Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive462

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

Noticeboard archives



Yes check.svg Climaxed. Image deleted on Commons, Deletion Review filed there. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A long time image on the semen article has suddenly dissapeared, and now gives a red link. I've been unable to find it listed in any of the deletion requests queues, and there was nothing posted on the semen article regarding it being up for deletion, or anything like that. I also did a look on the commons site, in case it had been there, but could not locate anything about it there, either. It seems to have just vanished.

I found where it had been discussed for deletion in November of 2006, and then kept, but nothing recent. [[1]]

If someone knowledgable about these things can find out what happened to it, and possibly return the image, that would be great. I'd hate to think that it was removed outside of the normal process. Atom (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons.Geni 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I just found it there too. What is the deal with that? HOw can they delete an image that has had a delete request in the past with a Keep, and is currently used in one of our articles? With no notice? Atom (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons can delete pretty much whatever it likes (generaly due to copyright issues). In this case there was a better image and well someone may have been applying a version of Commons:Commons:Nudity#New_uploads but the deletion does seem somewhat odd.Geni 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I put in for a deltion review on commons. It is odd as the image has been in the semen article for two years, and survived a deletion request in November of 2006. Also, although a few opinions were that some other image was better, the content of the en.wikipedia article isn't their area, commons:nudity does not seem to apply. What I object to most, I guess is that there was no notification of the deltion request on the semen article. If there had been a number of people would have responded, and ironed out any confusion about it being a new or old image. Anyway, thanks for looking into this. I will try to iron it out over at commons. Atom (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to provide a replacement photo. In fact, I'll be glad to do so. I just need to go get some eggwhite, like they do in prestigious exotic websites, since nobody can tell the difference from a couple of feet away. That's what I've heard tell, anyway. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And on that note, I think we've shot our wad on this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In related stories, see: #User:Emilfaro_abusing_many_policies and #User:Signsolid:ownership.2C_personal_attacks.2C_.26_failure_to_assume_good_faith. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we've milked about all the humor we can from these three articles. They could probably stand to be archived. Ironically, every time we add a remark, that delays their archival. Oops, I did it again. Where's Ncmvocalist when we need him? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Resolved. User indef blocked, pages moved back where they belong. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is likely another sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Randy Jaiyan, though the results of the checkuser case haven't come through. His hallmark is moving pages of General Hospital characters to different pages with the surnames he arbitrarily chooses. I've reverted his latest moves, but he's made a series of bizarre edits/moves in regards to his user account that I'm not quite able to unravel. He's managed to move his user/user talk page to User:Jackson7days and edited his original pages so that they cannot be moved back. Could an admin possibly fix this situation and block this user? AniMate 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism on 'Checkin' it out' article page[edit]

Hi there, don't know name responsible or IP Address but vandalism on Page: "Checkin' it out". Single line of text suggests artist "lil chris" is a 'convicted rapist' and 'dirty chav'. Just sweeping through and thought you would be interested, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donahew (talkcontribs) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Change it! Tan ǀ 39 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's even an article on that, to tell you the truth. Enigma message 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA account that is concerned with announcing that a person is Jewish in the lede in violation of WP:MOSBIO[edit] (talk · contribs) is a single purpose whose only edits are adding that a person is Jewish in the in lede. According to WP:MOSBIO, ethnicity and religion should not be in the lede. I have told him that in his talkpage and in the edit summaries where I reverted him. He has not commented on this and just reverted my reversion. For those of you that will respond "well this is a content dispute that should be solved on the articles talkpages" I ask you to use common sense. Historically, these these types of editors only mean trouble. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • ...unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Though looking at the contribs briefly, that's not the case. RBI. Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've advised this IP editor of this discussion and invited him to take part here. Agree with Sceptre that it should only be mentioned if relevant to notability, but if he continues on this course without discussion, there's only one place it's going. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Dayewalker (talk · contribs) for helping out with this situation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid his edit twice at Ralph Lauren. He keeps doing it. Recommend a block. Enigma message 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, definitely time for a block now. Just did it again. Enigma message 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Anyone that refuses to interact with other editors regarding their content additions should be blocked. A fortiori, where an editor's good faith is dubious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
After his final warning here, he made 25 more edits violating the same precept he was warned against. Enigma message 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 55 hours. Absolutely unacceptable. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - it says in Phil Donahue he is Irish-American, so do we go around eliminating all ethnic roots?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ethnic roots should be included in the article, but - per wp:mosbio - not in the lede. If he was born in Ireland, its another thing, the "Irish" refers to his nationality, not his ethnicity. Indeed, the custom is to include nationality in the lede. But ethnicity should be mentioned in the bio/family section of the article. I will now proceed to fix Phil Donahue as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good Lord, let's not get sidetracked into "is Judaism an ethnicity, religion, culture, or race" thing, please. That's not an appropriate discussion. If a person's ethnicity is part of the person's function in culture, then it's fair. So, Donohue's Irish-Americanism is actually something he has relied upon in interviews. Jon Stewart refers to his Judaism as part of his comedy. On the other hand, Paul Volcker's Jewishness or lack of it is so brazenly unrelated to his work as an economist or advisor that it's simply not worth discussing it in the same terms. Common sense ought to be part of our editing at least a wee bit, and whether this IP is trying to build a Hall of Jewish Champions or trying to show a Jewish Conspiracy is irrelevant. We ask for relevance before we go into a person's background. Geogre (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a slipper slope. Consider Sammy Davis, Jr., who was black and Jewish. Where does that ethnicity fit in? Especially since he wasn't born black, but he converted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog[edit]

