Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476

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

Noticeboard archives


HO249 (contribs) writes stuff in Portuguese (I think)[edit]

Can someone see if his writings make any sense, or are just disruptive/vandalism? VasileGaburici (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's portuguese all right. He's basically offering his services as a broker to sell wikipedia and offers (convoluted) reasons why it should be sold. He says he knows interested buyers.... --CSTAR (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Imagine what it would be like to own Wikipedia. I could finally make good of my lifelong dream of blocking everyone. But seriously, I'm going to go warn him (si, in English!). If someone here knows Portuguese well enough they may want to translate my message just in case he doesn't understand English at all. L'Aquatique[parlez] 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A Brazilian lunatic. Takes all sorts I guess. Húsönd 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale report?[edit]

I reported to AIV less than 20 minutes after the last vandalism. This sat at AIV for almost two hours before it was removed as stale. It wasn't stale when I submitted it, unless we are supposed to let vandals be who haven't edited for more than thirty minutes... I admit that I don't know enough about the articles edited most recently to say for certain that they were all vandalism. I reverted one that I was very sure on and another was reverted by another editor. This one I'm not sure of. Help? Thoughts? swaq 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism at all to me. This person changes football articles in accord with rumors rather than cited sources (so they made Paolo Di Canio manager of West Ham when Google News is just reporting that Di Canio would like that job). That's lousy editing and they shouldn't do it, but it's not vandalism. Why don't you explain on the editor's talk page what the problem with their edits is rather than just leaving vandalism warnings? It's clearly a stable IP--wouldn't it be better to make this person understand what Wikipedia is all about than to block them? Chick Bowen 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of them are vandalism, though, like inserting the name "Bradley Corby" (his name?) into random articles (i.e. [1], [2]). I'd suspect this is a very young user, so Chick's advice above might be useful. Black Kite 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not called "stale" as a criticism of you for your timing in posting it, but as an assessment as to whether it will do any good to take action at that time. If a vandal has stopped vandalising or stopped editing, perhaps no action is needed unless and until they start up again. Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I removed that report is because the person who was reported had not made any edits for a long time. I was not saying that it was a bad report, nor was I saying that his edits were not vandalism. I looked at the reported user's edits earlier, and did not know if I should block him or not, so I just left the report. After 2 hours, I figured that even if his edits were vandalism, blocking him that long after his last edit would be pointless.

tl;dr version: What Coppertwig said :-) J.delanoygabsadds 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what's 'tl;dr' mean? And more seriously, a request for advice. "Unregistered users must be active now" is I presume the erason this was seen as stale. But we also have "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.". I understand that to mean he has to be given time to read the notices, but how much time? It looks like I need to understand this bit better. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
IP's are a slippery issue. Sometimes they're static, often they're dynamic. I have seen countless vandalisms that were the lone entry of a single IP with no activity before or after. That's why IP's have to be "active" to get blocked. It's typically a judgment call by the admin. If you issue a warning and they stop, did they stop because of the warning, or did they simply go away? My usual approach is to issue a warning, and if they vandalize shortly after, then turn them in and let an admin decide what to do - and don't be upset if they do little or nothing. It's case-by-case. And if the vandal continues, turn him in again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr = too long, didn't read. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, J.delanoy. Looks like they vandalized again today and were blocked. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of this AfD[edit]

