his/her normal account, and has explained why. I don't believe that this counts as abusive sock puppetry, unless you believe that the proposer has used his/her main account to support the deletion. Could I suggest that we wait to see what happens over a more reasonable time scale. Mayalld (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if it is a loopy account, the deletion discussion is still semi-valid. And it may not be a loopy account which DOUBLES the validity of the upcoming consensus... ;) Beam 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to add a comment that it appears that User:SynergeticMaggot has had a fair bit of previous controversy around premature WP:SNOW closures of xfD discusssions as keep, and it seems to have been a factor in his most recent RfA failing. Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh... well that's not very good. Maybe a mentor or someone who can sit down and explain how WP:SNOW works or maybe even how xFDs, and WP:SNOW specifically in xFDs, work would be in order. While I actually understand the concepts myself, I'm not sure he'd accept me to teach him, although I am willing if he would. Beam 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed again. Textbook SNOW candidate, even if it was only up for four hours. Sceptre (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the account needs blocking. Even if it's sock, it's not a legitimate use. Sceptre (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
When you closed it, it was a WP:SNOW issue, but when originally closed after ONE hour (not 4), it had only 4 keep !votes. WP:SNOW is a useful tool to allow us to curtail a debate which is unambiguously going one way. It appears that User:SynergeticMaggot is closing many xfDs early as WP:SNOW when it isn't yet clear. Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The initial SNOW close was appropriate, as the nomination was clearly in bad faith (and the rationale was utter garbage, but that's a moot point). Obvious efforts at disruption should be dealt with quickly. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that at least two editors who had nothing to do with the nomination felt otherwise rather suggests that it was not appropriate. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld: Check my editor review. This is the first snow close that was contested in almost a month. Normally, I would contest the revert, but as of late, I am taking my time more and more to discuss these things with the community. I posted here to discuss the obvious sock account, not the MfD, as that was the evidence. If you would like to talk about the MfD, I invite you and anyone else to my talk page. RegardsMaggotSyn 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did check your editor review, and your AfDs after I re-opened the MfD. I would agree that problematic WP:SNOW closes are thinner on the ground than they used to be, but "first in almost a month", whilst better than it used to be is still not good.
WP:SNOW is designed to be used where the outcome is beyond doubt, and where there is not going to be any dissent about it. That means that it is a policy to be used cautiously. There should never be a rush to WP:SNOW, it should be something that is used when it becomes clear that we are simply going through the motions, and I simply don't believe that an hour and 4 responses is even approaching sufficient evidence of that.
Allowing the MfD to run a few hours longer doesn't cause any harm, so there was no need to rush to close. Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that I am accustomed to closing multiple XfDs per day, possibly 25-30 a month and approx 175-200 over the span of two years. I'd say one contested MfD last month is a drastic improvement to the 6 or 7 AfDs that are currently serving as a blemish to my extensive record. Yes I have a history, and yes I defer to the community. But this current MfD was snowball closed swiftly as a disruptive nomination to prove a point, and according to my calculations, the consensus thus far is that it was entirely appropriate. Your revert of my closure was subsequently reverted and it now remains closed. Now, with all due respect, I didn't come here for a lecture on how to apply snow. I came here for administrative assistance in good faith. — MaggotSyn 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It is clear, from your editing history, that your view of WP:SNOW has differed from community consensus on the policy. It is equally clear that you have modified your application of it to move towards the consensus position, which is a positive move. However, it appears to me that you haven't moved the whole way to sit within the consensus. Rather you have moved to the edge of what the consensus will accept as WP:SNOW, and that by walking a fine line, you risk overstepping the line. In such cases, I would deem it better to err on the side of caution, and set yourself some personal parameters which are well within what has previously been deemed acceptable by the community. My re-opening of the MfD wasn't reverted. The MfD was closed again, after several more people