Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible duplicate user account[edit]

User:SIMONSMITH and User:Simonsmith are editing the same articles and are probably the same person. However, I hesitate to call this a case of sockpuppetry, because I don't think there's an intention to mislead.

What's the best way to handle this -- drop a note on both talk pages asking if they are one and the same to just use one account? WP:SOCK wasn't clear on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the edits are few and far between, I don't think it's much of a big deal. May want to ask him to stick with one though, and tell him he can redirect one user and talk page to the other. Grsz11 →Review! 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You could ask them to opt for one or the other, but otherwise it's usual to point them at {{Doppelganger}} to avoid confusion. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, now creating a sockpuppet to argue on here brings up another issue: Stopitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 →Review! 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we maybe have a checkuser run to determine if Stoprightnow is a sock of Simonsmith or just a general troll? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it was anything other than a troll.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for having to comment and run last night. I'll drop the user a friendly note. I don't think pointing them to {{Doppelganger}} will be helpful. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?[edit]

Resolved: Scarian desysopped, apologies, subsequently resysopped
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the theory that no admin would ever behave like this, this, and this, I am assuming that this account has been compromised. Or, if not, then clearly Scarian needs a major vacation from being an admin. This is not how it is done. I've done a desysop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Scarian apologized without hestitation and supported that the desysop was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I have reinstated him immediately and without prejudice. I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


The tone of the last comment and how it seems to be aimed at an editor who has had a lengthy dispute with Scarian makes me doubt this is a compromised account. If anything, however, that makes the desysop more justified. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was just a dispute. No arguments about desysopping here. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the user making the complaint has all but admitted to evading a ban under a previous username. As such I think this is at least a slight overreaction. — CharlotteWebb 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that admission. The account started in 2007 and has the markings of a typical newcomer. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry it came to that. Why don't you chill out for a while, and then email some sort of explanation to Jimbo. In the future, if you notice that you are becoming overwrought, my talk page is a good place to seek relief. I've got a large stockpile of JzG's patented Troll-B-Gone®. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, J. I won't be petty and make excuses for my flaming episode; I realise I could have, and should have, acted better. I think I'll turn down the tea and head away from the Wiki for a fair bit. This whole experience has soured the enthusiasm I once had for the Wiki. Thanks anyways though! ScarianCall me Pat! 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, a permanent desysopping here is unnecessary, since Pat has admitted that he was wrong and apologized for his actions. A few days ago, I made two rather uncivil comments on Talk:Barack Obama. While perhaps they were not as bad as the ones that Pat made, they were still inappropriate coming from anyone, but especially from an administrator. Based on the edit summaries I left, it is extremely obvious I was in full possession of my mental facilities (well, to a point - let's just say I knew full well what I was doing). However, all that resulted from thwas a note (now auto-archived) on my talk page.
Honestly, I believe that Pat was frustrated and/or stressed IRL and got pushed past his breaking point onwiki. Considering that he does not deny that his actions were inappropriate, and has (I feel) made legitimate apologies where due, I would support his re-sysopping with a caution to exercise prudence in the future.
(I e/c'ed with like 5 people while trying to post this, and in light of intervening posts...)If Pat is going to be taking a volutary wikibreak, I definitely think that is a good thing, but I see no reason why, when he comes back, he should not be allowed to return his full set of tools. J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Scarian's wikistress level is clearly very high right now. He's a good admin who had a lapse in judgment. If he does take a wikibreak, I think he should be allowed to request his tools back like he did the last time he took a wikibreak. Enigma message 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We all have our moments. (As you can guess, I'm feeling guilty right now, though not guilty enough to remove it. If anyone else wants to, be my guest.)GJC 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding Scarian's actions, shouldn't User:Sum88's edits be reverted. Per WP:BAN, LukeTheSpook is guilting of meatpuppeting by reverting. Grsz11 →Review! 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you';re quite sure he's meating, then yes, he should be blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I would think that LukeTheSpook reverting Scarians reverts of Sum88 were very wrong, and have the urge to undo every one of them. Certainly Scarian's response was inappropriate, but Luke was 100% wrong in his actions as well. Grsz11 →Review! 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Both editors were in the wrong here. Enigma message 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for Scarian. Wikipedia can wear you into the ground, betimes, and we admins have to always take the high-ground on all these things. Or at least we're supposed to! I just have to nod in his direction and say yeah, that was waayy out of order, sure, but who hasn't felt like that on here. It's a tough, thankless job betimes. Scarian, you're a good admin & I've had tons of dealings with you. Maybe take a break for a while then take up the sysop bit again when you're clear of all the wikistress™ ? - Alison 05:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Sorry to hear that Scarian was desysoped, but the issue hasn't been resolved. Checking over Sum88 (talk · contribs)'s edits, I stumbled upon new user Sum44 (talk · contribs), whom I just indef'ed. I realize the comments were coarse, but there is a legitimate issue here; I'll start checking for other abusive accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Slayer account and its sockpuppets have been a problem for months. Enigma message 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
File at WP:RFCU and note that I have already asked Rlevse to look into this (to avoid duplication of effort). You can drop a link to the request on User talk:Rlevse. There are probably more socks out there. Jehochman Talk 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All of Scarian's edits actions were perfectly valid. He is one of the best administrators Wikipedia has. I know if I was an admin and working hard to upkeep Wikipedia policies... and some admitted sockpuppet was following behind me and undermining my work... I'd tell them to f*ck off too. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) been blocked for Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 →Review! 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for abusing multiple accounts, namely sum44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sum88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), both of which are blocked for socks of PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). LuketTheSpook has been using the same IP address as Sum44, and therefore it can be inferred that the other accounts are of the same user. (Question: Why was I able to see the information that LikeTheSpook and Sum44 have been sharing the same IP address? Isn't this normally reserved for those with CU access?) seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no rush here. Be methodical and work with checkusers to make sure these are all correct blocks, and that you aren't missing any sleeper socks. Jehochman Talk 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo some of the comments above, and I see no rationale for the desysoping. It wasn't an emergency desysop, and given the circumstances behind the commentary -- especially in light of the abusive accounts that have been floated around, I believe that the desysop should have gone through the normal desysoping process. Or at the least, ask him on his talk page the rationale behind the comments.