Unresolved: Please take to RfC or Wikiquette alerts

- Papa November (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, banned, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned? No, more like blocked once for 3RR.
It's funny that you bring this up. Because it appears that Aheadnovel55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been throwing about unjust accusations and comments regarding COAHCFD, such as,
  • "you sympathize with the naizs and their goals then we have no nothing more to talk about"
  • "So am I to assume that you are deleting these gigantic massive chunks of information that specifically talks about nazi crimes, because you sympathize with them?"
  • "So you are a neo nazi you admit it? I will not stop restoring the facts which are sourced about crimes committed by the nazis, it is very simple you try to cover up the nazi crimes and I will restore them"
The responses were met with sarcasm, which apparently went over Aheadnovel55's head. seicer | talk | contribs 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I should have said blocked, not banned. Sorry. Regardless of whether or not sarcasm goes over a user's head, it has no place here in Wikipedia, this is clear in the wiki guidelines. There are many many other examples of Captain's rudeness available and I have provided them above. IS your implication that I am "throwing about unjust accusations and comments"? --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your comments are inappropriate here. Remember, this is not wikipedia complaint department. COAHCFD does not create disruption right now. Hence no administrative intervention required (if you wish you can file an RfC). Your complaint looks very strange. You edit in WP only around a month. You made less than 200 edits. Now you complain about COAHCFD with whom you do not have an editorial conflict. You also conduct an extensive forum shopping to bring other people here. I should remind that Aheadnovel55 (see above) was an obvious SPA with only one purpose: to wikistalk and revert all edits by COAHCFD. Hence his sarcastic reaction.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No my comments are not inappropriate. If a user is engaging in inappropriate conduct is it not up to every wikipedian to report that conduct, regardless of whether or not I am in a current editorial conflict. What I have seen is a pattern of rudeness that ought to be curtailed. My complaint was lodged because of COAHCFD's most recent comments. But wiki guidelines allow for reporting of inappropriate conduct, even if it is conducted over a span of time. You would do well to review the various guidelines yourself. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition I provided several examples. The above user was nowhere near the only example. So please take the time to review the other examples before discounting the complaint. As to the accusation of forum shopping, I only notified other users that there was a discussion ongoing. I did not ask anyone to support any position in any way, only to contribute if they saw fit. Do not try to paint this as any kind of marshaling of forces against a user. When a user is displaying a pattern of incivlility, you have to have input from people who have been invoived in conflict from that user from the entire span of activity. That requires notifying those users of a discussion. If any of you take the time to look at the notifications, you will see no bias, either explicit or implicit. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
COAHCFD writes very good content and I don't have any problems with him. He's a bit sarcastic sometimes, but reasonable. Half the links you provide of him supposedly being uncivil just aren't an example of that. I find it weird how you've gone through all of his many edits to find mistakes or supposed inappropriate comments of him and post them here to pretend he's always like that. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh fer crying out loud, I made a point of saying, "I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful" above. Doesn't anyone read? Fine. I give up. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see what is written at the top of this page: "To report impolite, uncivil, or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.".Biophys (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point there, but I was talking about how you call him "generally rude or insulting". - Pieter_v (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this guy has made a lot of unpleasant comments towards other users, but it would be inappropriate for an individual admin to take action here so I'll mark this as unresolved. A better course of action is for you to go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (mild-medium disputes) or Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct (if you can show that at least two edits have tried and failed to resolve the same incivility issues with him) Papa November (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:UKPhoenix79[edit]

Hope you dont mind if I ask for some comments on my Block. I was monitoring the situation at Historical powers where an edit war was going on between two editors. I made one edit and reminded them to talk and asked them to stop. I had no personal interest in the specific subject argued so I went with the original version and reverted it as such. They continued and I reported them to the 3RR noticeboard By the end they had about 8 edits in 24 hours. Then a new user Offerpoint poped up with the same comments as one of the ip users and started to continue where he left off. I made 2 edits in 24 hours just asking for the user to use the talk page and then after the 4th reversion I reported the user for edit warring. The user got blocked for 24 hours and then I got blocked for 48 hours!!!! Like I said before I made 2 edits 21:26, 6 August 2008 and 08:02, 7 August 2008. Also the editor in question seams to be the ip editor who made about 8 edits in 24 hours. I only wished for the page to be stable and I was making sure that I wasn't going to get involved with the edit war. Since when has 2 edits been seen as an edit war? Especially since I have been very careful to follow wikipedias policies rules and procedures! Not only that but why was I given a longer block then the person that actually broke the 3RR rule? All I was trying to do was reinforce the idea of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I really am honestly confused, really I am. Please let me know what I did to get labeled an edit warrior in this case! -- Phoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:52, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, if you wanted a 3rd opinion on your block you really ought to have used another unblock template rather than evading it. –xeno (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know I could do that. I thought it would look like I was trying to game the system and just annoy people. I don't plan to be in this situation again since I have always thought of myself as a good editor but now I know. -- Phoenix (talk)
I saw 3 reverts from you in the past couple of days so I blocked your for edit warring, not 3RR. Also, your block was for 48 hours as you've been blocked (I think by me) for 3RR/edit warring in the past. How did this comment make it to ANI? :-S ScarianCall me Pat! 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
the previous block I believed that I was reverting vandalism [and my edits were] exempt from that because it was considered unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material and was Simple and obvious vandalism but I did understood that why I was blocked. Here I was not actually edit warring and actually trying really hard not to get involved and only get the new user to try the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle hence my involvement. I had absolute no entrust in how the discussion evolved I only wanted the editors involved to discuss this. My previous notification of the 2 ip's violation of the 3RR went unnoticed for about 3 days and it took my personal calls for an admin to step in for the page to be protected. So when I noticed that 2 editors were continuing where the ip's left off I found it suspicious esp when one had identical comments. So I reverted and asked them to talk. I was not trying to dispute content nor was I really interested in the fight. I must admit, being a Brit, I did find it funny that I was reverting stuff that made Britain look better. -- Phoenix (talk)
Further to Phoenix's request for a block review, I have looked into the circumstances surrounding his block by Scarian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and would like to concur with the block. It is evident that Phoenix's general approach to contributing to Historical powers is not in line with that which we expect: build consensus for changes that are disputed through civil, reasonable discussions on the talk page (graduating to available mediums of dispute resolution, if necessary). Rather than contribute constructively, it seems to me that he has opted for the "blank revert" option, in an attempt to force through the 'correct version' of the article (⁂ history of Historical powers).
For similar reasons, I also concur with Scarian's block of Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was heartily returning the ping pong ball in the edit warring at the article. The parties are invited to read related material on this matter during the duration of their respective blocks, including:
Edit warring is simply not the way we do things on here! I hope both parties can take useful lessons from these blocks. As a summary response, however: endorse block, and decline to unblock at this time.
AGK (talkcontact) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How was I uncivil? I was being very respectful and ironically I was advocating against edit warring something that I am now accused of. I had no interest in the content being argued I only didn't want another disruptive edit war to occour on this page. So I tried to get them to stop by reverting to the previous version before it was changed and asked them to talk. I had no idea what the correct version of the page was nor did it matter which one prevailed I only tried to get the users to talk. People are assuming that I was actually interested in the content being disputed when that is father from the truth. I was actually trying to get the page to stop being the ground for an edit war. I do find the accusation of edit warring quite amusing after I was saying similar things to the others involved. -- Phoenix (talk)
You may want to stop editing with your IP address, it is block evasion. Useight (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested you were being uncivil, Phoenix. I also understand that you were only trying to reverse what the other party was doing; however, our policy on the matter is very clear: do not meet a revert with more reverts -- it simply doesn't work, and is disruptive for the article. If an editor is edit warring, report it. AGK (talkcontact) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough I don't want to be seen as taking advantage of my computer knowledge to circumvent this situation. I have been waiting for the last few hours for any replies on my talk page but no one has commented, so I will post here. Consider this my last comment during my block as an ip user unless I am requested to reply. First Useight I'd like to reiterate the what I said on my talk page and I would like to say thanks for backing me up. It is nice that admins have actually discussed this, but I am surprised that I was not completely unblocked. I have read the official policies on wikipedia and they don't seam to agree with this block. I really was just trying to get in between two individuals and stop an edit war. I arbitrarily decided to revert to the original version that started the edit war per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and asked the editors... never mind I've explained that before. But from what I can tell 2 edits in 24 hours is not considered an edit war nor is 4 edits in 108 hours and 46 min (19:16, 2 August 2008 till 08:02, 7 August 2008) an edit war either. I really honestly do not understand the block. I was trying to do the responsible thing trying to stop a content war and got punished for it... why? -- Phoenix (talk)