had contributed, when it was a clear WP:SNOW. Your comments on consensus worry me here. As far as I can see, contributions relating to whether is was a proper closure per WP:SNOW sit 3:2 in favour of it being a proper close. That is clearly a majority, but a majority is not the same thing as a consensus! You say you didn't come here for a lecture on applying WP:SNOW, and paraded just how many xfDs you close. Is that intended to say that because you have closed so many xfDs, you know better? Mayalld (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that is to say that you are not properly researching me, or rather, you are nitpicking. A few bad decisions are not a detriment (we all make mistakes), and I expect you'd understand this rather then carry on with this line of communication. SNOW is not a policy, its an essay. Revert was a bad word to use, I meant it in its generic form. Editors who were still !voting keep are only making it more obvious that it was to be kept. I invited you to discuss this on my talk page to avoid all of this, but you chose to remain here. The overall assumption is that it was a bad faith nomination, and it would be kept, and it has (by your own words: snow: is designed to be used where the outcome is beyond doubt, and where there is not going to be any dissent about it. You are the only dissenting voice in this matter. Beam was making a retort on your comment about my history, and goes on to say he doesn't know about it, but would like to see me in mentorship, which I already am!) been kept. You are the only editor disagreeing with this. Yet this is not the issue. The issue is over the sock. — MaggotSyn 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Synergic, why don't you put yourself a hard limit to avoid this sort of problems? Like, for example, "not closing per WP:SNOW until 10 editors have commented". Also, if you think that the nomination was in faith and with no valid reasons, then close saying and don't mention WP:SNOW on the close, since that was not the real closure motivation anyways. That should keep you inside safe limits. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Enric, I will indeed take your advice to heart, as it is much appreciated. The motivation was indeed accurate. I closed it as a snowball because it was a blatant act of disruption. If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There were no objections based on policy, rather, my close reflected policy. I had suspected that the account was created as a sock, and it has been (I just chose to call them a brand new user leaving the assumption of good faith, until I realized I had missed anon deletion has admitted to it being a sock to avoid scrutiny). All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior. And that is what this editor was trying to do, to avoid being marked man by Wikipe-tan fans as he puts it. All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. Which was my initial reaction. We could have avoided this lengthy discussion about my close, and refocused on what was clearly a sockpuppet. I apologize for this lengthy response. I will only note that the sock is now blocked, with the same reasons I have given. — MaggotSyn 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't wish to nitpick. I only discovered the "history" after I reverted the closure as hasty. I still think that is was a over-hasty close, and that sitting at the "bleeding edge" of WP:SNOW is going to end up as a stumbling block yet again at what should be an easy RFA for you. Please accept that if another editor in good standing thinks that a WP:SNOW was hasty, then it is very possible that you are stretching the boundaries too far. I have no wish to get into any kind of battle on this, but I genuinely believe that you should have waited a bit longer, and that doing so would remove an obstacle to your adminship (which I would wish to support BTW). I think I've said all that I usefully can on this subject now, and will leave it at that. Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I'm glad we can peacefully part on this. Let me leave you with some advice, as you have given me. Try not to revert a discussion before reviewing the history. You might consider it hasty for me to close, but I think its just as hasty to revert not know the full story. Best wishes and happy editing fromMaggotSyn 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I think that all speedy closes should wait 24 hours. Coming from the opposite side of the world to most of you, I find it irritating to wake up, get on my computer and find that something had been started and closed while I slept. That did not happen with this one though. I commented earlier on the MfD. Bduke (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with that. I'm wondering what the chances of a proposal to not permit WP:SNOWball closures within the first 24 hours would fly. (Other speedy closures, such as bad-faith nominations, are a different issue.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Id suggest taking it to the relevant talk page. :) — MaggotSyn 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