It's good to know that he took accountability for his comments, and that he is going on a Wikibreak. I have no problem if he came back at a future date, after his break, and having his tools returned to him. He is an efficient and valuable administrator, and outside of this incident -- which is a continuation of much abuse from varying abusive accounts, I can find little ill. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a desysopping was in order here, Jimbo. Yes, he was out of line, and yes those edits should have never seen the light of day; however, Scarian has been a longstanding user here of exceptional quality, and this is the first time he's done anything like this. He's not a toddler; we don't have to take away his toy if he hits someone with it. I can safely say that I'm 200% behind him getting his sysop back. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that Luke has been blocked for socking, Scarian needs his sysop back. Grsz11 →Review! 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think we raise standards, not lower them, for longstanding users of exceptional quality. Let Scarian get his sysop back through the normal means with some dignity at a later date.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If what seicer says is true, and if LtS and Sum44 are using the same IP address, then (per this: 01:04, 16 November 2008 Scarian (Talk | contribs) blocked Sum88 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: See User:SlayerXT)) LtS might quite possibly be SlayerXT (the original user whom Luke and I had a disagreement over his socking abuse)... Can a CU confirm this? ScarianCall me Pat! 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs) = Sum44 (talk · contribs) = PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs)

 Unrelated Sum88 (talk · contribs) but there are meatpuppet issues here. RlevseTalk 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
PS LukeTheSpook is the master acct. RlevseTalk 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 Stale SlayerXT (talk · contribs) RlevseTalk 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Shame about it being stale. I'm convinced Slayer=LukeTheSpook and it's all part of one massive sockfarm created to disrupt Wikipedia. I fear this isn't over. Enigma message 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You're 100% correct there E_man. That SlayerXT was just another sock in a drawer of many was/is pretty obvious. (See: SlayerXTT (talk · contribs) for another one). There will likely be more. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Going to need some assistance here. I'm attempting to go through the edits of the various socks to see what needs to be reverted. Sum88 added several images and articles, for example. Enigma message 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

With that out of the way...[edit]

Well, with that resolved, can we get on looking into how Seicer was somehow able to conduct an ad hoc checkuser on these accounts [1]? That seems more worrisome than any low-level sockpuppetry or admin-blowups. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I was quite confused by his question. "Why was I able to see the information" - what information? Where is this information? We have no idea how he was able to see it until we know what 'it' is. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer: Did you click on Special:Checkuser and not get an error? J.delanoygabsadds 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not for sure. I went to unblock LookTheSpook to adjust the rationale given, and next to "user/reason" was a bit about LookTheSpook having edited through an IP address that was used by Sum44. seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked a checkuser off-wiki to check to logs to determine if there have been suspicous checkuser actions (ie not by the usual checkuser, so like Seicer), and there has been no such logged activity.--Maxim(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the source for the unblock form that would do something like that and it doesn't run any extension hooks. Does it still do it? Mr.Z-man 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

^Looks like I made much ado over nothing, actually. I mixed up where I saw the message; it was in the global block list that shows all recent user blocks/etc., and my entry stated,

22:25, 16 November 2008, Seicer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #1217642 (expires 22:25, 17 November 2008, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Sum44". The reason given for Sum44's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".) (Unblock)

Sorry for the confusion and mass hysteria over this! seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for reinstating the bit[edit]