Resolved: Absolutely no suggestion that the close was an improper weighing of the debate, and the school wars were over long since. Go and try for some second level amateur sports teams instead, their wikiprojects are every bit as resistant to deletion as the shool warriors but they very often have no hope of reliable independent sources. This one is a lost cause. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. It is true and I do not contest that the outcome of the discussion was "keep"; yet Jerry, who has a long history of participating in school-related AfD's where he calls for the respective articles to be kept (occasionally referring to his own essay on the matter), did not refrain from slapping his self-admitted pro-school bias upon closing the AfD. Jerry used the edit summary "cls/keep (obviously)" [3] and even added the non-policy, non-guideline, strongly disputed rationale of "all high schools are inherently notable" to his closure. Astonished by such flagrant declaration of bias upon executing an administrative task, I contacted Jerry and asked him to undo his closure and await for an unbiased admin to perform it. The purpose of my request was to fix an incident that may jeopardize the fragile equilibrium/truce that for some time has existed between school inclusionists and deletionists (deletionists refrain from A7 speedy deleting school articles that fail to assert notability, while inclusionists in turn refrain from using the "all schools are inherently notable" argument as if it were a policy, on AfDs).
Jerry's response to my complaint/request turned out to be the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative I've ever received on Wikipedia [4].
I would appreciate feedback on the (in)appropriateness of Jerry's actions. His closure of the AfD as "keep" was adequate. Applying his bias there, however, constitutes in my view admin abuse. Which might in this case have been innocuous, but which (given the lack of consideration and acknowledgment of misconduct) should justify an admonishment by the community and/or prohibition from further school AfD closures. Húsönd 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest listing it at WP:DRV as an inappropriate close. Corvus cornixtalk 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with the Keep, after nine days, the votes were unanimously keep. Maybe not the "HS are inherently notable", but definitely the Keep. Perhaps you should ask Jerry to strike that, instead of having to get involved with DRV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerry's remarkably constructive participation above shows just how much he cares. I don't want to go through DRV, I'm not asking for his decision to be overturned. I want either him to acknowledge and fix his misconduct (which he clearly and rudely has shown will not) or have him admonished and/or placed on probation. Húsönd 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How about flogged, beaten, branded, and boiled in hot lard? It's amazing to me that in 10 total keystrokes (including spaces and my signature -- none of which included any vulgarity, profanity, or comments directed at you or anyone else) that I managed to create the the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative thing you've even laid eyes on. What information did you need? You asked me to do something, I said "no". How much explanation could that possibly require? And insipid? Which form of that word do you intend? "Unappetizingly flavorless", "lacking character or definition", or "Cloyingly sweet or sentimental"? Or perhaps you meant "insipient"?
The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Wikipedia, there are only two (2) high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Wikipedia articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and all get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions. My closing summary caught the flavor of the discussion, and should serve as a educational tool to discourage further unnecessary wastes of time, such as futile frivolous nominations of high schools against an overwhelming precedent of community consensus that such subjects are notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The above clearly shows that Jerry has a conflict of interest when it comes to school AfD discussions, and should recuse himself from any further closures. Corvus cornixtalk 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You are suggesting, then, that my COI has affected the outcome of the AfD? Or are you suggesting that administrators not have opinions on such matters and/or dare not speak about them? There has been no COI-influence on any AfD, so this is a molehill... no need for hiking gear. Administrators usually mention policies, guidelines, precendents, and typical outcomes when closing unanimous AfD's. There is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, it's a good thing. I close AfD's quite often contrary to my own opinion. You will not find any where COI influenced the outcome. None. How would you have closed this AfD? Delete? No consensus? Relist? Merge? Redirect? Stubbify? What??? No, seriously, how would you have closed this AfD? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you have a bias when it comes to school articles. You should look at the content of the article on a case by case basis, not on "all high schools are notable". And since you have revealed your bias, you should leave it to unbiased admins (or non-admins, as the case may be) to close school AfDs. Corvus cornixtalk 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the evidence and corroboration, Corvus. Now Jerry, what you fail to realize is that there is no "de facto" policy. The reason most school AfDs are nowadays overwhelmed with "keeps" is because very few school deletionists will bother participating in those discussions, as the "no consensus" outcome is easily foreseeable (and "no consensus" defaults to "keep"). But that doesn't mean that we have a de facto policy and it definitely does not mean that you may feel free to display your bias when performing tasks that require neutrality. Oh and I did mean "insipid", as in "lacking taste or flavor". Húsönd 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This shows Jerry's conflict of interest, even if his own words above didn't do it. Corvus cornixtalk 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
And this shows somebody else's:
--Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How does this omnipresent yet particularly ambiguous position of Jimbo's fit here this time? Besides, that's just his opinion. Last time I checked he was still providing valued opinions but the community still had the last word, which in turn he values. Húsönd 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
DRV is a waste of time, if its really needed, just open the AFD and let it continue. Chances are that it will go WP:SNOW again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ehm... Bias or no, any other close would've been wrong. Which means that keep was the right close. Really, take this sorta' stuff straight to DRV in the future instead of bringing it here. lifebaka++ 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Lifebaka, no one is disagreeing that this AfD should be closed as "keep", therefore no DRV is necessary. The subject here is solely Jerry's misconduct upon closing the AfD. Húsönd 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have closed the AfD as keep, but if I had such a clear bias like you have toward school articles, I would not close their afd debates, especially not early even if they appear to be eligible for a SNOW closure. I would certainly not close an afd discussion for a Halo article (I have a edited many Halo articles and participate in WP:HALO), even if COI wasn't a problem someone could call me out on it. In your case the closure was correct, ie your COI has not affected the outcome, but with a more borderline case a whole pile of drama could arise. I do not think it necessary to ban you (Jerry) from closing school afds but bear in mind that others will not think of your closures as a sound if the debate is school related and it will attract attention (as in this case). James086Talk | Email 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and taunt those who disagree by throwing in "obviously," even when the "Keep" closure would likely be sustained in deletion review. The best solution is for Jerry to strike the "obviously," and to avoid closing AFDs where he is clearly partisan. His advocacy tends to make any such future closures suspect. There are AFDs about lots of other things which need closing. Jerry can participate in high school AFDs with sound reasons based on guidelines and policies as to why the High School articles should be kept, and perhaps add multiple references from reliable and independent sources to the article to satisfy WP:N, and let someone else close them. Edison (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry has changed the disputed AfD closing remark "all schools are inherently notable" to "the unanimous participation here is that the subject of this article is notable". Although it's not "unanimous" (as the proponent is also a participant), I am thankful for his action and I find this incident resolved. I do hope though that in the future Jerry exerts more caution when mixing biases and administrative tasks. And I sincerely hope that in the future he will treat complaints/concerns/requests from peers with greater consideration. Húsönd 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry about what the policy for high schools is and ought to be, but I'd word even an argument, let alone the close less dogmatically, as " the general acceptance here is that all high schools are notable" , rather than making it sound like a pronouncement. When I give people advice, or turn down a prod, I say not : "all HS are notable" but "all HSs are considered notable here, as shown by almost 100% of decisions at AfD." And Jerry was right to close, for it was undisputed; in a divided one, I know he would have let someone else do so. The only time one can do so is when one closes against ones known opinion upon realising that the community as a group disagrees. Jerry has done nothing wrong--its just that these things take care. DGG (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding COI's, it would be interesting to know why Husond was so obsessed with (1) getting the article deleted; and (2) the only-slightly-snippy wording of the closing editor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. (1) I was not obsessed with getting the article deleted, as proven by my non-refutation of any argument at the AfD, but anyway that is irrelevant because users' right to submit articles for deletion as they find appropriate is not under discussion. (2) what you find "slightly-snippy" others may find "grossly-blunt". And still, no obsession, just a report. Húsönd 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Here in the USA, a term like "obviously" is not "grossly blunt", it's merely a somewhat opinionated comment, and posting it at WP:ANI and demanding a retraction seems way excessive. And personally, I have little regard for users who spend their time looking for stuff to delete. (That comment, I concede, was moderately blunt.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were referring to the "No.", not to the "obviously". What retraction? You're not making any sense and besides, this is already resolved. Oh, and here on Wikipedia, users should rather keep their comments to themselves if they concede beforehand that they will be moderately blunt. As for the contents of the moderately blunt comment, I won't even bother to comment as it's all said. Húsönd 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of an article about an open source OS[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue for deletion review, the rest is generic rouge admin abuse silliness. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I brought this incident here because there is no other way to resolve this, I got no answer to my question, just sort of intimidations, and I was just told by User:Jerry to escalate this issue. On the very same subject another person had the same discussion, after the deletion of the article, with Jerry with no result.

I am a software developer in Canada and I was looking back for an interesting open source OS named NimbleX which can be installed on a SD card or USB card and boots from there, because my EEE PC stopped booting and I need to boot something else to try to fix it. My surprise was not only the fact the NimbleX article just disappeared in just few days since my last visit, but reading the discussion there and the votes to keep it, everything looked very, very inappropiate. After discussing with User:Jerry I found out that he doesn't really care about this at all.

NimbleX article was simply deleted with no real motivation and contrary to the opinions and votes expressed in the discussion, and its AFD discussion was closed too early. []

The work involved to build an operating system is huge, and this OS is for free, open source and many people need it, and many people around the word use this NimbleX.

I found out other AfD s were closed too early by Jerry: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry.27s_closure_of_this_AfD : deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School

I hope the community can restore the AfD and the article and let another Admin to keep/close the article after the votes.

I really love wikipedia and hope the best for it. Thank you, ---- (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The right venue for this is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Admins are supposed to use not only votes, but common sense in closing AfD's. The fact that only two people had any interest in the deletion process despite the fat that it was relisted is not strong evidence for notability, I have to say. On the other hand, it has been mentioned elsewhere, so an argument for borderline notability could be made.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted [deleted/NimbleX] with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. To Stephan: Why only 2 users said something after the deletion? It is not as trivial to everybody to find who has deleted an article, when the article simply dissapeared. 2 people expressing their concern after the article dissappeared, correlated with the fact that 2 : 0 were the votes to keep versus delete - points me to the fact that here Jerry was in too much rush. I addressed this here not only for the article in cause, but the ability of Jerry to perform this kind of triage of articles to be deleted is questionable based on what happened. It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and delete an article and taunt those who disagree. --- (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually that would be 2 keeps to 1 delete as the nominator is usually assumed to be in favour of deletion unless otherwise stated. Regardless of that AfD is not a vote, and is to be weighed on the strength of the arguments. The argument put forth was that it was not notable and no sources were provided to satisfy . Piling on people screaming keep in the face of policy only works in certain circumstances *cough*OS-Tan*ahem*--Crossmr (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That argument WP:NOTE does not stand. From its definition:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. *There are independent sources (linux magazines)... not enough?
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. *There are secondary sources covering the subject, aren't they?
"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. *There are multiple secondary sources
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. *There are articles independent of subject
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources *Also valid in this cause
I don't know much about how admins can or cannot do in Wikipedia whatever they want to in regard to deletion, but for me this incident tells me something not good. I hope there is an administrator here who can take the time and review this incident properly. ---- (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note also that Jerry did not actually delete the article, he only closed the afd debate. Logs. Jerry probably saw that the article had been deleted without the afd being closed and just closed the afd. The deleting admin was User:Eluchil404. James086Talk | Email 08:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, James086. I am a little confused with who did the deletion, I think I saw that initially, but anyways I'm tired to fight for this cause of this article - I have no minimum link to it and I just wanted to install this OS and sadly found out the article just disappeared.
More important, I think, is the all process of deletion here at Wikipedia. It is too subjective, too in rush, the people behind the deletion don't want really to discuss, like they are gods and they don't really care about the acuracy of Wikipedia. Can be an administrator demoted? How? Is there a clear mechanism, with milestones for each administrator work? Is anybody reviewing an administrator incidents? Or it is subjective and let me say that, chaotic? --- (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless who deleted it, I too think that the decision to delete is dubious. The two keeps provided links to reviews, not just their opinions. There were 3 references to support notability (that were not contested) in that AfD, one of which is definitely significant for a Linux distro. Not everyone has time to read every AfD so the small number of keeps is not necessarily a good indicator of lack of notability. FWIW, Google returns 249000 hits for nimblex... In the first couple of Google pages there are more reviews, on for instance. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, FreeWRT hardly has any reviews on its page only "scores" only 189000 Googles yet you'll have to ban me from Wikipedia before you can delete it. In its niche it's definitely notable. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I know this is archived, but can I just point out - 189,000 Google hits? No just 283. Just say no to Google's first page totals, kids! Black Kite 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want this article un-deleted, you should really take it to WP:DRV. As for how administrators can be demoted, there is a how-to guide in creation at WP:DESYSOP, maybe it can help you. Regards SoWhy 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hint: that almost never happens, so don't bother. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review filed[edit]