User:Emilfaro abusing many policies[edit]

Resolved: For the love of God, no more corny puns...please...I'm begging you. GbT/c 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user was recently banned for 3RR. After returning has continued same behavior and is ignoring consensus. He is also refusing to assume good faith while attacking other editors on Talk:Circumcision. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning for this particular gem. If he persists in that vein then he'll be blocked accordingly. GbT/c 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be having issues with that article today... lifebaka++ 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job fellow admins! Way to nip this one! (I couldn't resist...) Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say something to the effect of that but got a little...cut short here at work. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No worries, wildthing, it's no skin off my nose. I just hope you recover from your disappointment before you get too upset... Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing like a good circumcision joke (head slap) ;) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, sports fans, who can tell me the difference between a rabbi and a mohel? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody? OK - the rabbi gets the salary and the mohel gets the tips. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Given his interest in circumcision, the guy must be a real dick. Nyuck nyuck nyuck. HalfShadow 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
He's able to withstand a lot of criticism - he's got 4 skins. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope we don't get in trouble for this; nobody likes a cock-tease. HalfShadow 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Users page[edit]

Resolved: 4im issued for WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Arthur Smart has been using his page to make personal attacks towards other editors with his commentary about his "userbox of the month". He then prohibits anyone from responding to those attacks. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NPA. He pretends that by not using a users name (instead calling them wingnuts) that he is not making a personal attack. He is, of course, gaming the rules. I request administrative intervention. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could leave a diff to the edits concerned, as I can't see the occurence of the word "wingnut" anywhere on his userpage, nor does anything on there at the moment particularly resemble a violation of WP:NPA. GbT/c 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That's because I removed it for violation. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talkcontribs)
I've warned the user concerned. I'm not sure that removing it yourself (without explicitly asking the user concerned to do so first, which I don't think you've done) was entirely the right idea, but I'm not going to be pointy and reinstate it and ask Arthur to remove it. GbT/c 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that I made any form of personal attack. As someone else recently told him, "Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you." I made no personal attack. The complainant took it personally, thereby inflicting the attack on him/herself. If there was a personal attack, it was self-inflicted by the complainant. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So you don't think that "One wingnut WN presumed that the userbox applied specifically to him/her, in effect synthesizing a direct connection where none exists. (I guess the shoe fit, even if the condom didn't.)" constitutes a personal attack? GbT/c 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I never identified the complainant or anyone else, so if there was any attack at all, it certainly was not personal. The complainant is the one who took my user page contents personally, and through his/her own voluntary self-disclosure created a personal link where none existed previously, as others have pointed out. But I, on the other hand, committed no personal attack whatsoever. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that there is no personal attack there, although there is a lack of civility. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I read the condom bit as being an attack. The fact that it is address at or about the "wingnut" who thought that the original userbox was aimed at them makes it, in my view, personal. In essence, I can insult someone. That no-one else can work out who it is I'm insulting doesn't make my original personal attack any less (a) personal or (b) of an attack. GbT/c 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, the person who said that hadn't bothered to go back and look at all the things you'd posted on my page as well as your own. There was nothing tricky, it just takes reading to see who you were talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Smart has repeatedly, on Niteshifts's talk page, altered Niteshift's username to make a personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This and this are clearly personal attacks on Niteshift36 (talk · contribs). Arthur Smart (talk · contribs) clearly not acting in good faith. Issuing 4im for personal attack and incivility. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NLT, User:Thetruthwilldofine[edit]