User ip: 76.186.64.155/Mr. FixIt902[edit]

Resolved: IP address blocked, Mr. FixIt902 gets more GF by User:LessHeard vanU. Beam 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem with 76.186.64.155 (talk · contribs) (who i'm guessing has now made this username: Mr. FixIt902 (talk · contribs)), directed personal abuse at me (refer to the bottom post in Genre) over a minor argument on a band's genre, i don't really appreciate being called that after writing nearly the whole article - being reasonable trying to settle a dispute with a total halfwit, and copping that. He's also deleted the message along with the previous messages i had written, and posed as a different user by deleting the Sinebot's post adding his name with his new user, a minute of investigating and you will get what i mean. If you look at the 76.186.64.155 (talk · contribs)'s talk and contribs you will see multiple warnings about editing of genres in the past, along with a long list of insanely edited genres, never giving a reason until this... when he describes me as that, for no reason. Hope this was the right place to post this, thanks. kiac (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for 31 hours for being a bucket mouth (I was unsure if I should include a total halfwit or a half a twit as an additional reason, so decided to do neither). It appears that Mr. FixIt902 is probably the same person, but as the account has not violated any policy as yet I suggest we AGF for the time being. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much! kiac (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:65.32.81.138[edit]

Resolved

Really have no idea what to do with the above IP. There is one useful edit to Sariel [7]. Since then its edits have been confined to my user page, starting with a truly charming comment to the effect of my being a "psychopathic freak White bald man" (I'm not bald, by the way) and saying I am going straight to hell here, another really interesting comment here. It later went on to apologize, saying its name is Joe Black and that it has multicolor skin ("mi is multi-colad - mi ave green, yellow, black and sometimes purple colad skin - some people tink ders somtin wrang wid dat") and asks me to wake up his brother here. He has also been blocked already once for his rather unique contributions to my userpage. Since then, he has returned again, making some really incomprehensible statement about the 6th angel of heaven who is evidently named "Rocky" here. I have left another warning on the talk page of the IP in question but I somehow get the impression that this person's problems, whatever they are, might be beyond our ability to deal with, or possibly that s/he has even a sicker sense of humor than I do. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's easy. I blocked for a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, edit conflict - I had given final warning, IP hadn't edited in two days. But, resolved, one way or another. Tan ǀ 39 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsense to Bad Boys Blue page[edit]

Resolved

There's an ongoing nuisance created by user Playahata69 now for the 4th time on Bad Boys Blue page. This clearly immature character inserts his personal opinion into the article and he is just looking for attention. The article already addresses elsewhere an inequality between the two current formations and there's no need to include some teenage fan's unsubstantiated opinion to accentuate his/her personal, which does not belong to wiki.

I would very much appreciate if appropriate action could be taken on this borderline vandal to prevent him/her from making disruptive edits to Bad Boys Blue. Lionscitygl (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Tan ǀ 39 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Lionscitygl (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Avril yet again[edit]