So let's move the discussion over there, and keep it constructive. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Disruptive religious usernames?[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required. Discuss at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. Thatcher 14:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has historically been our practice that a username which could reasonably be construed as offensive on religious grounds is therefore disruptive and should be blocked. The applicability of this convention has ranged from, for example User:Satan and User:Jesus to User:Satan xtreme and User:Jesus of Suburbia.

Recently, User:Slakr add a request for username comment for User:Message From Xenu. As best as I understand it, Xenu is considered a sort of evil being amongst followers of Scientology. According to the article on "Xenu," Scientology even goes so far as to write its name as Xxxx.

Given the fact that this username would reasonably be considered antagonistic to any of the purported eight million followers of that religion, I believe it should be blocked. It does not seem to be a username that would promote "harmonious editing."

Rather than the username being disallowed, however, User:Wisdom89 has indicated that he believes that there is "nothing offensive about this [username] whatsoever" and that, regardless of precedent, "we shouldn't be blocking such names." User:Rspeer has indicated that he believes we should not "block anyone just because some religion or cult would take issue with their username."

I'm bringing this here because, as best as I can tell, this is a significant change in practice, coming from two respected Wikipedia administrators. As best as I can tell, this is a clearly antagonistic username with no other possible connotation, unless there is some redeeming quality to the username I'm missing. If it's going to be allowed against the policy as it currently reads (in my interpretation, and apparently in the interpretation of much of the community in the past), then the policy needs to be clearer about when potentially offensive usernames are to be allowed.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What? We block people for having a user name containing the word "Jesus"? That's beyond ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many people are given that name every day??? I'm shocked. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think something like User:Jesus Sucks should be blocked. I don't think User:Jesus of Suburbia should have been blocked immediately, but I provided it to give a reference point for how widely the policy has been interpreted in the past. In any event, can we stick to Xenu?   user:j    (aka justen)   08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Xenu? Offensive?? Wasn't Xenu a TV series about a Hercules-like woman? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be "Xena"...GbT/c 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right... I knew that. 0:) Meanwhile, having never heard of "Xenu" in this context, I checked it out, and it seems the Scientologists deny there is or was such a thing as "Xenu", probably because some might interpret the story as suggesting Hubbard was a nutcase (as compared with the traditional story of the world being created in 6 days, for example). But if Xenu is officially fictional, then what's the problem? It would be like if my user ID were "Message from Gozer the Gozerian". As for "Jesus of Suburbia", that sounds like a satirical name, kind of like Cheech and Chong's public school, "Our Lady of 110th Street" or whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, what if someone created a user ID called "Jesus fan" in reference to the former major league ballplayer? Would that be considered offensive? That's the guy's name! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it a definite red flag myself, less because it's likely to be offensive to scientologists than because the whole "scientology vs. anonymous" garbage that's trendy on the net these days means his username is highly indicative of being a troll. Though on closer review of his edits, that does not appear to be the case for User:Message From Xenu, the name should probably still be changed as giving a bad appearance that is non-conducive to collaboration. --erachima talk 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he changed it to "Message from Xena" it would be acceptable? Unless there's some cult around the Warrior Princess that would be offended. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think model behavior makes the username any less offensive to that group of people.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this user name is offensive. The Church of Scientology denies it anyways, so how can it be offensive? At any rate, would we ban a username "MessageFromJesus", or "Message from The Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I would think not. Groupsisxty (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They appear to refuse to speak about it to outsiders; the article makes it clear that they do believe the entity exists, which again, means it's still just as potentially offensive. "Spaghetti Monster," as far as I know, isn't an evil being in any religion, as far as I know.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification: Someone could choose the username "Jesus of Suburbia" because they're a fan of Green Day.Dgcopter (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Improper language[edit]

User RafaelRGarcia refers to Justice Clarence Thomas as a "Perv" in the edit summary of the above edit. He also uses this term on the discussion page, but I'd have to dig to find it. Also, user is trying to make the page biased against the justice and all his edits are toward that end. I seek only to correct certain verifiably false statements in the article and to have it be fair and balanced (see it's talk page). I know you're thinking, that's what they all say. RafaelRGarcia has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and tried to have me banned. Thank you for your attention to this matter.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Stop trying to fight. The article is already locked; your complaining could only keep it locked. I haven't tried to vandalize the wikipage or anything, and it's completely proper to stop you from slanting the page as you have been trying to do. I have no problem calling anyone who's followed Thomas's course of action a "perv," but it's not like I've tried to add that language to the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
RafaelRGarcia--calling someone a perv is hardly conducive to encyclopedia building, whether in edit summary or elsewhere. RlevseTalk 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it is kind of hard to describe in other language what kind of person leaves a pubic hair on a co-worker's soda can. Though using slang abbreviations is discouraged, so I think this would be better: There are some who feel that Justice Thomas' actions at the EEOC, when it was discovered that he had placed one of his pubic hairs on Anita Hill's Coca-Cola soda can, fall far outside acceptable workplace behavior and thus consider him to be a pervert. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This user is creating a storm in a soda can (hehehe), clealy leaving a pube in the drink of a co-worker is perverted, there isn't libel there as long as he avoids doing so in the article. Anyway, since when is "pervert" a real insult? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thomas was never accused of leaving a pubic hair on a can of coke. He was accused of making a comment about finding one. And Hill's allegations were widely refuted, not that any of this has anything to do with Garcia's improper and biased editing as well as his smearing and deragatory comments against a justice he doesn't like.(Wallamoose (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
Ah! In other words you are just making noise because you have an ax to grind? I'm not sure why you are pursuing any kind of action due to something so silly, no admin would issue a block for refering to someone's "perviness" (note that he didn't even go as far as calling him a "pervert" directly). Try resolving this elsewhere like WP:DR, this isn't Wikipedia's complaints department, it should be used for "real" incidents, not petty arguments. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Wallamoose is threatening to remove additions of mine to the article. Every sentence I write is cited, and my sources in that article are conservative legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, legal reporter Jeffrey Toobin, and conservative reporters for the Wall Street Journal. But because the sentences make Thomas look bad, Wallamoose claims they're biased and wants to remove them. If Wallamoose has his way, the Thomas article will never go unlocked for long, so I hope someone stops him.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"Perviness" is not worth getting worked up over. It's just a lame attempt at comedy. (I wish I'd thought of it.) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is blocking my Good Article Nomination of William Rehnquist; the only thing he's done in the review page is complain about Clarence Thomas more. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is now moosing up the page on William Rehnquist. For example, after a citation to legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, Wallamoose added the following two paragraphs (copied from another site) to smear her:

"Jan Crawford Greenburg herself has been widely criticized for her failure to remain objective. Greenburg expresses her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values. Greenhouse has also taken public stands on some of the most contentious issues faced by the court. For example, Greenhouse said the U.S. Government had, "turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world -- [such as] the U.S.". Sandy Rowe, editor of the Oregonian and a past chairwoman of the executive committee of the Pulitzer Prize board, said "Any of us has to be careful between our own personal views -- which we no doubt have -- and whether it casts doubt on our own work or on the credibility of the institution we represent". Daniel Okrent the New York Times' first public editor -- or in-house journalism critic said he is amazed by Greenhouse's remarks. "It's been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter's ideology [has] to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not colored by previous views," Okrent says.[1]"

Is all that appropriate in an article on Rehnquist? Please get this user to cut it out.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ministry of Love (a.k.a. Two Minutes Hate for PROD)[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. This is why PROD is a worthless waste of time, and everyone should just take the extra 30 seconds to make a proper AfD report. PROD is just a way of giving an article an extra few days on Wikipedia before the author removes the tag and it ends up having to go through AfD anyway. No admin action needed here. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ministry of Love (talk · contribs) has removed a large number of PROD templates in a very short space of time (up to three a minute) whilst providing a boilerplate rationale, under the pretext of "saving horror movie articles from being deleted". I've tried to explain why this isn't appropriate but haven't got very far - could someone else try? Hut 8.5 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the articles to be deleted but Hut 8,5 says I can only do "one or two" and that I have to convince people to change the process if I don't want horror movie articles to be deleted. Why doesn't wiki want horror movie articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put new reasons for each article. Is that good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The prod template states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". Ministry of Love's reason may not be great, but it's a reason. The tags shouldn't have been re-added (especially via rollback). If somebody objects to a prod tag, it should be sent to WP:AfD. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That has been done now. i created a group AFD here dealing with the majority of the articles in question. However, while a user may always oppose a prod for any reason this does not mean that it can simply remove it with a random reason not backed up with Wikipedia policy. This would be the same as an editor claiming he has the right to edit anything on Wikipedia, even if his edits are vandalism. As of such this matter falls under thedisruption guideline. (Something im trying to explain to the user now. Apparently he think im threating to block him from the wikipedia since i stated that guideline). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. A proposed deletion (prod) is only for a page that "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". It's essentially nothing more than a delayed speedy deletion, and anybody can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason (and they aren't even required to give one). Removing a prod tag means nothing more or less than "I don't think this article should be deleted without a discussion". - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot said I could take the notices off again, so I did. Then Excirial tells me that I can't and that I'm supposedly in conflict with "several editors". And he keeps giving me the link to Wikipedia:Disrupt even though I haven't done anything wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I did not say you could take the notices off again. What I said, was that you were fine to take them off in the first place, they shouldn't have been re-added, and an AfD is the correct next step. Please no more re-tagging/re-removing. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
So, who wants to MfD WP:PROD (or PROD it)? John Reaves 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was ok for me to take them off in the first place, but it's not ok for me to take them off if someone replaced them? I really don't get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) It says right on the notice "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To get this clear: A WP:PROD is a tag that signals a page for admin attention after 5 days. During the time the template is on the page people are free to make any improvements to void the removal reasons stated on the template. A user is also free to remove the template all together if he or she wants, but this should only be done unless a reason for removal is stated.
When a prod tag is removed, an article may not be prodded again, but should instead go to WP:AFD for removal discussion. the AFD discussion will then determine if the article should go or stay. The right to remove an PROD template does not mean that every prod placed should just be removed because it may be removed. In your case the prod tags of a great number of articles were removed without a reason that holds ground in WP:Notability or WP:delete. Technically those articles should have been forwarded to WP:AFD, but in times like these editors or admins might decide to replace the prod tag as it might seem the user is either unaware of the prod procedure, the removal is accidental, or because they suspect Disruption.
Once you removed the templates a second time, the articles went up for AFD since there was no doubt now you contested the AFD. However generally when an issue arises and your notified of it, its customary people talk about it to come to a solution or consensus on what should be done. During that time it is friendly to leave the articles in question alone as is editing them to include your point is often intrepreted as trying to push a point instead of discussing a point. In short: 1) A removed prod should be replaced with an AFD with certain exceptions. 2) Articles that are being debated should be left alone till the issue has been talked about and solved. Compri? Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The use of PROD is partly due to CSD being so restrictive. If my mate Dave who lives next door writes his bio and sticks it in an article, I can speedy it because he can't assert any notability, but if he disappears into his shed for a month, records an album with his own guitar, puts in on CD and sells it to a few people, an article about that can't be speedied. (Well, to be honest, I've have done, but technically I shouldn't). Ditto self-published books, films made by a random person with a camcorder, a random pet belonging to a famous person... Black Kite 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you delete the article in your second scenario? One shed-recorded album does not make the subject "important or significant" per A7. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Prod tags are most times a result of WP:NOT violations. For example there is no CSD category that will allow me to remove a travel guide to some location. Also, an article about the 2080 Olympic games will not fit into any CSD category, even though it will certainly be deleted trough PROD as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I tend to place prods in articles that are so likely to be removed that an AFD discussion would be a waste of time. It is quite the hassle monitoring them for removal though, but generally people at AFD tend to comment "This should just have been prodded" on the WP:NOT kind of articles. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's review. I edited the prod notices off less than a dozen articles (which is hardly a large number). All of them were horror movie articles. My reason for doing this was so that the articles could be improved. Hut 8.5 didn't like the reason I gave so he replaced the notices (even though it says right on the notice NOT to do that). He told me that I could only do "one or two" and I had to convince people to change the process if I wanted to do more!

Excirial keeps saying that if the prod notice is removed then the article has to go to an AFD discussion but he could just have left them alone. And twice on my page and once here he linked to Wikipedia:Disruption even though he says he's not threatening me with a ban! Now hes getting the guy that tried to delete all the horror movie articles in the first place to vote against them in the discussions!!