Just came across this apparent legal threat on Talk:John W. Dickenson, indef blocked, but another set of eyes would be appreciated. The user appears to have some affiliation to the article subject. – Zedla (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "if defamation continues ... then we will resort to legal action" an actual legal threat? Presumably, if defamation were not continued, then no legal action would take place. See Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. Do we know why the user is upset? Is it not better to ensure no defamation happens in the first place? Neıl 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be some significant history between the subject of this article and Francis Rogallo. Something about who invented what. Certainly nothing that cannot be fixed in the articles. Kevin (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute over who invented the modern hang glider. At the moment, the hang glider article states Francis Rogallo invented the Rogallo wing in 1951 (correct), which was a flexible ring, not a hang glider, and then states "Some designers" adapted Rogallo's design to create the modern hang glider. The designer was Dickenson, according to the FAI (they would know, so, therefore, correct). That probably needs to be in the hang glider article. However, Dickenson also claims he invented the wing in the first place, calling it the Lavezzari Conical Wing (not true, according to History of hang gliding). We must have an expert somewhere who can help with this. Neıl 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User:BatteryIncluded has stepped in and cleared things up. Yay! Neıl 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a legal threat. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Resolved: blocked for an extended period. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalised the Michael Phelps article and has made abusive changes to my, Gwernol's and Digitalme's user pages, as well as responding abusively to polite warnings on their talk page that they will be blocked. Katharineamy (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs on AIV Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Todd got to them already]. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

user i blocked requests unblock[edit]

I blocked Americansteamers (talk · contribs) for 72 after he added 2 dozen spam links for his company by the same name. I think the length of time on the block is appropriate as it gives him time to reflect and guide his actions according to that reflection. He now requests an unblock, pleading ignorance and promising to do better. I left him a note suggesting he spend the remainder of his block reading our policies and thinking about whether his goals are compatible with Wikipedia's. I also have a problem with an account named for a business that has shown such a strong interest in self promotion, but that's another matter. If anyone else feels inclined to unblock or shorten the block, it's OK with me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that user to request a username change before unblocking. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Username soft blocked by Gwen gale. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with DRV close[edit]

Resolved: Back at DRV

Per User:Nick's suggestion here, I'm requesting that other admins look at the close of the DRV for wikijob.

Briefly, there was an AfD for wikijob. After 25 hours, the !votes were 2 weak keeps, 1 keep, and 1 delete (the nom). At that time, an admin closed it as a speedy for WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11 (among other reasons). This then went to DRV, where at 24 hours there were 6 overturns, and no endorse !votes. At that time another admin closed the DRV, upholding the closure of the AfD. (The closing admin has a different interpretation of the situation, see here).

I was involved in the DRV, but not the AfD. I feel both closes were out of process and ignored clear (and nearly unanimous) consensus of subjective issues (if the article is spammy and if deletion is the right next step). I'd ask uninvolved other admins look at this and consider restoring the article (and perhaps reopen the AfD or DRV). Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(and yes, I really like parenthesis, why do you ask?)

Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2 admins reviewed this in the proper venues and handled it under the procedures of the venue, this forum shopping is not a productive use of time. MBisanz talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll note that one of the two admins suggested this as a reasonable place to bring the issue. If there is a 'more correct' place to bring this, please point me to it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(ecX2)The speedy deletion is clearly wrong in both substance and process, but rather than go through yet more process, why not just rewrite the article in an improved state? A speedy deletion establishes no precedent, so the article can simply be recreated per deletion policy. Statements by the administrators involved confirm this. However, the demand that those involved in the deletion discussion or article editing should not recreate it is out of policy. It would be simplest if an administrator simply emailed a version to you (any takers?) but for the moment there's a cache version available at"WikiJob+is+a+website+designed+for+and+used+by+those+involved+in"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Forum shopping, anybody? Corvus cornixtalk 01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless a version is written that can pass DRV, it stays deleted, end of story, ANI is not AFD_3. MBisanz talk 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a major reason to see it recreated, either, unless a version can be penned (on your sandbox) and reviewed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You're tempting me to recreate it myself. If it's a notable company then an encyclopedic article can be written about it. I fail to see any plausible way in which the article was "blatant advertising". Speedy is for uncontroversial cases. That article was fine, just a little weak. Obviously it can be created in a better fashion. I don't see what anyone is trying to prove here. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about a notable subject let them. If the subject isn't notable the only way to determine that is a full AfD. We're past that point and the simplest thing to do is to write the article in improved form. Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the same thing - I've looked around, and I've found enough references that suggest that it is sufficiently notable. Not a lot, but I won't be arguing that it is eminently notable, so that should be fine. In looking at the cached version from the sandbox, it was perhaps not worded that well, but I'm surprised to see it being deleted via G11, given the presence of enough to make a case for notability and it doesn't seem like blatant advertising in spite of the COI. Not having seen the earlier version I can't speak to the use of G4, which may be appropriate. Still, recreating may be the best way to go, and would be easy enough. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinion in this is that both the AfD and the DRV were closed too early. The DRV was closed after only 1 day, and after 2 admins (DGG and johnny-mt) had described the AfD closure as inappropriate. Now the option for discussion is closed off - if he brings it back to DRV, it will be speedily closed. If he brings it here, its forum shopping. Whats the harm in letting the discussion proceed at DRV until a consensus is clear? That's how it is supposed to work, and how it should have worked in this case. Out of process closes should only be done in obvious cases - since everyone who "voted" in the DRV voted in the opposite direction of the close, I'm not sure how this one could be classed as obvious. Avruch T 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec times 2) Just to be clear: #1 the AfD was speedy closed with 3 keeps and no one other than the nom suggesting delete. #2 the DRV was closed as "endorse" even though the !votes were 6 to overturn and none to endorse. #3 This (ANI) is where the admin closing the DRV suggested I bring this. #4 Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article. While we aren't a bureaucracy, process does matter. Was it really acceptable for an admin to speedy an article after it claim to AFD when all three !votes were to keep? Was it acceptable to uphold that deletion when the !votes were 6 to 0 to overturn? Please note that the arguments made in the AfD and DRV were both solid and not addressed by either closer. I'm not planning on making further arguments here, but I do feel this is something other admins should be looking at carefully. Maybe the close of the AfD and DRV were both reasonable. I'm fairly comfortable with the way things generally work (as well as the actual policies associated with AfD closures), and these look scary-wrong to me. But I've been wrong before. If everyone else is good with it, then I'm clearly overreacting. That's been known to happen :-) Hobit (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well then, since "Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article.", I'd say these admins acted within their discretion to prevent WP from being used as an advertising platform. MBisanz talk 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"We don't do process for the sake of process." Personally, I'm concerned that a useful article could have been created by some folks but that both discussions set aside for the subject of deleting it were short circuited. I don't know much about the subject, but what is the point of taking supposedly 10 days of open discussion and condensing it into 2? Especially when the discussion was shaping up against the close both times, and in the second instance two admins had already voted the other way. Discussion hurts no one, especially when the article was already deleted during the DRV. Avruch T 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If the closing admin has a differing idea from that of the community, he should have voted in the debate, rather than close it and impose his own view on the community. No matter how brilliant his opinion may be, that close is incorrect because it went blatantly against consensus. Bad close. I'm inclined to revert it so the DRV can run its course, but I'll wait for further opinions. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The closing admin did !vote delete in the AfD. He then blanked his !vote and closed as a speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    The diff is [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the process is, it's a lot more productive if we have a live version of the article somewhere in the meanwhile. That way it can be improved. It would take me all of about five minutes to edit the article so as to make the question of blatant advertising moot. A lot less work than this discussion or any process for the sake of process. Notability is a different question but that discussion hasn't occurred.Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot see this as forum shopping, if a deletion review is closed incorrectly, bringing it to the noticeboard, after discussing with the person involved does not work, is the only thing to do (it was what the closer recommended as well). I would not want it to happen very often though. But in this case the DRV was closed after one day when reviewing an AFD that was closed after only one day, the clear consensus of the participants at that time (it could change over a full discussion but I doubt it) was to overturn the deletion, however the closer, in effect, has closed it as Endorse but allow recreation but keep the articles protected from recreation until someone asks the closer to unprotect (which has a bit of a chilling effect on anyone wanting to create a new article). Thus I think the DRV should be reopened. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bringing a contentious close to the noticeboard when it is closed early in oposition to the currently unanimous call for an overturn is not forum shopping. ViridaeTalk 07:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: DRV reopened I've reverted the early close of Wikijob DRV, due to consensus here and at the DRV itself. This thread can be marked as resolved. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Marked as such. I would have done the same thing, PeaceNT, so it must have been the right decision :) Neıl 09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note JzG added the site's URL to the local blacklist ([4]); if the article is restored, this will need to be removed. Neıl 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I added it to the blacklist ages ago when the site owner, Redsuperted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) admitted that he was apsmming it all over the place. He then started using alternate domain names pointing to the same site; adding such is not usually a problem since it was done in order to evade the blacklist. Note that the deletion was G11 and G4, since the same text had already been reviewed and deletion endorsed back in April. The sole contributor to that article, and contributor to nothing else other than trying to add links to the site on articles on major accounting firms, is Redsuperted, who admits a COI. I am not, as a rule, very big on rewarding spammers for going away for a couple of months and then coming back and reposting in the hopes that nobody is looking. Redsuperted is a spammer, plain and simple, If anyone else wants to write an article then fine, but Redsuperted has spent the thick end of a year actively promoting his site on Wikipedia, with no balancing productive edits as if that mad ea difference, and that is an absolute no-no. Deletion of articles that have been previously deleted as spam five times by five different admins at three different titles, all apparently the work of the same user, the site owner, is rarely considered as controversial as it appears to be in this case, especially when the site owner has reposted a version whose deletion has already been endorsed in almost identical form. He must be laughing at us. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right - the original addition was earlier this year, with two alternate domains added the other day. While I don't disagree Redsuperted is a spammer (he clearly is), comment on the content, not the contributor - there was enough "weak keeps" in the AFD to warrant a full review. Ditto the DRV. Neıl 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See, there's always more to the story! I think if that history had been more clear from reading the closure and/or it remained open a little longer people wouldn't have been so perplexed. Wikidemo (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User declaring war on lists - possible sockpuppet?[edit]