Since there are a few editors here who do not agree with the desysop I'd like to formally ask (before anything else happens) how Scarian may regain his bit. From what I can tell, a vacation is suggested but I'd like to begin discussion with respect to this matter. Synergy 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I suggest that the past couple of hours that Scarian has been without his deserved admin status are more than enough and that he should get his mop back ASAP. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • People in positions of power and responsibility must not blow up regardless of provocation. There needs to be some assurance that such a thing will never happen again. looie496 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, Jimbo giveth, Jimbo taketh away. I would suggest as a way forward that Scarian, whom I have not previously encountered, take a break for a week or so, then approach Jimbo about getting his bit back. Really, there's no rush, and a week is a sufficiently long span of time online for reflection. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Jimbo giveth what? --NE2 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, strike that and reverse it. What I'm saying is that Jimbo can simply re-sysop him at an appropriate interval; I don't see any need for another RfA or anything like that. I suppose he could apply to Arbcom as well, but that's effectively the same thing as asking Jimbo. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Unlike you, I don't exactly trust Jimbo to do what's appropriate. --NE2 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
          • To be blunt, that is too bad. Regardless of whether you trust Jimbo or not, regardless of whether he should be or not, he is the final say on this until we hear otherwise. Haranguing him isn't going to make it any easier, and I somehow doubt its what Scarian would want either.--Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the other editor being a sock/meatpuppet excuse that behavior from an admin or anyone, or justify restoring the bit under any circumstances? Further, this is not an isolated incident: Scarian was only recently involved in baiting one of our top content contributors over an erroneous block log and misunderstandings by admins over jokes with a friend on their own talk pages. [2] [3] It's not an isolated incident; a longer break is in order, and a new RfA if interested in getting the bit back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Um? What was the problem there? Wesley Dodds was clearly edit warring over content and Scarian gave him a very justified warning. Only to have Ceoil tell Wesley Dodds to ignore it... which was extremely ignorant and uncalled for. The warning was valid. A bad faith post on this page to try and make Scarian look bad ended up backfiring and the original complaint author ended up as the dirty one even though the whole incident started over Wesley Dodds' persistent edit warring over genres. I said it earlier... when someone(pretending to be many) is trying to damage Wikipedia.. it's OK to tell that someone to f*ck off... even when they are an admin. Scarian should be re-sysop'd now. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to type paragraphs to straighten out the story again; you'll have to do your own homework. Scarian baited Ceoil over Ceoil's faulty block log (caused by previous admin misunderstandings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I support a desysop, but not this desysop. Jimbo has no legitimate authority to do these things on his own. The community giveth, and the community taketh away. He should have either waited for a community process to make the decision, or for Scarian to explicitly renounce it. He should not have acted on his own initiative. That said, I thought Scarian should have been desysopped a long time ago...hell, I don't think he should ever have been sysopped. Resysop him, and then let's go about this the right way and see what the community decides. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to remind everyone that Jimbo desysopped Scarian because he believed his account to be compromised (and I'm sure people can see where he's coming from). There's plenty of logic in taking down an account that could be used to blank the main page a few seconds later. However, now that we know what actually happened, I think that Scarian's sysop should be reinstated and then the community can decide whether he should keep it or not. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You have it well encapsulated MoP. Jimbo was protecting Wiki with an immediate desysop based on, at least partially believing that Pat's account was compromised. Jumping on Jimbo for that is unhelpful. Scarian is a good operator (and to declare my bias a wiki-friend of mine) however I think he would agree that he gets somewhat heated at times and I think he will declare his own break from administrating for a bit. Jimbo please reinstate now that we know the account is not compromised and then raise an appropriate discussion for the community to consider.--VS talk 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I only met Scarian recently. In the exchange we had he was very friendly, enthusiastic, helpful and unassuming. The Scarian I met was an example of what in my mind constitutes an excellent person and a very approachable and realistic administrator. The job of an administrator is sometimes toxic due to the exposure they get to many kinds of repetitive and difficult situations. There should be some way for otherwise solid members of the community to regain their footing. I think MoP's and VirtualSteve's suggestions make the best sense under the circumstances. Dr.K. (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No, actually it was because he took the words of a ban-evading sockpuppet/troll at face value, and reacted in haste without familiarizing himself with the entire situation. Sorry, I'm afraid "looks like a compromised account" is too handy an excuse to justify virtually any action. Somebody you've never even heard of complains that somebody else you've never heard of is now acting differently than a true Scotsman would, so they obviously must be hijacked? Whatever! — CharlotteWebb 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with the desysop. We can't have an admins talking to people like that without consequence - you have to think how it looks to the outside world. But I ask Jimmy not to make it a permanent desysop or one requiring a new RfA but instead restore the admin flag if Scarian contacts him after having a bit of a break. If Steve is correct that Scarian is going to have a break from admining then it doesn't hurt for Jimmy to take a bit of time restoring it. Sarah 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I say just resysop now. I think Scarian has gotten the message. He was being trolled, and he snapped. Scarian ought to have tackled the situation more gracefully, but I absolutely hate it when a disruptive user, one who has nothing positive to offer the project, can provoke an excellent user into doing something stupid which gets him desysopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop unconditionally. This was a totally out of line and undeserved desysopping, and Jimbo should apologize. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop after a week - I think these edits show he needs a wikibreak. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop--in a few days. Since the account is not, in fact, compromised, I would hope for the following: 1. Seicer Scarian takes a week or two off. 2. Seicer Scarian comes back and gives us reasonable assurances that this won't happen again. 3. Jimbo returns the bit, with clear understanding on all three sides--Seicer's, Scarian's, Jimbo's, and the community's--of what will happen should this unfortunate behavior recur. Today, particularly, I can understand the degree of annoyance that can cause an admin to act rather un-admin-ly; however, there's a difference between mild-severe sarcasm and a flat-out carpet-bombing with the F word. I'm sure Seicer Scarian understands this; sometimes, though, the button gets pushed. If Seicer Scarian can assure us that the button will be wired to a more-appropriate mechanism in the future, I see no reason for, and many reasons against, keeping him de-adminned. [[User talk:Gladys j cortezNumbskull|GJC]] 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What did Seicer do, other than cause some momentary confusion by claiming he was suddenly a checkuser? L'Aquatique[talk] 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we mean Scarian and not Seicer - Yes?--VS talk 09:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh yes indeed we do. I have struck through and refactored. I am dumbass, hear me roar; there really SHOULD be autoblocks on editing after 3 AM local time. Sorry, Seicer...GJC 09:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop Seicer now for addling Gladys' brain and other crimes against humanity!! L'Aquatique[talk] 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop now and let Scarian decide his own terms for taking a WikiBreak. He's a fine admin in my book, though. GlassCobra 09:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop. Everyone snaps occasionally, and Scarian unsnapped very gracefully and with an apology, more than I probably would manage. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop. He made some foolish and deeply uncivil comments. He held his hands up straight away and acknowledged the mistakes. No weaseling, no trying to justify it. That takes a lot and I respect him for it. I admit I'm biased here as I've only ever had positive interaction with Scarian but that's my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop Yes, he snapped, but he acknoledged it. I suggest he gets it back but really considers wikibreak to relax. If there are RL problems, he should solve them first, but that does not mean we got to force him away. It would be harsh for a first-time violation to desysop when the user has given hours after hours of his spare time for the project. Oh and please, people, stop attacking Jimbo because of it. He desysopped because he thought the account was compromised, not because he thought Scarian was behaving this way... You are reading too much into it that he never said... Regards SoWhy 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop when Pat feels he is ready. I would have made comments along the lines that Sjakkalle and ЯEDVERS did, but they made them first.--Alf melmac 10:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop. Taking away the bit is for either flagrant abuses of the tools, or a consistent pattern of poor behaviour, not one episode of losing your temper with a troll. Black Kite 10:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop. Yep, what Black Kite said. This desysopping seems like an overreaction to me. We don't really need these kinds of Olympian lightening bolts from Jimbo. Fut.Perf. 10:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop when Scarian asks any 'crat. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop immediately. A massive over-reaction. Surely there have been worse things done by admins than this that didn't get an insta-deadmin? I can't see how it would have been compromised. A compromised account would go on a deletion spree or vandalism, not argue with a troll. Scarian should not have to beg Jimbo for his bit that the community granted him. It should be given straight back now, no questions asked. What a load of fuss about nothing. Al Tally talk 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop but ONLY when Scarian feels he's taken a good wikibreak. Jimbo was concerned that "none of our admins would act like this". If a regular EDITOR did this, they'd be banned for a week or more. We're obviously not banning Scarian - but I think it's up to them to decide when they have had the chance to naval-gaze for awhile. I don't think I have seen them ask for it back yet. We have to hold our admins to the same (or higher) standard as we do our editors, or else the cries of favouritism and cabals will resound. -t BMW c- 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop, no abuse of tools. Other factors are inconsequential in this context, and not addressed by desysopping, only aggravated and inflamed. The panic-like reaction suggests that Jimbo has little idea what goes on here on a daily basis. Would he tell me I was nuts if I said "well, Scarian was still one of our better admins"? Would he say my account "must be compromised" for believing this? Right… — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be a voice of opposition here and agree with the desysopping and oppose immediate resysopping. From the third diff, there are obviously some issues there that some time (like 1-2 weeks) might help. I also think it is a worthwhile endeavor to provide some time for looking over diffs to make sure that this reaction was an atypical one and not a behavior that has been going on, but nobody had noticed. --B (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop upon Scarian's request for the return of the tools; let him take his break and consider how he wishes to contribute in the future, I would dislike for him to return prematurely because his friends have resaddled the horse for him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Resysop — Not that I don't trust Jimbo's judgment. Desysopping what appeared to be a compromised account indeed seemed like the right thing to do. Give Scarian a while to take a break and relieve his wiki-stress, and give him back the mop on request. His behavior seems like a mere lapse in judgment, and, although it's been said, Scarian is an excellent administrator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Any 'crats about?[edit]

Given the clear consensus above, are there any "brave" bureacrats who will respond to the communities wishes and regrant the tools at this stage? If not, then calls for a resysop are partly moot until Jimbo or a Steward intervene. Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Careful, they might be mistaken for a "compromised account". — CharlotteWebb 11:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the "voters" above for a moment, I wonder if anyone has bothered to actually ask User:Jimbo Wales to resysop? In every other situation like this that I can recall, he's been understanding, and was happy to discuss details with the admin in question. TYpically resolving to their (and the community's) satisfaction.