Does this seem fair to you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talkcontribs) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The short answer: Life is unfair.
The long answer: It was wrong to put the PROD tags back on, and that has already been covered. It is not wrong to nominate them for AfD, and that has been covered as well. Excirial hasn't done any canvassing as far as I can see, and anyway you can bet Hut 8.5 is well aware of the situation with those articles. Besides which, AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't matter how many people participate. There's nothing admin action can solve here, so I suggest you turn your attention to improving those articles and making your case at AfD instead. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean Hut 8.5. I mean Barton Foley. That's the guy that put the prod notices on the articles in the first place. I already have worked on some of the articles. One of them was an official selection at two film festivals!! Another one has a soundtrack by Wyclef Jean! Excirial is mad because he couldn't delete all of the articles at once, but some of them still have AFD discussions and he's getting Barton Foley to do the rest!!! miniluv (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no rule against asking for help; isn't that what you're doing here? If you can demonstrate definite notability with reliable sources, the articles won't get deleted. So that's all you need to worry about. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no rule about editing the prod notices off articles either but when I did that look what happened to me! I didn't come here to ask for help. Hut 8,5 told me to come here. Why can't these articles just be left alone? I'm trying to make them better but I can't work on more than a couple per day. miniluv (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: ongoing discussion at WP:RFC/N. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My trollsense is tingling: [5], [6], [7], [ton of vandalism reverts since then], [8], [9]. Note the dates. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little thick today. Can you give us a little more detail? Nothing's jumping out at me immediately... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a new account created by someone with full knowledge of how to get around Wikipedia, as evident by their creation of the userpage and running an anti-vandal tool during the first few edits. Both the username and userpage have these coy, eyebrow-raising aspects to them. First, the editor is aware of Xenu, an obscure subject that's only of interest to Scientologists who deny his existence and those who study Scientology as a cult. Choosing to include Xenu in the username would be rather inflammatory for any editor aware of Wikipedia's long contentious history of covering the subject. The userpage reads like an intentionally ironic ED post, "Oh hai. I'm your reigning Lord Xenu, here to make some contributations to Wikipedia and stop the spammers from vandalizing what I have created". Then there's the volume of anti-vandalism reverts, after which this new editor suddenly jumps in to the AfD arena to inappropriately close several AfD's less than a day after the nomination. Usage of terms like "non-admin closure" leads me to believe that this editor is perfectly well aware of our deletion policies, and is therefore aware of why such early keep closures are controversial. Altogether, I see mild indications of trolling coupled with a thorough knowledge of the project. I didn't want to jump in and block based on little more than a hunch, so I'd appreciate if someone would review my suspicions. It's entirely possible that I'm just being paranoid. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Anonymous/4chan significantly more people are aware of Xenu than would have been a few years back. ViridaeTalk 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And we've never had a problem with kids from 4chan before... :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Like your discussion, but I'm not from any such group. Message from XENUu, t 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Even I know what Xenu is about, and that particular cult has very little presence in .uk. Is there a problem with the actual edits? This could be someone using an alt account for a bit of light relief. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the inappropriate "keep" closures mentioned above. I suspect that if this was someone's alt. account used for, say, anti-vandalism work, that they wouldn't venture to AfD and perform closures they know to be inappropriate. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • He does have some inappropriate logged out edits. He may bear further watching. Thatcher 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This User id should be blocked. This name is no more appropriate than User:Message from Buddha or User:Message from Jesus. Corvus cornixtalk 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
south park also did an episode on Xenu/Scientology. so you can add in 'anyone who's watched that episode of south park lambasting scientology/xenu would also know about it' . Theserialcomma (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You would block someone for being named "Message from Buddha"? That frightens me. Anyway, this is on WP:RFC/N, where you will see the arguments against username-blocking people for the sake of a religion or cult. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I, again[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Kafziel Complaint Department 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I (talk · contribs) got reported here the other day for making an edit which accused Jimbo of particular vandalism. It got reverted (by me), and he was blocked for 12 hours. Now, he's boasting of the block, and put the attack on his User page. I removed it and issued him a uw-blp2 violation. So he linked to the edit summary with the accusation of particular vandalism on his User page, and I've removed that, as well. May I suggest another block? Corvus cornixtalk 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this user been blocked indef as a vandal? I don't see any GF edits, just mindless vandal edits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
His signature has now become disruptive. Corvus cornixtalk 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
More the reason to indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
He has a couple of useful edits. In fact, the asinine edit summary accompanied a useful edit. I've deleted the edit in question from the page history, so that should settle that argument. As for the rest, I think we can give him a bit more rope. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I had already turned him in to the blocking admin, but maybe we'll back off a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That was very 1984ish of you, Kafziel, I wish I'd thought of that. "There is no edit summary, there has always been no edit summary..." INSANAI seems much more harmless (even helpful, in his own way) than he's made out to be, and I'd hope Jimbo has a thick enough skin that he can take a joke, so I agree we should back off a little and see what happens. --barneca (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." ;) Kafziel Complaint Department 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding vulgar language to top of Talk:Sarah Palin page[edit]

Resolved: Report at AIV if vandalism resumes


Example 1 Example 2 Duuude007 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Reports like this should be sent to WP:AIV. However, in this case there have been no edits since the first and only warning, so a block is unlikely. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agenda accounts[edit]

I just blocked a couple of agenda / sockpuppet accounts active on 9/11, the contributions make it pretty clear that these are not new nebies but, rather, old hands. If either can show that they have a good reason for suddenly changing accounts then I have no objection to unblocking, but I suspect that they are a couple of the usual suspects. Accounts are: MichiganMilitia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Mass driver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Michigan Militia" is probably a username violation that should remain blocked regardless of what good reasons are given. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
i am not sure about htat part. While group affiliation names such as 'Michiagan Militari' are unrecommenable via WP:USERNAME, they are not specificaly prohibite dunless they were promotiona l or in nature or that if they were have a substantial conflict of itnterests (an example would be that if someone called 'Microsoft' started posting extmrely promotional textage to the Microsoft accopunt.). Smith Jones (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
User:MichiganMilitia is a sock of User:Bofors7715 - see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bofors7715 Bofors also posted a request on 911blogger for help with the 9/11 article, hence it's likely that User:Mass driver is a meatpuppet. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but shouldn't he be given the possibility to defend himself?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
He can defend himself on his talk page like anyone else who's been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it strange that he has to defend there when the discussion about him is here and possibly he is not aware of this discussion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Answer: no. That's where blocked sockpuppets always have to defend themselves. He already knows he's been accused of sockpuppetry from his block log. If you think he needs an additional notice, figure out which one of his socks he's most likely to log in as and post one at that user talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed that Michigan Militia is Bofors7715. Mass driver is  Unrelated. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez[edit]

Also, the WP:SSP page has a backlog. I have another request there, pertaining to the William Rodriguez, that really needs attention - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Wtcsurvivor. This involves BLP, socks, COI editing, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users, so some due diligence and attention from uninvolved admins is needed there. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Contrivance is not a sock, but has edited problematically per WP:BLP and edits just one article. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Two, I think, but yes, disruptive WP:SPA is my reading. Anything to be done? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's disruptive, and maybe the arbcom decision should apply. The edit warring is unacceptable, as are BLP violations. What I would really like to see is the article adhere to WP:BLP, and be fair to Mr. Rodriguez, but I'm not the best person to be mediating and maintaining the page. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, we most likely have other related IPs editing - (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --Aude (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This situation is still not resolved. and Contrivance are still discussing on Talk:William Rodriguez. Right now the article itself is protected due to the edit warring. If I try to intervene myself, users there resort to personal attacks against me, though I think if a neutral, uninvolved party helps, then I think the situation can be resolved. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest comments from (a.k.a. Wtcsurvivor) are entirely uncivil, with personal attacks. [10] There is no way to productively edit that article, once it's unprotected, with such incivility and personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. I've been personally contacted by Mr. Rodriguez for having been "a voice of reason", so I really can't intervene as an admin, but I see a lot of additions of unsourced potentially libelous material by both of those censored editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We have checkuser results for this case - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. Though, I think dealing with one side of the dispute does not totally resolve the situation, since there are also BLP issues and problems with Contrivance's editing. --Aude (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I did leave a note for Contrivance about the BLP policy, but don't think there is a lot more I can do here. Some broader input would be good. --Aude (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue regarding Bernardine Dohrn and murder[edit]

Resolved: article protected

Could we get a neutral admin to take a quick look to see if we have a BLP issue over a living person being accused of murder?