A user appears to declared a war on lists[5], and has started to remove a lot of lists from video games articles. [6][7][8]. See also his recent contributions. All appear to be disruptive and it seems like he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Finally, at the top of his talkpage he says: "I. Am. Back. HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - which suggests to be he is a sockpuppet of somebody. D.M.N. (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone were to guess, one might say this banned user. But you never know. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, if connection can be made it may be worthwhile to take it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The guys had an account since May 2006, so I'm not sure. D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't a person just hate lists? I mean, seeing an article written in 2003 that makes perfect sense, and then this "examples of ____" with the most inane and weird things on it could rile anyone. Seems like one thing would be to go try to reason with the user and try to urge her or him to argue that the lists should be nuked on an individual basis. Just wondering what else, besides disliking lists, makes someone so suspicious. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Disliking lists is ok (I think some are helpful and some aren't). However, "declaring war" on them will tend to be disruptive, since lots of good faith editors like lists more than others. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy[edit]

Resolved: Blocked

Hello, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy (see, probably used by Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Akeron (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed and blocked it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Akeron (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was very likely Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING or not WP:OUTING[edit]

Sigh. Ok. Time once again to ask for review of my actions. As a bit of background, I have had a couple of clashes with User:DreamGuy in the past, such that I long ago declared myself ineligible to act in an admin capacity towards him. Even moreso, I have generally stayed away from the articles he edits, as I just do not need to be involved in the level of drama that tends to swirl around him. I do however still have a number of things watchlisted that he gets involved with, particulatly the Jack the Ripper page and it's talk page. And it is from these that I saw something last night that I felt I needed to act upon. Not an action by DG, but rather one against him.

User:Berean Hunter, on the JtR talk page, made a couple of edits declaring that DG is actually a specific person within the Ripper author/theorist/etc community. Upon seeing these edits, WP:OUTING alert sirens went off in my brain. I then proceeded to delete the two edits in question from the talk page and gave BH a "one and only" warning on the subject. As I have never that I can remember interacted with BH previously, and while the actions I took were related to DG, but not against DG, I beleive I am OK as far as my situation of avoiding admin actions about DG. But while I wanted to state that reasoning, that's really not the reason I'm asking for review.