I guess I'm not thrilled with so much presumption of "bad faith" of him, without supporting evidence. And before anyone suggests he was displaying bad faith, I remind everyone that even the admin in question agrees that the comments were inappropriate, and didn't oppose the desysop. (Incidentally, due to the latter, I personally wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the admin being resysopped after a period of time, myself.) - jc37 11:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Jc37 - Jimbo should have been asked directly - my apologies. I've therefore asked the question [4]. Pedro :  Chat  12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's much presumption of bad faith; it could've been a compromised account, but it wasn't, and the community appears to generally disagree with Jimbo that Scarian "needs a major vacation from being an admin". Let's give him his bit back and mark this resolved with the minimum of fuss. Black Kite 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any bad faith here (or any meaningful presumption of any). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for an immediate resysop and any crat would be ill-advised to reverse Jimbo here. My personal thought is that the behaviour by the admin was atrocious, and whilst it may be that we should give him another chance, an immediate resysop sends all the wrong signals. Let kick his heals for a week or more, and then see what Jimbo says. If Jimbo doesn't say yes, then test the community's will to resysop at RfA. I'd probably support resysopping if there's contrition. But we can't have admins behaving like this and thinking they have impunity. They don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can point out several other administrators who have used such language repeatedly, yet continue to receive a green pass each and every time. Why does this administrator, who was desysoped for either those comments or for having a possibly compromised account, become desysoped on-the-bat with no discussion? That and the complaining account that started this was an abusive account should have some say. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully they'll be next on the chopping block then. I'll echo Scott's statement that there is NOT a consensus, community consensus isn't found from a discussion that goes on for some eight hours when most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping, all you get is a small segment of users who are on the thread at those hours. I'd like to further note that this is quickly not about Scarian, but about something and someone else, and those urging for Scarian's resysop might see that Scarian didn't argue with the desysop himself. He knew he screwed up, admitted it, and is on vacation. Let him go in peace and dignity, and welcome him on his return.--Tznkai (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping" I'm guessing you're from America, and kind of forgot about the micronations of Europe! :). However you and Scott are right - 8 hours is not sufficent to show consensus and I've modified my comments on Jimbo's talk page. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of Europe is not in the Western hemisphere. You and Tznkai are right - consensus is not demonstrated by an 8 hour poll, and its unclear if consensus on this page even after a longer period of time would be sufficient to undo Jimbo's desysop without his permission or assent from ArbCom. Avruch T 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter was more general, as you'll see if you look at my comment above. We should not be desysopping for a single inappropriate incident that didn't involve use of the tools. Repeated incidents of the same kind would be a different matter. Black Kite 13:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales does not reverse or modify his action, the appropriate forum to seek review of the desysopping would be a request to the Arbitration Committee. Scarian's approval should be sought before making such a request. I express no view on how I would vote on any such request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct, and after he is comfortable with coming back to Wikipedia. There is no rush here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

In response to all of the above: I will be taking a prolonged Wiki break. I do thank everyone for their support and it's very much appreciated. I can count the amount of times that I've been in disputes since becoming an admin just on one hand. I'm not a bad guy. If any one of you would have met me in real life and told me you were from the Wiki I would've taken you out for a beer and we could've become great friends. That's what I like about the Wiki, there's a strong community that can cross over into IRL. So, for that reason alone, I won't leave entirely as it's still the shining beacon that keeps me here.
In regards to Jimbo's desysopping: I totally agree that what I did was awful (completely reprehensible), and I fully deserved it. He did nothing wrong, he was protecting the Wiki. And I have always greatly respected, admired, and trusted his judgment and will continue to do so; I harbor no ill-feelings towards him whatsoever.
Personally, I can hold my head up high here still (kinda): As an admin I did everything to the letter. I cleared out 50+ backlogs at WP:SSP (twice) with E-man. For 3-4 months, before Ed Johnston and Willaim came back, I was the only regular and active admin at the WP:3RR board, which I felt was really rewarding (I even wrote the admin instructions for it).
On being an admin: It's not about having the power (It really isn't, being an admin can make you become one of the most hated people on Wiki), it's not about being in the cool crowd, and it's certainly not for the fun. People become admins because they want to help, which is why I can proudly boast and say: "I did help."
Anyways, a break will do me good. As a PS: Thanks to the admins who uncovered the sock farms, and thanks to those who discovered that Luke was meating/socking too. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a good break. Come back later and tell us what the real world looks like.--Tznkai (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(looks around nervously) There's a "real world" out there besides Wikipedia? Please, tell us all you're kidding. Please? : ) - jc37 14:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Kudos for the mea culpa. Far too few people are willing to do that, as opposed to lashing out against Jimbo and the system. If we were all a little more huimble about our mistakes and flare ups - we'd all get on better. Thanks for taking this line. In light of your attitude, I for one would support your immediate resysopping on your return (even if that's 24 hours from now). I'm opposing it now as it would tend to imply to others that Jimbo did wrong, or that your action was trivial. He didn't and it wasn't. But you've realised that, and we all screw up. So, if you need me to toot for your resysopping, just let me know.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Jimbo has resysoped Scarian. Can we archive this now?Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick attention[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. deleted by Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)

Hi. Could someone please take a look/whack at Iridonian Jagi? It probably should've been deleted under CSD like the creator's other Wookieepedia(?) copy-and-paste -- but my CSD request was removed because the article was already prodded. The article creator removed the prod, but given the short editing history and bias toward his work, I restored it. Nevertheless, this seems a pretty clear cut example of something that should not be here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Deleted because it fails WP:FICT. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not a speedy reason. It should have gone to AFD, been snowballed to death and then deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack on John Calvin article[edit]

Resolved: Semi-protected by Protonk

User:Budwhop, User:Iamabreakdancer, User:83.105.17.82 are sockpuppets vandalising the article. Please help. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Edelbrock[edit]

Can someone uninvolved keep an eye on Edelbrock, and more specifically the impressively lame edit war that's been raging for the past couple of weeks between multiple editors over the addition of a long list of every single component this company makes to the article? Thus far we've had accusations of vandalism against those who remove it; some extremely dubious use of Huggle as a high-speed editwarring tool (I've already left 3RR and Huggle-misuse warnings on the talkpages of all involved in that particular spat); socking to get around 3RR; one party reporting an editor who tried to remove the "parts" list to AIV as a vandal, citing each of their edits as separate examples of their vandalism… I was hoping it would die down after I issued a bunch of warnings last week, but it now seems to have started up again. Looking at the talk page, complete with thoughtful debate like this, this article seems to have a history of storm-in-a-teacup flareups. NB: I've not currently notified the editors involved of this thread, as I'm not suggesting anyone take any action against anyone involved and IMO we don't need another ANI flareup; if anyone thinks they ought to be notified, obviously feel free. – iridescent 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I did like the Edelbrock "Huggle Series" of performance parts. Those were the good ol' days. -t BMW c- 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rfcbeach[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indefinitely by Master of Puppets; images handled by User:SterkeBak

Rfcbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of Rfcbeach137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvio image from Canon USA and calls it his own. Image must also be deleted from Commons. Dr.K. (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He actually uploaded many more copyvio images. I have reverted them all. But someone has to inform Commons about this avalanche of copyvios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked sock, warned sockmaster. I'll ask the guys at commons to check this out. Thanks for reporting it! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much Master of Puppets for the swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries, cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Contacted SterkeBak who will look after images. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks again. Cheers. Dr.K. (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arigato1 and sockpuppets[edit]