A couple editors known to regulars here have just reverted allegation in the Bernardine Dohrn BLP six times in just over a day[11][12][13][14][15][16] that she murdered a police officer in 1970. The allegations were clearly made but the source was an FBI informant - not reliable - nor was she ever charged or tried over the matter. I removed that and 12 new mentions of the word "terrorism" in her article on the tenth day of the RfC discussion (here), after it was clear they did not have consensus. A number of editors at the RfC voiced that the murder accusation is a blatant BLP concern, and that all of the proposed material has no consensus. I just filed an BLP/N report here but that is going slowly. This is part of a long-running content dispute regarding Barack Obama and alleged ties to terrorists, and I moved the discussion regarding Consensus / RS / NPOV / WP:TERRORISM from here to the RfC in hopes of resolving it once and for all. So no content question here. A simple question: is it is okay to have the murder accusation in the article while we discuss, or does this need to stay out due to BLP while we conclude the RfC discussion? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Accusing anyone of murder when the charges have not been proved and the source is an FBI informant is inappropriate and a BLP vio. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC) ~~
Care to site the relevant policy, in detail of course, that states that an FBI informant who is quoted in a reliable, third party news source is somehow not reliable enough a source for a BLP? (This should be interesting). Sorry, but I consider the FBI slightly more reliable than a terrorist and alleged cop killer like Bernardine Dohrn. CENSEI (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Care to go around saying that everyone the FBI doesn't like is a murderer? That's half the US population. Let's see, FBI didn't like them, set up wiretaps and other unconstitutional surveillance techniques, put them in jail... sounds awfully familiar. Any special changes to his article you'd like to make? Also, from WP:BLP itself: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." (Emphasis added) Take your soapboxing about Dohrn elsewhere. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So a cop killing terrorists is the newest incarnation of MLK? Interesting analogy. There is a difference between the FBI not liking someone and a particular FBI source fingering Dohrn in a murder. Fact is, credible individuals made an allegation against Dohrn that goes directly to her notability and is reported in a third part reliable source, sounds like we have more of an ownership issue here than a BLP issue. CENSEI (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Was BLP interesting? Have I ever made claims that could be construed as ownership of the article? Note the "even when the material is well-sourced". The issue is not whether or not Dohrn committed the murder, but whether or not we should call a living person a murderer with our only source an book by an FBI informant, which is obviously biased towards, guess who, the FBI! This is ridiculous and is soapboxing as well as a BLP violation. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no specific policy addressing the relative reliability of such individuals and organizations. Editors should use their own judgment and measured discussion to make a determination. The purpose of the various mechanisms of dispute resolution are designed to facilitate such a debate. CIreland (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Article protected; advice left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And anyway how could "bombing activities" be "terrorism" if as the article says the bombing was done "carefully" and in an "extremely restrained manner" and they "did not target people?" (note Irony) The article also notes that Thomas G. Ayers, her father-in-law, had considerable influence in the city of Chicago. Editors should judge the reliability of a book by a former FBI informant. It is not inherently unreliable. It is not automatically reliable. What have tertiary sources said about the believability of Grathwohl? Edison (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question, Edison, which I would have answered yesterday if I knew this discussion was taking place. Before I added the material to the BLP of the former terrorist, I checked out Grathwohl as well as I could. One of the tests for the reliability of a source that isn't unreliable on its face (like, say, a blog) is how other reliable sources on the subject treat that source -- do they use information from it and cite the source, for instance? (See WP:RS#Usage by other sources.) Grathwohl and his book have been cited in various books that are sympathetic toward the Weatherman organization, including:
  • Cathy Wilkerson, former Weatherman member (sympathetic but quite critical of the organization(), in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun (Grathwohl's book is listed in the bibliography, page 407)
  • Harold Jacobs, Weatherman (1970) mentions Grathwohl quite a bit (as an alleged FBI informer), but I saw nothing in the book impugning his credibility [17]
  • Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366) [18]
  • Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes [19]
  • Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility [20]
  • Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147 [21]
I have never found a source that attacks the credibility of either Grathwohl or his book (they may exist). Oh, wait, I just found one: Ward Churchill. (Mention of Churchill's criticism: [22]; Link to Churchill's book itself: [23]). Somehow, I think Larry Grathwohl's credibility is not impugned much when the criticism comes from Ward Churchill. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers have had 32 years to rebut Grathwohl's statements about them. I can't find any sources showing they ever have. Discussion is ongoing at the RFC. -- Noroton (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
To borrow a line from Jay Leno, maybe they were only "moderate" terrorists. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor seems to have a racist agenda[edit]

Someone want to keep an eye on (talk · contribs)? Looking through his contributions, he seems to have a racist agenda. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have discussed his edits with him. Corvus cornixtalk 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
He does seem to be primarily engaged in pushing the point of view that people of color are criminals; I left a message on his talk page. Call me intolerant, but I don't think the encyclopedia needs any more of this sort of thing than it already has. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Does seem like a static IP, they've been making the same edits for over a year and a half. Corvus cornixtalk 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone for a community topic ban on this user for race articles? The user now should be 24-hour blocked if it makes any more racist edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He has now had several warnings placed on his talk page, and is an ASSIGNED PA, so we are referring (for the present) to a single user. His edits are tendentious and he uses sources misleadingly. I would say if those warnings do not cause a change of behaviour, topic-banning, enforced by blocks, should follow. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Account compromised[edit]

Saturday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) looks compromised, if any Checkusers can have a look it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be compromised - he's had a rough time with Don Murphy for well over a year now so maybe one of his associates went digging for his password? Either that or he's finally thought sod it and given into the trolls. I'm not sure - I guess the CU will hopefully enlighten us. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually - looking at his contribs, he's probably left his account logged in at school because just two minutes earlier he was reverting vandalism and warning a user. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Left a note on blocking admins talk page. Saturday says it was his cousin. I see no reason to not believe him. Rgoodermote  23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right to be honest. A quick unblock would be best here - obviously with a trouting for leaving his account logged in! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that he got his account back, I've unblocked. MBisanz talk 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange threats - more eyes needed[edit]

User:Lostkey has made some strange threats on his talk page [24]. He seems a tad upset following my blocking the account for block evasion. User is also upset with User:RJHall for removing some trollish comments. As the user seems a mite upset with me, I'd appreciate it if another admin (or two) would advise him on the issue of threats and personal attacks. Might not do any good, but RJHall and I would appreciate some company - spread the threats around a bit maybe :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What the....??? I'll leave him a note, but I agree it's probably not going to do anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"...if you delete my post again, I will report to the CIA, that you are a nuclear terrorist, because there are no electrons, and that computer you are using, is violating the law conservation of mass" - I have the sneaking feeling that this user might just not be serious. To be honest, I'd just ignore it and keep an eye on him when he's unblocked. Black Kite 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Gotta love creative vandals. *grin* L'Aquatique[parlez] 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty imaginative, if he gets blocked hopefully that sends him away for good. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
He had been posting his "there are no electrons" stuff on Talk:Electron as an anon for quite a while. Then he began adding his OR to the electron page and became rather angry when his stuff was reverted as WP:OR. He signed up for a user account just recently. Just a bit of background for you all. Thanks - and yes ... waste of time. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this is going to get any better, and the IP and user interaction so far meets the definition of disruptive crank. I have indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still posting the same attacks on his talk page. I'm watching the page and will protect if it worsens. -Jéské (v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!) 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No electrons? Come on. Every four years we select a President using the Electron College. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for two weeks for personal attack [25] and block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Nothing to see here, move along. MER-C 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, i'd like to become an admin, however user:Gogo Dodo strongly opposes.........If i nominate myself, id like assurances that there will be no backlashes from him or his fellow admins. . . .--Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC) post yoinked from WP:COIN#Adminship