Resolved: Alison has blocked a number of uncovered socks --Jaysweet (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't attempt to see what's at the link provided on the second page - trojan attack. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to {{2}} by Mankerranker (talk · contribs), aided and abetted by Addict to the Wiki (talk · contribs), who has warned me and reported me to AIV. Blocks for both please. Algebraist 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
{{MSW3 Wozencraft‎}} and {{tag}} also hit. Algebraist 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted the Avril troll on {{cat also}}. A block of Glass Ball Blower (talk · contribs) might be in order. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
These 3 are blocked. This usually comes in waves, so keep reporting if more puppets reveal themselves. GRBerry 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with IRC access get a checkuser to take a look? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've protected the target templates. Let's not forget that step! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - chill time. I've blocked a bunch more. Moving on ... - Alison 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Grazie. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Alison, you are the Checkuser equivalent of Wyatt Earp. Fastest IP checks in the West! (and East?) You rule. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
lol - thanks :) I'm more like Hopalong Cassidy though :) - Alison 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others[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.
The results of the discussion is that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is blocked until successful enrollment in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program, and no action taken against Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). John Carter (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4 Contributions
Revision History of Talk:The Dark Knight (film) [added the link due to the ongoing personal attacks on NYScholar --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]
Diffs. -- For the record, link to "Diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Continual personal comments about me and escalating violations of WP:HAR, most recently making threats on my talk page. (Most recent Diffs.) Following Wikipedia User space and user talk page guidelines (which I have referred this user to and which I link in my talk page prominently), I have been deleting such continual postings after seeing them. I find these continual remarks personally offensive and see them as increasingly-escalating attempts to harrass me. (I remove such offensive comments from my talk page; I explain my editing practices clearly in my user space.) Please also see this user's uncivil comments posted about me in Talk:The Dark Knight (film), on other users' talk pages, on the user's own talk page, and on the user's own user page, where these comments about "NYScholar" violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, as well as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (particularly, WP:UP#NOT (#9): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors") and WP:NPA. This user and the others with whom this user engages in such conduct need to receive warnings from administrators about this behavior; this user and others may need to be blocked for this kind of behavior if it continues. I seek administrative help with this matter. Thank you. (Please note: I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures; I am simply asking for assistance with this matter so that it stops before it goes any farther. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [Added links to most recent "Diffs." and Contributions as further examples for convenience of administrator(s) here. Thank you for assistance if you can provide it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC); added dir. sec. link & q. from it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[Added the number for the item in WP:UP#NOT; since I first posted this request for administrative assistance here, the user cited has further violated that UP [guideline], in my view. The user's comments below are in my view inappropriate and should be understood in the entire context of that user's postings about me throughout Wikipedia space, where they appear to me to be further personal attacks and an attempt to marshall other users to silence me and to drive me away from editing an article or articles on which I have contributed a great deal of good-faith editing. These attempts appear to me to be a violation of WP:HAR. In order to see how this problem began, one really needs to review Talk:The Dark Knight (film), so I have posted the editing history link to that page above. I have other work to do offline, and I cannot take further time to comment about this matter. I updated my comment below and updated my comment in the film article's talk page. I have also updated my own talk page and archived the most recent comments by some of these users posted in it. I expect to be offline doing non-Wikipedia-related work. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. I have copied this response to the NYScholar talk page with the full expectation that it will be summarily deleted.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Additionally if you actually look at my comments and those of others, you will see that a series of successive criticisms (valid I might add) were just deleted without comment. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And as far as threats are concerned. I specifically stated that I would be "watching for abusive tactics". Not intended as a threat, just that this user can't continue to brow beat and condescend to other user with impunity.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And furthermore, NYscholar claims a violation against WP:UP#NOT. I quote the rest of the passage here, conveniently left out in the above quotation: "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Lastly NYScholar claims that "I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures" which is clearly false as his/her/it's extensive quoting of several wiki rules and long-winded argumentative responses to good-faith queries, one that are laden with what can only be described as sarcastic and condescending language and, if he/she/it had been in person would have been "air-quotes". I have stated before that I did indeed inflame the situation but I feel that the consensus is that NYScholar, while an intelligent person and valuable Wikipedia editor, is nonetheless in need of a lesson in civility, not unlike the one he/she/it has prescribed for me, and others. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on here but can I suggest you refrain from calling other users "its" if you expect administrators to take you seriously. Sarah 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This editor insists on gender neutral language and in-fact has used that pronoun in their own writing. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies; I did not know that NYS wanted to be referred to as "it". Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away ala the Heath Ledger article, however, the last time I dealt with a complaint about NYS I felt like I was pounding my head into a brick wall, so I'm going to leave this to other admins. Stuthomas, it might help if you can get ThuranX and the other users from that page to come and comment. Sarah 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi, I have encountered both of these editors at Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and through associated edit summaries. Stuthomas4 has made comments that he/she has admitted have had an uncivil tone, in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor. Stuthomas4 has apologised, and NYScholar, judging by his/her past editing practices, will not be online for a few hours. In the meantime, I will leave NYScholar a message in the spirit of reconciliation, explaining why certain editors (myself included) took issue with the editor's tone, and hopefully this whole episode can be put to one side. All the best, Steve TC 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I read and appreciated Steve's comments and archived them. I do have to go back offline again, but I wanted to make clear that I appreciated what Steve said. I do not appreciate the others posting comments here (as Sarah instigated them to do, despite recusal), which further creates an impression that they are "ganging up" on me. I have "disclosed" the entire situation; I've posted links to it, which anyone can follow. The editing histories of The Dark Knight (film) and Talk: The Dark Knight (film) and of my own and others' talk pages bear witness to the history of this "incident". Some people have deleted my own and their own comments from some of the film's talk page, but they can be found in the editing history; as for my deletions of material from my own user talk page; I rarely completely delete users' comments; I generally archive them; but when I find the comments personally offensive and harrassing, I do delete them, as I state I will do in "N.B." on my current talk page and in user boxes. Users are not required to archive comments on their user talk pages; but I generally do so; exceptions are the offensive and harrassing material, which I properly delete. Examination of talk pages of some others commenting below will show that they have deleted my warnings; it is permissible to delete warnings, according to current user talk page guidelines; deleting them is taken as a sign that they have been read. Usually, I archive warnings. If I do not archive a user's continual barrage of comments, it means that I find them obtrusive and offensive and that I do not feel obliged to archive them. Obviously, I read them in deciding whether or not to archive them. In my experience, I archive far more material than many users do; many simply delete comments that they do not like or agree with from their talk pages. This AN/I was not intended as a way for others to attack me further; frequently, the posting of an AN/I turns into a "free for all"; I hope that a neutral administrator will review my request and stop the barrage. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I said I wasn't going to act as an administrator here but that doesn't mean that I'm prohibited from commenting. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To weigh in on this, I think it is a bit strong to say that Stuthomas4 is "most recently making threats on [NYScholar's] talk page". NYScholar has not fully disclosed the entire situation, that there are several editors who are uncomfortable working alongside him/her due to his/her inflexible tone in discussions, particularly at The Dark Knight (film). I'm not considering Stuthomas4's comments completely appropriate, but I really think that filing an AN/I report over open, multiple concerns regarding this NYScholar's conduct is improper. I've tried to explain to Stuthomas4 the best way to describe situations like these, and Stuthomas4 has acknowledged that calling the editor a "royal pain" was a mistake and