As you can see in my edit history I am dealing with a banned sockpuppeteer. Can I block his sockpuppets on sight, while I revert his edits?--Berig (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Ban, it is the individual (not the account) that is denied editing privileges so socks should be blocked. You also need to be certain that the socks are operated by the banned individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the socks are obvious so I'm certain, although he might at the moment be using a library account to escape both checkuser and the block. What should I do?--Berig (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If in any doubt open a WP:SSP request - the good folk on that page can spot the signs fairly quickly (especially if you think it obvious enough), and you can then act on the conclusions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!--Berig (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance in arabism[edit]

Resolved: This would be User:MarthaFiles. I've blocked the account for sockpuppetry. See the revision history of Arabism for examples (I had totally forgotten that I had since this before). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to dump this in your collective laps, but the "easy 10 minutes at CAT:ASD" I've allotted myself on WP today are up, and I think this needs a little more looking in to. I recently deleted Intolerance in arabism (so, it's admin only), a run of the mill anti-arab rant. There seems to have been some effort to add similar material to Pan-Arabism. But what's bugging me is that I'm pretty sure I ran across this crap somewhere before, continually re-created under a different article name, but can't find it now. Looks to be some socking going on at Pan-Arabism, and it's pretty clear the creator of this "article" is involved somehow. Could someone take a look in more depth than I've done and see if there's socking going on and blocking in order? Sorry about the hit and run ANI report, maybe editing for 10 minutes a day causes more trouble than just staying away and leaving everything for someone else. --barneca (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of the three editors to the page, none have done something similar. Some of the language has been repeated elsewhere but this site is interesting. It's probably where the text is coming from. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
On a slightly realted topic. I know MarthaFiles is a blocked editor, however I'm concerned that the usertalk page here hasn't been blanked. Am I reading too much into this, or does that page really need to belong on Wikipedia? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gogo Dodo, for dealing with it. I've deleted the screed that Cite3000 put on their talk page; I see someone else has done the same at Marthafiles' talk page too. --barneca (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There were a few other places where it was posted after the accounts were blocked. I've blanked those, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blandinocm/200.109.222.132[edit]

Resolved: Blocked.

200.109.222.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for constantly inserting the charts that fail WP:BADCHARTS into Celestial (RBD album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As soon as the block went into effect, Blandinocm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) took up the charge. Apparent sock.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Indef blocked as a clear sock. Black Kite 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User continually re-creating deleted content[edit]

Aaronshavit (talk · contribs) is continually recreating a deleted article. The history of the article is somewhat lengthy; he first tried to re-write the Racism and Zionism article[5], and when his changes were rejected, he created the article in his userspace, User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations.[6] He made a total of 3 edits to the page in August 2007, and then instantiated it into the article space as Israel and Racism, which was subsequently deleted via an AfD as a poorly-written and biased WP:POVFORK (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel and racism). He made one more edit to his personal copy; it was then nominated for deletion, which failed (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations). He made one further edit to his copy, in July 2008 - a total of 5 edits in all to the main copy, all fairly minor.

In August 2008, the article it was a POVFORK of, Racism and Zionism, was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_and_Zionism). In October, his POVFORK was also put up for deletion, with the nominator describing it as an "Abandoned soapbox being treated as an article, POV pushing in userspace", and noting that it came up second in various Google searches. This time the consensus was to delete (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)).

Since then Aaronshavit has recreated the article 3 times, first as User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism on October 10, which I deleted on October 12 as a WP:CSD G4, then as User:Aaronshavit/racism and Zionism on November 7, which I deleted again on November 11 as a WP:CSD G4. At that time I warned him on his Talk page not to re-create the page. However, today, November 17, he has again recreated the article User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. At no time has he made any substantive modifications to his copies, and I believe his use of modified names for each copy may have been for the purpose of avoiding detection (so that it wouldn't show up on the watchlist of anyone involved in the deletion).

Given this is his third re-creation of deleted material, and that he has recreated it in defiance of warnings not to do so, I was planning to block him, but thought I would present the issue here for a discussion of the length of that block. Is 24 hours for a first offense reasonable? Or, given that he edits intermittently, and might not even notice a 24 hour block, is a longer block reasonable? Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, there's nothing wrong with starting at 24 hours, then escalating as necessary. I'm taking as given that there's strong community consensus that this material isn't coming back. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the six-day period between recreations a week makes more sense. 24hrs will not prove a meaningful deterrent. -- Y not? 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd leave unblocked for now, reiterate the warning in the most specific possible terms ("If you re-create that article in substantively the same form again, I will block you.") and then see what happens (possibly a second admin should be the one to provide the new warning, and I'd be happy to do so if consensus is that that's the right route). This warning should probably also include an explanation of WP:DRV, if the user believes that the deletion decision at MFD was somehow in error. In the event of a further re-creation, I don't think an indef block would be out of order, as the account would be showing the intention to continue violating policy indefinitely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall any policy on what one can keep in UserSpace (previous discussions I've seen spoke of unnecessary duplication of unsatisfactory material/abandoned - that seems not to be the case). I'm using similar such pages either for code or for other people's reference - I don't even update them very often.
And for Jayjg to get on his high horse on this topic is puzzling indeed, since he actually recreated a notorious "SOAP-BOXING" (and personally unpleasant) UserSpace article here. I think we're entitled to expect a bit of consistency here. PRtalk 18:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the material was a re-creation of material specifically deleted after an MFD discussion. If MFD's to have any meaning, you can't just re-create deleted material ad nauseum. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella‎[edit]

Minor politician, whose bio is the recurring subject of a long-term edit war. Personally, I'd like to see the article trimmed of all non-essential information, but this is a continuing battleground for partisan bickering. Please consider page protection, if needed. JNW (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a editing dispute resolution procedure? Isn't that the better place to solve this kind of issue? UN111 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yellow Evan[edit]