He can oppose the RfA all he wants. Any editor may oppose the RfA. The process would be worthless if no one could oppose you. Regardless, your chances aren't really that high if you nominate yourself right now. You have well less than 500 edits, and apparently next to nothing outside of user talk pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is just a reincarnation of User:Iva siwel and, as such, has been blocked indefinitely. I took the liberty of removing all of the talk page spam. MER-C 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages[edit]

Puppeteer GeorgeFormby1 confirmed & indef blocked ϢereSpielChequers 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [26] IP

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [27] IP



diff [28] by IP

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP can be seen here [29] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP [30] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is and you need to send them this link The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is you'd need to send them this ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/ From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You think? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy signatures seemed to have prevented the bot from archiving this. A good reason not to use such signatures... Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban/block - whatever.[edit]

Sure looks like the same guy and no constructive edits. Anonblocked two weeks --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}} Can someone please ban this tiresome twit [31] thank you. Giano (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has only vandalized once after his last block, don't block until after final warning. BTW, WP:AIV is a more appropriate place for this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't go to minor corners I only come here, as more people see things here, so I shall continue posting such things here. He is obvioulsy a waste of space - so just block him and save time. Giano (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but the kind who have a taste for swinging the banhammer are the ones who keep AIV on their watchlist - whereas this is a place for a cup of coffee and a bit of a bunfight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, buns.
*Flings a range of pastry products.*
Anthøny 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You fling what you like, but "AIV" sounds like some dreadful program for the infertile, impotent or physically unable, I have no intention of going anywhere near such a place - at least publicly. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't you tone your rhetoric down a bit? Synergy 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing rhetorical - is it my fault if WP:AIV sounds like some sort of clinic for the unfortunate? Giano (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
AIV does sound like a syringe bearing some clearish, frightening liquid with a big docking hypo. ANI meanwhile brings to my mind a mix of both the Latin root and its context, life of empire. Uh oh! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh thank goodness! I thought it was just me, not that I have ever needed any help in that department, something to do with a rural childhood I suppose. You are so right about ANI, one can close one's eyes here and be right in the heart of accademia. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Still, there was no need to retort with such a nasty perspective. AIV was the place to take it. If you didn't like the idea, you could have simply exercised your right to holding your tongue. Which is preferable. Synergy 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Resolved means resolved. Move along everyone? Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Step aside, Keeper, I'll handle this! (puts on Junior Peacemaker hat) Giano, I think Synergy is concerned that your comments could be taken as insulting the people that actually spend time helping out at WP:AIV. Synergy, I'm pretty sure Giano was making fun of the name AIV, not the people there; as someone who does spend time there, I certainly didn't take it as directed at me. However, you really should come by sometime, Giano. On Fridays, we have cake. (takes off Junior Peacemaker hat, waits pateintly for phone call from Nobel Committee...) --barneca (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh! I like cake! Is it chocolate???? I also like carrot cake, and if you twist my arm, I'll even eat white-cake. Ok, you got me. You don't have to twist my arm. I heart cake!!!! All this to say, this is fucking resolved right???? Keeper ǀ 76 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you barneca for (hopefully) resolving the misunderstanding so that it doesn't spill elsewhere. Keeper76, that unnecessary last sentence created more heat than light and it isn't helpful - why not consider using barneca's more ideal approach in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(sticks tongue out at Keeper behind Ncmvocalist's back) Yeah, Keeper, you should probably start following my lead more often. Would you like me to be your mentor? (uh oh, Ncmvocalist is looking back this way. start acting all innocent again) --barneca (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, Oh dear such delicate sensibilities, I was merely referring to the name, nothing more, I'm sure all the people there are hard working and very productive. It's just that when I was a studemt I friend of mine became a sperm donor (very lucrative too, I recall) and I'm sure he went to somethin called AIV, every alternate Thursday, to do whatever it is he had to do. I do like like cake, what a nice thought, perhaps you could give very large pieces to Ncmvocalist and Synergy - now there's a name that is ringing some bells, perhaps because it sounds like an oilseed rape, but I'm sure that's not the reason it is familiar. Giano (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I like that characterization, "tiresome twit". A very British kind of expression. I recommend "tiresome twit account" or "TTA" as a new category of user, and a bit stronger than "SPA" or "silly pudding account". :) And before some wise guy says it - yes, I can be a TTA sometimes. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not, the large slices of cake are always reserved for the visitors, like Giano, even if he only uses them for food-fight purposes. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are there new posting being added (above)? when they're not suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How do you mean "supposed to"? Who made Keeper the sheriff? Please do not mark a thread "Resolved" when people are still talking. That template is not for telling them to shut up. It's for when activity has spontaneously ceased. Un-archiving. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
What point could this possibly make? Giano asked for someone to be blocked, they were blocked. What now? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Oilseed rape. Nice try. Synergy 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time. Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

kurykh 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for review by admins versed in images and licensing[edit]

User:Qilinmon has been blocked for edit-warring and attempting to use technical means to bypass a page protection. (See Qilinmon's talk page for more information.)

The user was bold, but when reverted, was upset that the one other person discussing (User:J Greb) did not agree with their interpretation of policy. (Note that I have no opinion concerning either's interpretations, partially because I would not consider myself an "expert" when it comes to images.)

Then he continually attempted to restore his preferred image. J Greb, asked me to look in as a WP:3PO, and I decided to protect the page, with the hope that Qilinmon would continue to attempt to discuss. (I felt that blocking would stifle discussion rather than help consensus.)

When I signed in today, I discovered that the editor has abused uploading in order to bypass the protection of the page. (See: Image:SuperwomanKW.jpg.)

And was revert-uploading. (J Greb apparently attempted to revert him once.)

This wasn't accidental, or in the "heat of the moment", this was a willful act of tendentious editing.

I blocked Qilinmon for a week.

However, there is a wrinkle.

User:J Greb was in the discussion, and was doing the RD part of WP:BRD at Kristin Wells. And he did revert the upload bypass once.

When he needs a 3PO he often comes to me, or one of the other admins regularly associated with WP:CMC (and others). Just as he did in this case. (His request to me can be found on his talk page, and in my talk page's edit history.)

The wrinkle is that he is one of the main "go to guys" regarding images at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.

And I will state up front that images are not my strong point. (I typically go to J Greb or others for advice. See his talk page for one such example.)

And also, since the uploads involve licensing, there's possibly a further issue?

So anyway, should J Greb have reverted the upload (the attempt to bypass the page protection), and if not, should he receive a warning, or is further sanction warranted.

I'm not exactly positive. Since on one hand, he was attempting to "restore" to the protected version (undue Qilinmon's action), but on the other, he was "involved", so perhaps it might have been more appropriate to get someone else to "revert", or at least to comment (as as he has done previously - and I note that he left a comment for me concerning it on his talk page, which I only noted after discovering the image issue myself).

And further is there a licensing issue that needs to be resolved?

Hence posting this request here for insight and 3PO.

One thing seems clear: he in no way used any "tools" during all of this, so no question of "abuse" there. So this is just a question of being "just-another-editor".