BH has returned this morning and, again on the JtR talk page, is questioning my application of WP:OUTING at all. See this edit for his response, but his general argument is that DG himself released his identity elsewhere on the net, and thus WP:OUTING does not apply. As I am not intimitely familiar with the ins and outs of WP:OUTING, I felt I should get some other admin input on whether I correctly applied the policy or whether I was off-base. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, unless DG has himself revealed his name on wikipedia, it's not ok to post it here. But BH can claim not to have thought of that, so a warning is the way to go. If he posts it again though, further sanctions are needed. However, if DG is trying to push a theory he holds as an author (if he really is that person) then that's a possible WP:COI and might be relevant, but not to the extent perhaps of going down to names. Sticky Parkin 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: TA, "elsewhere on the net" is a ridiculous and absolutely inapplicable argument. In fact, the very meaning of the "outing" policy was to prevent people from taking something "elsewhere" and disrupting Wikipedians' ability to edit here in the conditions that Wikipedia promises. No one is going to draw up a list of "acceptable" other venues for a revelation of identity, and no one is going to argue how much of a confession is a revelation; it's all verboten. You were right. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Wait, WHAT? When did that become the "meaning" of the outing policy? There's a very big difference between someone _else_ revealing someone's identity offsite (which is what the policy is supposed to prevent or at least prevent using that here) and someone revealing their _own_ identity. --Random832 (contribs) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the outside sites being referred to by BH are not me revealing my own identity, it's him assuming someone with a similar username must be me and then adding links to personal attacks made by people on the web against the name found there to try to support his own personal attacks on me here. That's several major policy violations right there. Plus, if anyone with any sense looked at the results of the search he pointed at (which should also be deleted per OUT rules, they'd see that the accusations made there are pretty obviously over the top bizarre. One of the main people involved, if you do a search on that name, is mentioned as having been locked up on psychiatric charges for stalking all sorts of people, and another was User:Sollog (read his article for whether his claims against someone should be proof of someone being a troll -- err, looks like that article got deleted somewhere along the way. switched to user page, others can Google if they care, he still exists on Simple English Wikipedia), and so forth. The existence of libelous personal attacks on the web by people, the most important of which actually got locked up for them, is not proof of anything wrong being done here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That's very different tune than what you said here this morning, where you didn't mind that they stayed. ..and you seem to know an awful lot about those users and other folk on the web for having just looked at it and not being familiar with the other identity..who just happens to be a published author in the field of Jack the Ripper (as you claim you are) and using your same handle for the last 6+ years..what a coincidence.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How in your head does my comment on my talk page at all contradict what I said above? You're just making accusations and hoping something sticks. You are well past needing a block, since you are unrepentant in your attacks and reliance on character assassination to try to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment : I posted specific information to prove that he is intentionally trolling. (How-to Redacted) and look at the mountain of info (greater than 5 years) of specific info about him trolling. As I am trying to establish this as a pattern that precedes him and should be admissible...especially since it has been consistent with his Wikipedia activities. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So you assumed bad faith, and try to use wild accusations you dug up on the net of some name you think you found as proof of this? Standard troll behavior is to call other people trolls. 100 million people could call someone a troll or other names and all it would prove is that people love to make wild accusations instead of dealing with real issues. You also need to consider the motives and reliability of the people making the accusation. Certainly the accusations of trolling on the JTR talk page are simply attempts at character assassination. I think a little looking into the accusations you find on the talk page will discover that the people making the claims cannnot be taken seriously. By your own admission you have violated several policies, and even if you think you are doing it for a good cause it's not an excuse. You need to understand the seriousness of what you've done and stop trying to rationalize it all away in an effort to make more personal attacks. I haven't even seen the accusations this time around about who they think I am, but certainly a similar username being used out there by someone isn't any sort of evidence. "DreamGuy" isn't exactly a rare nickname. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this conclusion, though I can readily understand both the frustration level that BH has encountered as well as the outrage at discovering the CoI aparent. I went through these same feelings when I discovered the same thing (another CoI point exist aside from the one revealed by BH) last year, and think it is partly what leads him to be as disruptive an influence as he has been for years. However, outing is simply uncool.
This begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person? I would think it has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary.
Of course, the alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that seems to tornado around him, and we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has been wikilawyering for years, and so alleging a COI is just the latest strategy of his. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, had to switch browsers, for some reason typing text was delayed by about 30 seconds per character, so long posts weren't getting through, especially with page being editing while I typed. The above was supposed to include: It is especially bizarre considering that he has alleged that Colin4c, another editor on the page, is supposedly a published author in the field, and Arcayne has tried to use that as an excuse for why any conflict between me and Colin should result on Colin having his say. He didn't raise any COI concerns about Colin, but pretends to be worried about me. As far as alleged COI concerns go, I've told several admins watching the page over the years my name and background, and even a longtime bitter foe of mine, Elonka, knows it. If there were any real COI problems with my edits, which I bend over backwards to not make (perhaps even underrepresnting the views of people I am personally acquanited with), certainly Elonka or one of the other admins would have raised them eons ago. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good we're all here! There's a specific conflict of interest noticeboard for such issues, but to be fair to DG, I don't think he's ever made any bones about his 'expertise'. Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he has; the insistence of the Goulston Street Graffito as being used by first "most" and then "many" is but one instance of that dismissal of other opinions that do not dovetail with his own. The difference between Colin and DG is that Colin doesn't push his published pov as being better than anyone else's - a point to his credit, I think. I hesitate to continue, due to outing concerns. I will take a look at the CoI noticeboard, and have emailed one of the admins here my specific concerns, sidestepping outing worries. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your particularly bizarre interpretation of a personal conflict over a minor point in the article certainly isn't a COI issue, or else you could declare ANYTHING I ever say a COI by equally flimsy logic. And the fact of the matter is, Colin certainly has and does push view as better than everyone else's... or at least those who disagree with him anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: There's specific policy to support your actions, even when there are clues elsewhere on the net, or in real life. BH became incensed at the continuing drama and brouhaha at Jack the Ripper, and went a little OTT. As I keep tying to explain, the talk page is not the place to punt accusations back and forward. In addition, I should explain, I specifically recused myself from admin actions at JtR because I had an editing history there before I became an admin. It's a bit of a storm in a teacup, but if there are any admins left who haven't had experience of the participants, then independent eyes on that article are more than welcome. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support TexasAndroid's decision, especially considering BH's clearly misplaced rationale behind the attempted outing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, I think the user was looking for confirmation from other administrators, DG. Your opinion as the affected user is pretty clear aleady. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support not only was the outing unnecessary, but BH's comments were little more than a blatant personal attack. Shell babelfish 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Question shouldn't the edits in question be oversighted? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I emailed oversight to request removal of the edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask they remain at least long enough for this ANI to close. In the event, it comes into question and/or what I wrote needs explanation and those who are making judgments may be properly informed, please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment about what looks like BH defying the warning -- If we agree that it was right to warn BH and remove the edits naming who he thinks I am, how is him naming the exact steps he used to try to identify me any different, functionally, as the intent and end result is exactly the same. He has done so at least twice since he was warned. Once above in his own response here, and one on the talk page of someone he hopes will join him in his conflict. If he's not supposed to be able to do this, he needs more than just a warning of one and one time only and then let him go ahead and do it multiple times later, he needs all such edits removed and maybe a block for defying the order (plus, as others have pointed out above, he other recent comments have included way over the top personal attacks, the kind that usually lead to immediately behavior blocks). DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No, I'm not trying to defy any orders..I'm explaining my actions. The policy is meant to protect innocent people but not people who intentionally troll. This isn't about a simple revelation of identity but that the identity has a notable history of doing this. I don't imagine too many regular folk have such things printed on the web..but then there are also the things you wrote yourself which are revealing about your intentions...and No, I'm not wanting Jack to join into this (I like him too much for that). Since you went at him so often and drove him off I thought he might be interested in seeing it..that's all. I believe he is a self-proclaimed wikiGnome and doesn't usually butt heads with people. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