Formal discussion here is needed, as there is a semi-major conflict going on involving the user Yellow Evan. He joined Wikipedia in early September, and in the two and half months he's been here, he's caused nothing but drama and aggravation in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. The user has been blocked four times by four different admins, all related to disruptive editing. He is immature, prone to edit warring, pointish behavior, and overall disruptive edits. Since he joined, his spelling and grammar has not improved in the least, despite numerous requests by other users for him to take the time to write better. An example of the disruptive behavior is here, calling an administrator's edit as vandalism. Personally? Previously I got so annoyed that I had to take a one month Wikibreak. I'll leave this on the short side, as there is plenty of evidence on his talk page for other user's frustration. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on any decision - Even though I have this urge to block, being part (hardly) of the project, and I feel that supporting an indefinite block is being really biased for the project. There are major problems with him helping the community and is rather more of a disruption than a useful member of the project. There are also have been some very strange incidents with him. The user is not gonna be beneficial to the community or the project, but I won't go any further and say that neutrality on this situation as the way to go. (I like that this went better than other projects I know...).Mitch32(UP) 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
BY wikipedia. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean?--Elena85 1959 Pacific Hurricane Season 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Having read his spelling, I think he said 'Bye Wikipedia' \ / () 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, on his user page, he recently added that he "nearly retired" today, though he has done that sort of dramatic several times before. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that I blocked Yellow Evan once, my opinion may be biased, but I'm going to have to endorse what Hurricanehink said. Yellow Evan is past the point of being a newbie, and his editing has become disruptive. Another block may be in order, should he continue. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Whilst i felt like i was going to be Neutral to him tonight i just had a look at the main WPTC talk page and this evening he posted up a mis spelled list of who he thought supported his proposal to have an article for evrey tropical depression in the eastern Pacific that the National Hurricane Center has ever monitored. He thought he had a Consenssus to have an article on Evrey EPAc storm and "Spammed" Several members of the WPTC talk pages including my own with something that is not understanable. He also has Spammed the GAN talk page and the WPTC Talk page this evening with the talkback banner but theres been no messages on his talk page. The final thing wrong with him is when ever he publishes an article its no where near good enough and most end up either being merged or expanded significantly by another user which is taking rescources away from another part of the project which is annoying to see. Also if he did get blocked could someone make sure that his talk page is protected so that he can not edit there. I ask this as during one of his previous blocks he tried to start an article there for Hurricane Virgil (1992) and Tropical Storm Dora (2007) which has caused his talk page to look messy compared to others ive seen like Elena85 or Hurricanehink Many thanks Jason Rees (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive User at List of best-selling music artists[edit]

The user Suicidal Lemming keeps adding to the page of List of best-selling music artists that the origin of the Rock and Roll band Van Halen is as much Dutch as it is American simply because (according to Suicidal Lemming) the members are of Dutch descent. At his talk page I provided him with a reliable source to convince him otherwise, however, he ignored it calling it irrelavent on my talk page and reverted my edits.

Suicidal Lemming also keeps adding to the same page that the origin of AC/DC is UK regardless of the fact that he admits he's aware that the band is formed in Australia. Again he ignored the source I provided him with and reverted the edits.

I'd appreciate if someone could either give this user a warning or perhaps put a block on him, my explanations seem to have gone in vain. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, for now, but this is not resolved. Can someone with a bit of background knowledge jump in? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think they'd be as much Indonesian as Dutch. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

114.69.226.2[edit]

At first blush, I was going to block, but in checking their edit history there are edits concerning (I think) fiction, and mythology. So (the choice of language aside), I'm not sure about the references, if they are perhaps to fictional characters, or to mythological characters, or what.

I didn't post a request for clarification at User talk:Hnsampat because I think it's a decent chance any post would be troll-feed by the IP.

So anyway, if anyone has a clue, please feel free to enlighten. Or better, act if appropriate. - jc37 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

iam familiar with some of the haracters he mentions in his opst. Their are references to Indo-Aryanic or Vedic mythology, such as Ravana etc. however, there are not appropriate language to use in Wikipedia talk pages (cunt, fuck, etc) which would caused ofense. previpous edits to related articles cdo not justify flaming, trolling, etc. on other atircles in my view. Smith Jones (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review welcome[edit]

I've just blocked Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing the behaviour that got them blocked three times before. In particular, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith have been levelled at all the admins and many of the editors who've been working at the Barack Obama and ACORN articles. The period is one month, which is approximately double the last block.

Now, since real life calls me away, I won't be available to discuss this. Therefore, please review and adjust/undo according to consensus. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 05:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. Since his return from his last block, I don't think he's made a single civil comment to anyone. It's not just anyone who crosses his path at Obama or ACORN, I've rarely edited Obama and never edited ACORN and he still is rude to me, even though I've tried on numerous occasions to talk to him. He just doesn't get it. He seems to be here to push a POV and make attacks. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, looks fine to me. Looks like a campaigner for the fringe, and doesn't seem to understand the concepts of civility and consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP repeatedly adds uncited information despite warnings[edit]

Anonymous IP 99.233.212.241 persists in adding uncited information to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, and other pages, despite repeated warnings not to do so, both on his talk page and via hidden comments in the article.[7] I've personally left 5 warnings on his talk page and should have left a sixth today after this edit. The IP often adds information, citing it using citations grabbed from elsewhere in the article, but the citations never support the additions. e.g.

  1. this partially reverted here
  2. non-existent episode added

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes is a fairly high maintenance page with editors constanntly adding information that is uncited and which usually is at odds with the existing citations used on the page. It happens so frequently[8][9] that I have added hidden comments in the article where appropriate, for editors who don't read the article talk page or their own. This IP ignores the comments.[10] It seems he has no intention of complying with requests and it seems further action is warranted. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On another issue, the Youtube link to an episode was copyvio and I've removed it. dougweller (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism[edit]

Vandalism RAMPANT in recent changes, caught 5 vandals in a matter of minutes! - admin needed to WP:AIAV asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikify567 (talkcontribs) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Five is not a panic and is no reason to post this in multiple places and disrupt AIV with multiple null edits. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Relax, will you? Please do not spam all noticeboards with this. If you had used the correct format on WP:AIV, the reports would have been seen easier...also, you might want to familiarize yourself with user warnings. We do not usually block people that have not been correctly warned before. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cordingley[edit]

Cordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of banned user Bcordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who added spam links to articles two days ago. Now he is asking permission to add the same links he was banned for in the first place. Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Since he appears to think Wikipedia is Yellow Pages, I added his wildlife destruction business to the spam blacklist, so he won't be able to add it regardless of what user name he re-appears as. Black Kite 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks. You saved me a lot of work. Dr.K. (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually advised him to do this once his autoblock expired. The block was only on the account, not a ban from Wikipedia. Asking for other editors input on the talk page is the correct way to go when you have a conflict of interests. He does seem to have gone over the top on the request, but he has shown a willingness to learn policies during our email exchange after his initial block. This may be a case of over-enthusiasm, rather than an deliberate abuse on his part. --GraemeL (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the clarification. It is a rather unusual situation. It's the first time I see an editor just by arguing about something on a talkpage to convert the talk page into a living advertisement for his business. It belongs in a WP:SPAM horror movie, if there was such a thing. Dr.K. (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He started personal attacks and harassment. Please see relevant section below. Dr.K. (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Will do. I was just adding a bit more background. My hope in asking him to post a request to the article talk pages was that editors interested in the article subjects would deal with the requests and the issue would vanish. I had no objection to the adding of the site to the blacklist once that decision was taken. --GraemeL (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia copying list?[edit]

Where is the page on Wikipedia that lists outside media that have "borrowed" content directly from Wikipedia, uncredited? I found a book today with a chapter taken almost exactly from my featured article Great Lakes Storm of 1913. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 01:45Z

  • You might want to look at WP:MIRROR.--Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I put them down on the "Wikipedia as a source" page, mentioning that it was uncredited and lifted "largely unmodified". Maybe not the right page for that, but oh well. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 02:01Z
      • Personally, I'd write to the publisher, and seek some legal advice. If you've got a copyright claim in it, you might be due some reimbursement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • So, no one bothered to read this above your edit summary?