I welcome thoughts/advice on this. - jc37 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I would consider the revert of the image uploading on J Greb's part alright even if he was involved in the dispute that led up to it, on the grounds that bypassing page protection via the use of technical loopholes like image uploads or template editing is so unacceptable that I believe falls into the category of blatant vandalism. It's also a huge violation of trust. We should not have to invoke cascade protection every time there's a minor content dispute on a page, and it needs to be eminently clear to our editors that this (Qilinmon's) sort of behaviour will earn you serious and immediate blocks. --erachima talk 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Further discussion moved to thread directly below.) - jc37 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen this discussion before now. Is it at all relevant that I just lengthened the block after he called the blocking admin a "nazi faggot?" Does it matter that the block unearthed a sockpuppet that also has a lengthy list of image-upload warnings on its talk page, User:NeoCoronis? If I've done anything out of order here, other admins can feel free to reverse me without my interpreting it as wheel-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Now he's called me "fish-bitch" and says the he wishes for all of our violent deaths. Someone else want a turn? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If he gets indef-blocked, you could post the message on his page, "So long, and thanks for all. -- The Fish." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Per his request, I've extended his block. It can be rediscussed at such time he's willing to do so in a reasonable fashion. WilyD 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is now an entirely different situation. Endorse ban and I have protected the talk page because of the death threat. I don't endorse the original block, but regardless of the correctness of the original block, there is a right way and a wrong way to address a grievance and this is the latter. --B (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting before protecting[edit]

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Please take a moment and read the user's talk page. I in no way "took a position on the situation", save that revert warring was inappropriate, and that their further actions were appalling (using technical means to circumvent a page protection).
My "reversion" was to the state before the edit warring began, per m:The Wrong Version.
I'm actually somewhat stunned at your comments, but I think I'll chalk it up to perhaps you didn't do any research on the situation before leaving a "knee-jerk" response here. - jc37 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Pages protected for edit warring should be protected in their current state unless there is a strong reason (like libel) not to. That "current" version is the "wrong version" in the essay you are talking about. Administrators don't get to pick and choose a "right version" to protect - they just protect the article as it is. In any event, if you had only edited the page one time to revert to a "consensus" version, then, immediately protected it, that's not generally considered a good idea, but on a scale of 1 to 10, it's only in the 1-2 range. But you reverted THREE times over the course of a day and then protected it on your preferred version. That's something that people get desysopped for. --B (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(Stunned - and seriously wondering if you're attempting humour.)
Reverting to the version prior to the contention is (AFAIK) standard practice.
And actually the whole point of m:The Wrong Version is that regardless of which version the the page may be protected to, accusing the admin of inappropriate action or "choosing sides" is itself inappropriate. (Hence why I'm starting to think that this is an attempt at ironic humour on your part.)
The goal in protection is to prevent further disruption (and to hopefully foment discussion), not to "choose sides".
All that said, I welcome further comment (by you and any interested others). - jc37 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection. If your judgment is that the article should be protected to prevent edit warring, you protect it in the state that it is in, not revert to another version before protecting it. Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it. --B (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection." - I'm sorry but I don't believe that this is "choosing sides". It's about as neutral an action as I can imagine. You pick neither of their edits, and merely revert to the stable version prior to the contention.
"Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it" - I'm sorry, but that simply has not been my experience. Indeed, I believe such reversion is fairly common. - jc37 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Nagging point or two:
  • Protecting any version of a page in an edit war, potential or actual, where there are just "A" and "B" states can be seen as choosing sides.
  • That also can create a serious level of frustration. If the version picked is proposed by an editor unwilling to engage on the talk page, there is no incentive for the editor to change that position. They've "won" and all they have to do is sit out the protection. The other editor can say whatever they like, but they're typing at a brick wall.
    This also can create a situation where the change won't have to be defended. The onus is shifted to the editor that is pointing out that the change didn't help or improve the article.
- J Greb (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point - he reverted to his version three times, then protected it. This isn't a question of who wins, what the wrong version is, or anything like that. Reverting three times makes you a party to the dispute. Using the admin tools in a content dispute to protect your preferred version is not acceptable. --B (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a tick, Jc's edits to the article are [32], [33], and [34] with an ancillary on the image [35].
The initial was to cite "Wrong version" and direct to the talk page. The two runs of "tag" with Q before the page protection was put in place. The image issue was die to Q's end-run on the protection.
And I believe interspersed in that are user talk page back and forth between Q and Jc with Jc spelling out why the revert to a point prior to the bold edit was done.
I think this boils down to a few questions:
  1. Is acting without comment or voicing opinion on the content change the same as becoming actively engaged in editing the content?
  2. Is it within bounds to take on face value Jc's statements in the user talk posts?
  3. Would this be an issue if Jc's initial act had been to set the article to it's prior state with an edit summary citing WP:BRD and linking to the discussion on the talk page, lock the article, add the "Protected" tag, and drop a reminder note on the talk pages of the editors involved?
- J Greb (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Revert then protect is rarely a good idea. Would it be an issue? There are multiple levels of what is an "issue". Is it right under the rules? Probably not. Would anyone care all that much? Probably not really. An "issue" can mean "fast track to arbcom", "slap with a wet trout", or a "philosophical discussion because the college football game on television is a snoozer". This falls somewhere between the latter two of the above. He asked for comments here on his actions and I offered them. My comment would be similar if he reverted one time, though obviously that's less extreme of a case. As for your second question, yes, it's reasonable to take Jc's statements as accurately communicating what he believes, obviously. As for the first, sometimes an admin takes an action without prejudice. For example, if I block a POV-pusher for 3RR and his POV is poorly sourced fringed ramblings, I'll usually go ahead and revert it without prejudice if someone really thinks it belongs there. But this is an issue where there is no right or wrong answer. Edit warring over it and then blocking one of the parties to the edit war is not an appropriate response. --B (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you at least for the assumption of good faith.
But besides that, I disagree with your characterisation.
Do I believe that this is your opinion? Yes.
Do I believe that your opinion represents common practice? No.
In general, what are policies? Codified common practice. (Yes there are a very few exceptions to this, but protection is not one of those.)
To revert to a version prior to the contention, is not "revert warring", any more than it would be when dealing with a vandal. Reverting to the last edit prior to the contention would seem appropriate, regardless of what the contention is. Why? Because we're here for the readers not the editors.
Incidentally, it's also why they're currently working on "Stable version" flagging.
And by the way, I typically like to receive feedback. (Including this, here.) Just because I may disagree with a single editor's feedback or opinion, doesn't mean I don't appreciate that editor's feedback. So thank you for taking the time to convey it. - jc37 07:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia N70[edit]

Resolved: User apologized for the way he closed the AfD and vows to address the concerns raised. I think we can put this down as resolved then. SoWhy 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been closed by User:Justinfr as a non-admin closure with no explanation or summary of the rationale behind the decision ("Per Discussion"?) - I was under the impression non-admin AFD closures were for clear-cut and snowball decisions, not for any kind of controversial ones - I don't feel any of the keep votes actually addressed the issues (no reliable sources, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, reviews don't indicate notability etc) so I would de facto consider this AFD to not be a clearcut decision and require careful evaluation and a justifying explanation whichever way the decision went. "Per Discussion" doesn't cut it I'm afraid - can someone take a look? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That AfD contains a variety of opinions from established editors, some of which are indeed variants on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and discountable, but the others are thought out and conclude that the page should be kept on the basis that professional reviews satisfy the definition of notability: "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", by gathering additional sources suggesting potential for expansion, and citing precedent. As such, the discussion showed a clear consensus to keep, so non-admin closure was valid, and User:Justinfr was within his rights to close the discussion. It would be good of him to write better closing descriptions in the future, however. (Disclosure of bias: I would have voted merge.) --erachima talk 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the subject at hand, I'd suggest you take such cases to deletion review if you disagree with the close. This is the wrong forum for it. Note o