History of being accused is not proof, and it's disturbing that you not only can't tell the difference but that you purposefully don't want to and instead try to find some bizarre character assassination rationalization to justify your bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with DG's point about the How-to, though I give you the benefit of the doubt about you not doing it in defiance of my warning. I have removed the How-to from Jack1956's talk page history, though I left the bulk of your comment. Above, I have redacted the how-to from your comment, though I am unable to actually do anything about the history of it, as 1) there have been many edits here since, all of which include it, and 2) ANI's history is far too large for admins to actually delete specific edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line when it comes to "How-tos", tho? Are we allowed to say "Use Google", or is that a how-to, too? --Conti| 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Suppose, on a blog that I run, I admit that I'm actually Ted Turner. Now, that blog uses the same user name as this: Utgard Loki (who knew Ted read Old Norse?). The fact that I might, there, reveal, to that audience, my name would not license anyone to come to Wikipedia, to this audience, and reveal that I own land in Montana and used to be married to Jane Fonda. The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information. To say that it's ok then asks administrators at Wikipedia to decide, "Well, it's ok if it's a blog, but not if you dig three years back through Usenet" or "It's ok if it's five years ago on Usenet, but not if you go to high school newspapers" or, guess what, "It's ok in the online version of the high school newspaper, but getting information from the estranged best friend from high school who says she's sure that Utgard Loki is really Ashley Alexandra Dupre." That seems pretty messed up, if you ask me. Whether this user meant to release confidential information or not, bringing it in is just kind of... irrelevant or speculative or bad. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As I noted before, this begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person. While I agree that BH was wrong to give any personal info or 'how-to', DG does indeed surrender their ID in normal netspace, though the simplest of methods (read: nothing sneaky or especially complex).
I still think the issue has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary. That DG has acknowledged the existence of CoI, and that he actively takes steps to avoid it are to be commended. Unfortunately, he has also claimed to be aware of the finer points of civility, and continues to fail in that respect. I think maybe he might need some assistance in ensuring that his edits to JTR-related articles remain free of CoI.
Again, a viable alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that he seems to engender with his manner of editing; we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you will get a good answer in your question of the conflicts between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. Those two issues have been in conflict for quite a while now, with a number of debates right here on ANI on the issue. I've seen strong opinions on both sides, and I don't remember any specific resolution to the conflict between the two. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are administrators who already know the details of DG's identity and background, they should be able to evaluate claims of WP:COI without revealing any personal information. Not that I've seen a credible allegation of COI in this thread yet... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a side issue that just muddies the primary purpose of the thread. It's not about DG's self confessed involvement with ripperean matters off-wikipedia; DG's behaviour, nor indeed other's behaviour - merely whether TexasAndroid was correct in removing the outing information. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a conflict of interest would only come close to anonymity in importance if the person so accused were an administrator using some version of extraordinary powers. Therefore, if Jimbo is with some ladyfriend and then hard protects her article, people can say, "Ooooh, this is a conflict of interest that's worth knowing," because the extraordinary power of his position were being used to immunize him from regular reversion or oversight by other users. If you don't have some use of position then normal oversight and peer editing takes care of conflict of interest, and there is therefore no way that identity should be revealed. At least that's how it seems to me, but I'm gender confused. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(@Utgard Loki) "etc etc, to that audience, etc etc, to this audience," How are the audiences of two public websites relevantly different? "The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information." What if it's someone who's read your blog for years and happens to recognize your name when they see it on Wikipedia? --Random832 (contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Then they still shouldn't mention it here. Some people might know my real name but that wouldn't make it ok for them to mention it here without my consent. It's unpleasant and a breach of netiquette nowadays, as well as exposing people to possible hastle if more wrong'uns happen to see it than otherwise would have done. Sticky Parkin 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia perhaps overdoes anonymity. If you really need anonymity because of what you're editing, you probably have a conflict-of-interest problem. I'd argue that COI issues, which actually affect the quality of the encyclopedia, should trump anonymity. Personally, I edit under my own name, and my user page says who I am. Once in a while someone e-mails me. Big deal. --John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You and I may be an exception - in that we edit under our own names, but there are perfectly reasonable reasons why people who edit here would not want their RL identities to be known. There are many wiki-editors in countries that don't provide the kind of freedoms we appear to enjoy; or young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lie. That principle of anonmity should be respected, even if it goes down to the level of someone who seems to have rescinded their right to privacy elsewhere. Kbthompson (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I grew up in a household that was under mild public scrutiny and we were always taught "if you don't want it in the paper tomorrow, don't do it". After a childhood like that I can sympathize with someone wanting to keep their head down. I'm sorry KB, but this is a big nitpick I have "young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lay". Very few young people want a future that deceives them. (Pedantic, I know but I can't help it.) padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In my case, I just prefer not to give out my real identity to the whole of Wikipedia because the people who like to harassing when they don't get their way have in the past harassed me off-site as well. Back when I had my main email as my Wikipedia email and didn't realize the return address showed when you send an email through the Wikipedia emailer, I communicated privately with someone who had had a personal conflict with me and acted like they were trying to resolve it, but they saw the email address, Googled around, and started contacting people in my private life and making bizarre and false accusations. So I changed that email. He periodically still years later emails people I know, or people I have conflict with on Wikipedia. That person and some other people may know, but I prefer not to have it be a public announcement, and that right has been guaranteed to me by Wkipedia policy.
The assumption that anyone who wouldn't give out their real name publicly probably has a COI conflict is just wrong. I have given out my real name to a limited set of people and they can and do check (some obsessively) to make sure I don't do anything that could be a COI. If other admins who watchlist that article want to know it and do not, they can ask me. Besides, this section isn't about me, it's about TexasAndroid and BH and who was right, which appears to have been quite thoroughly settled. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: There are dispute resolution steps for a reason. If you think an editor has gone too far you are more than welcome to take it up with an admin or go to ArbCom or what have you. OUTing is not the accepted way of handling this. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dream Guy- no-one's suggesting that just because you feel the need to use a net name on here for your privacy, it's an indication that you have a CoI in itself (I hope no-one's suggesting that.) PadillaH- you misunderstand why people use a net name. It's not because we're ashamed of our actions under that name, it's because most people have run into dodgy people both in the real world or on the net at some time in our lives, or run the risk of doing so. People who would delight in causing trouble, not necessarily due to our own fault/actions but because some people aren't very nice. Sticky Parkin 19:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone was ashamed of anything. I was referencing the shadow of the MSM that I was raised under. I'm not misguided enough to think everyone lives with reporters on their front porch. I only brought it up to sympathize with the notion that someone would want their privacy and go to great lengths to protect it. In no way did I mean to intimate anything about anyone else. padillaH (review me)(help me) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Block request part 2. User:Klaksonn/User:Enforcing Neutrality related[edit]