          You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*.

          seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

          • The GFDL still requires proper attribution, which what I understand is non-existent in this case. -MBK004 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Aye, copyright still applies, just the licence for use is the GFDL. Attribution is required usually in the form of a link to Wikipedia, a statement saying that the contents of the page are from article X on Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, a link to article X, and a copy of the GFDL along with a statement that this material is released under the GFDL. That's how it works with webpages usually. Not sure about books. Hence, legal help required :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
              • To reinforce your coment, my understanding is using the text in any way that doesn't comply with the GFDL is infringement, and the original authors still own the content. ie: I can upload a picture (or write text) here under the GFDL and still sell it under a different license, including closed. I don't give up my ownership when I license it under GFDL. MYSQL has been doing this for years with the GPL. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
              • You've missed a requirement, an important one. See §4(b) and §4(i) of the GFDL. The history and names of authors are also required in any copies. That it works this way with web pages "usually" is because many mirrors are actually non-compliant in this regard. See Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Imitation is the surest form of flattery? Really I'm not sure that much can be done. There is some legal weight moving our way (can't remember the case name, but the Apache license was upheld in court against infringement--a good sign that the GFDL would hold up), but the most that would happen would be that the author would be fired/reprimanded for plagarism. Might help to call or write the publisher with some choice >7 word passages. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I already emailed the publisher letting them know about attribution requirements of the GFDL and the fact that it was almost exactly lifted from the article. I also put a bad review on Amazon to that effect. :P — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 05:36Z

Tangentially, I just wanted to note that just yesterday I investigated a copyright report on Matthew LaPorta, where evidence suggests that this ESPN affiliate has violated our contributors' copyright. It's not the first time I've seen this. There's a reason we have {{Backwardscopyvio}} and Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, unfortunately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on São Paulo FC[edit]

Can someone look into this? The IP is currently involved in several edit wars and was previously editing as User:Bruno P. Dori, cheers! BanRay 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page's history is a mess - I count one editor making more than 150 reverts since April - including 7 on 15 November - none of them with a rationale as to why the change has been made. It's not even like its vandalism - just disagreements over the squad list. Might be an idea to fully protect the article for a while. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre[edit]

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to a non-contentious version, and protected it until further notice. Any admin who feels this is a problem is free to revert me, but I think there might be BLP issues here, and I don't like the tone that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) uses in his edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that was very helpful. Hopefully we will see discussion starting again over the contentious material. Regards, the skomorokh 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?[edit]

Resolved: Clear copyvio, deleted, thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a feeling this is a copyvio as Image:97 Ford Probe.jpg is the car from 1997 Ford Probe meaning that it's not totally Gene Poole's work and no copyright info on the site which makes it hard to see if it's a PD, Free-use or just copyrighted image. I'm not listing the image as myself and Gene have history and he is uncivil towards me so I'll rather not list this image. I've posted this here as I'll rather an Admin to deal with this. Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

220.239.49.19 deletes then vandalizes whole page![edit]

Resolved: The IP edited the article twice for which she/he was warned for. Simple vandalism that was reverted. The last edit was hours ago. No blocking necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

220.236.49.19 has deleted all of the bionicle page and then vandalized the page thanks to some people it was reverted but i think he should be blocked because he has vandalized multiple times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knapper1176 (talkcontribs)

Reverted, warned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits[edit]

User:Srkris has been:

Please look into this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
And he continues,
Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)
  • ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (#56435;) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.
User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.
Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.
User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


  • And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legal threat by User:Rescirscir[edit]

Resolved: Good Olfactory agreed that this could be enthusiastic advocacy instead and asked that it be closed.

(relocated from top of page so it gets more notice) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) :Thx—sorry for posting in wrong spot! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: [11], which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Administrators have certain different rights to observe users usage of a website. Otherwise it would descend into chaos. I would look at it as an idle threat mate. I know I'm a Brit anf as such have no idea on US law, but Admins have a certain job to do to keep the website safe for users. Imagine if it was someone continuously uploading paedophilic material, you would have to essentially stalk their edits to see how many times he does it, find out his location, etc. I hope I'm right otherwise its the end of this website. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't look like stalking to me, it looks like good faith reverting and immature threats. If they continued, I would consider them disruptive. As for your other point, being a non-admin, I would say editors have the same 'rights'. Even non-admins can have legitimate reasons to monitor someone's contribs to make sure a policy violation (like copyright or spam) isn't being serially broken. Reading WP:ADMIN In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. seems to support this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it became suddenly necessary to move this post from where it was - it had a pretty good first response. The editor's comments are a very enhanced way of saying "leave me alone". I wouldn't call it any type of real legal threat - but I would "think twice, edit" once when it comes to that editor's changes. I would also maybe let them know of this thread, so that they might see the responses above and maybe loosen up a little. -t BMW c- 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It was top-posted. Not sure about everyone else, but I don't read the posts at the top of the page unless something specific appears in the index to indicate activity. I didn't want it missed, but was too clueless to personally provide a comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted in the wrong spot—thanks to Tony for moving it. As you can tell, I'm not exactly a regular here! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Good Olfactory has done the right thing here, by warning the editor, notifying him about this ANI, and asking what he meant. The guy's response appears conciliatory. The words of Rescirscir cited above don't seem to be a flat-out legal threat, but if the editor's comments about stalking continue, they may fall under disruption. Suggest that other admins watchlist Talk:Temple Lot, but that no further action is needed for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Re Dennis Brown's comment: When I was talking about Admins, i meant in general across the internet. They have added responsibilities to a standard user and that was my point, I wasn't trying to get into technicalities, but whereas we are asked to act like Admins, they are required to do so, thats where the responsibilities are different. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As a note to those who wonder about the underlying content: the church that was razed in 1990 sits on the site where many Latter Day Saints believe a temple will be constructed. Jesus Christ will return to the earth at this site, according to many Latter Day Saints. The arson of the church is therefore relatively important to note in the article.
Because of the previous problems with the material—and out of sensitivity to living people—we've removed the name of the arsonist in the article (since he apparently believes that the press misunderstood his motives). This is as far as we can accommodate without violating our policies. Some could argue that it's too far. At any rate, these threats are unacceptable. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the comments. As I said, in the abstract I'm not terribly concerned about the comments that were made, and they did seem to be a one-off event, and the editor has seemed conciliatory since this thread was started. But I thought I needed to post this here, given the history of the page in question and its nature—summarised well by Cool Hand Luke—and my relative inexperience with what constitutes a legal threat and how serious to take the editor's comments. I would be satisfied with no further action beyond perhaps some additional monitoring of Temple Lot (and perhaps its sister article, Church of Christ (Temple Lot)). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm to User:Good Olfactory that you're not being monitored, and there's really no need for us to do so. If you'd like us to close this thread now, just nod your head twice. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. :) Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