Hi all. A day or so ago I posted a block request for User:Klaksonn-related IPs that have been appearing after the recent block of one of his sockpuppets, User:Enforcing Neutrality. No action was taken on the latest IP ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) because it had already been blocked for 24h for offences unrelated to block evasion (since then the IP has returned and continued in the same manner). As such, I'm requesting that the latest block-evading Klaksonn/EN sock,, be blocked. Regards, ITAQALLAH 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (talk · contribs) one month as a sock of Klaksonn. A colorful edit summary like this one suggests he wasn't planning on a long career with this IP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Txbad1 - potential threats?[edit]

Resolved: No action needed. User now appears to understand Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved in an editing dispute with User:Txbad1 at Amber Alert. According to his own statement, Txbad1 was heavily involved in the creation of the Amber Alert[9]. I attempted to clean up the article to meet WP's guidelines and was reverted. I've been attempting to communicate on the user's talk page, and got what I thought was an implicit legal threat[10]. When I told the user that was not acceptable behavior[11], he responded that it was not a threat[12]. He was later blocked for 3RR, and the administrator who did that also warned him about legal threats [13]. He has now made what could be construed as a threat to say negative things about wikipedia in his organization's press releases.[14]

I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look and warn the user if you think it is necessary. He is a very new wikipedia user and does not appear to understand wikipedia policies. Perhaps someone else can find a way to help him understand? Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre posts. I wish he'd use more punctuation :-). In all seriousness, it does appear at least to be working out on the user talkpage? (Your patience here is noted, Karanacs). I don't see any "explicit" legal threats, but merely "threats to tell your boss" type misunderstandings about what Wikimedia is/isn't. I'll watchlist the article and the talkpage, another opinion here is certainly welcome. Perhaps I'm being too lenient? Keeper ǀ 76 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks, I've also been having a bit of difficulty trying to figure out exactly what is being said. And, since I'm the one in the dispute it's sometimes harder to see the forest for the trees. Another pair of eyes would be extremely helpful! Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I would also say explicitly that Ottava Rima is doing an excellent job communicating to the new user why "he is being objected to". I'll keep watching at this point. Keeper ǀ 76 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the lack of punctuation is odd. I don't see a legal threat, but it's edgy stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
His most recent post is actually really encouraging...Keeper ǀ 76 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a matter of emotions before reasoning, which is human. This is a passionate subject, and he was afraid of being misrepresented. Most cases like this seem to be fixed with a sympathetic, and thankfully this one worked out that way. I will continue to follow the situation. Thanks for looking into it, Keeper. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected AIV for 1 hour[edit]

after a string of ip vandals attacked the page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it has now been unprotected. Tiptoety talk 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.

It is at this point that Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) arrives, templating the user and blanking the potential article that was being discussed replacing it with {{indefblock}}. I undid the addition of both of these templates. He put them on again, saying don't be daft: this is SOP and not a special admin task. Again, I undid both, and he again blanked the userpage, which I again reverted. At this point, I began a discussion with Calton, the entirety of which can be viewed here.

Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.

Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.

I apologize for this long explanation, but feel that this type of behaviour needs to stop. –xeno (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This behavior is one of the worst case of biting I've seen in a while. It must stop. — Coren (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? "Worst"? And the ones being bitten are whom? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuicetalk 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.

One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk · contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety talk 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: [15] Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Wikipedia, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety talk 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Tiptoety's suggested ban. 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Wikipedia, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuicetalk 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Wikipedia. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others.  Sandstein  07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Wikipedia in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support the topic ban. This is hardly an isolated issue. ViridaeTalk 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety talk 13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Wikipedia. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?
  • Maybe I should have also put, "Don't make up shit. It insults my intelligence." --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Wikipedia. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"[16]; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." [17]. The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Wikipedia nobility.
  • (Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:
In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.
That's policy: Wikipedia:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.
Calton, nice to see you've mellowed. --CBD 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Calton does yeoman's work dealing with COI accounts. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Shuckers Long Neck (talk