(Note: This was originally posted in reply only to chocobogamer and then later moved down the page to reflect chronological order)
Thank you for taking a moment to address the topic. I compiled the following information about U.S. civil rights law before additional replies were made to Good Ol'Factory's query. I note that none of the replies quote or examine the disputed information. Nevertheless, I've realized that Good Ol'Factory (unlike CoolHandLuke for example) has not acted in bad faith, nor has she particularly misrepresented the facts as she sees them. She, you say? Sure, we don't know if Good Ol'Factory is male or female, and cannot take his or her word for it, and that's just one reason it is not fair or even lawful for anonymous persons to harass someone at Wikipedia because of his or her political or religious persuasion. Protections for religious and political expression and conduct have always existed, but were spelled out with building blocks in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, violations still take place, and The FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for investigating such violations, because localized media and judiciary and law enforcement sometimes cause the problem, and are then and therefore unable or unwilling to resolve it. This is the case with the political and religious activist/writer which CoolHandLuke and other similarly less-educated Wikipedia personnel are fond of calling the "the Arsonist"-- an oversimplified caveman-like characterization adopted by those persons who have a vested interested in suppressing even the basicmost verifiable facts about the political protest of January 1, 1990. This reaction--evidently born out of longstanding instances of anti-intellectual, anti-Federal and anti-LDS sentiment in the region--commenced immediately after the protest of January 1, 1990, to where, with the partial exception only of the Independence Examiner, all media and police investigators refused to investigate or report facts about the protest as soon as they realized it was in fact a non-violent civil rights protest on behalf of African-Americans and other disenfranchised citizens. Instead--much like CoolHandLuke--local press and other persons or parties opted to replicate blatantly false claims and rumors about the protest, and the protester. As an example of how CoolHandLuke does that, glance at his comment in this thread, and then realize this fact: No Latter Day Saint or member of any faction in the Latter Day Saint Movement has ever believed that Christ will 'return to earth in Missouri,' in reality, Latter Day Saints believe that Christ will return to earth on the Mount of Olives, in the the Middle East. (Similarly, the Kansas City Star falsely reported that Temple Lot members believe Jackson County Missouri is the site of the biblical garden of Eden, when in reality, they don't). Virtually everything CoolHandLuke claims in regards to Temple Lot and its editing saga is similarly false. Maybe he should apply for work at the Kansas City Star, he certainly has the credentials they seek: A willingness to publish slanderous and uncorroborated rumors about anyone willing to 'rock the boat', including the new leader of Missouri Democratic Senators: Victor Callahan. (Mr. Callahan was recently slandered in a Kansas City Star article and threatened to never grant an interview to them again if they repeated the mistake. Police officials around the Greater Kansas City area already refuse to talk to Kansas City Star reporters because their reports are so often so incredibly garbled and inaccurate). Your concern that administrators have got to keep the site safe for users/readers is valid, in that issues involving civil rights and race relations have always been volatile, and should be handled with great editorial care. Thank you also for admitting outright you're a Brit who has 'no idea' about U.S. law (actually you do, since a great deal of U.S. law derives from British jurisprudence, see Bill of Rights). Here's a primer on U.S. law, and as it relates to the incident on Temple Lot in Jackson County, Missouri in 1990, and its aftermath:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
.."in which the Thirteen Colonies of North America overthrew the governance of the British Empire and collectively became the nation of the United States of America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
In July 1833, the process that would end with Latter Day Saints being evicted from Independence and the surrounding Jackson County, Missouri area started when W. W. Phelps published in the Evening and Morning Star a Missouri law which set out the requirements for free blacks to come to Missouri (they had to have a certificate of citizenship from another state before entering Missouri).
The publication of something showing blacks that there was an alternative to being slave was considered the last straw for other Jackson County non-Latter Day Saint residents — particularly the slave holders. They burned the newspaper plant and tarred and feathered Bishop Edward Partridge and church elder Charles Allen.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863)
  • The Federal Government "...believed that Confederate combatants in the area were originating from, or being supported by, rural portions of four Missouri counties on the Kansas border south of the Missouri River: Bates, Cass, Jackson, and Vernon..."
  • "Order Number 11 was the most drastic and repressive military measures directed against civilians by by the Union Army during the Civil War. In fact...it stands as the harshest treatment ever imposed on United States citizens under the plea of military necessity in our Nations History."[13]
  • Federal troops and Missouri State Militia patrol[ed] the area, burning abandoned crops, houses, barns and buildings and killing stock and abandoned animals.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
"..Conceived to help African Americans.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders
"...symbolized the risks of participating in the Civil Rights Movement in the South..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Excerpt from 1964 Civil Rights Act:

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the [information] highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured...[15]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

President-Elect Barack Obama on March 18, 2008:

"..And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time...[16]

Excerpt from the material Good Olfactory deleted:

"...claiming that his actions comprised a pro-civil rights political protest on behalf of all Americans--including fellow members of the church. In the recorded conversations with police, the man "identifies himself and tells police that he wants to make a statement concerning violations of the U.S. Constitution." [1] Asked to summarize his protest statement, the man told the police dispatcher he "was tired of black people and poor white people ...being disrespected..." by segments of modern society. Born in Berkeley, California in 1964,[17] the protester stated that he shared some of the peaceable objectives of the Black Panther Party, founded in nearby Oakland, California in 1966, and told police in regards to the recent death of Huey Newton, that "I cried when he died." "He complained of...'troubles' such as racism..."[2]

Could an African-American administrator and/or someone otherwise keen to civil and political rights issues have a look at this thread? On an agreeable note, I admit the material as submitted needs more work. I disagree it should be quickly and completely deleted/censored/disparaged. I'm willing to cooperate with others to present the information in the most ideal fashion. "With malice toward none...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. "'[18] enabled1000 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgement that I have been acting in good faith, but I'm troubled by your suggestion that User:Cool Hand Luke has not acted in good faith. None of his comments suggest anything but pure motives and intent. The use of the word "arsonist" to avoid the use of the person's name and mere disagreements over doctrinal issues (where Jesus will appear and in what order) does not evince "bad faith". (For what it's worth (probably not much, since this thread is not to debate doctrine), what CHL said is correct. Many Latter Day Saints believe Jesus will appear at the temple in the Temple Lot. Whether that happens before or after his appearance at the Mount of Olives is not specified by CHL, but I believe most Latter Day Saints believe it's after. So you're both right, in a way.) I'm afraid that's all I have to say. I called the goings-on with this page "weird", and this thread seems to confirm that first impression. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That's correct and hardly controversial. It's how Mitt Romney described his beliefs, for example. Last I chec