Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Why is this User blocked[edit]

Why is this user blocked for just one edit? [1] Is this another incident of an edoitor suspected to be Proabouviac or is there another reason. I think this needs to be out in the open too. I don't see any need to indeff from this [2] - or to be honest a need to CU in the first place. We have too many secrets lately festering away.  Giacomo  08:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a relatively obvious case. I even considered drawing a checkuser's attention to it by email. Please observe WP:DENY. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not following you "obvious case." I just assumed it was a regular editor reluctant to be seen agreeing with me (there's quite a few of those)  Giacomo  09:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably blocked because its a gutless sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well if we blocked all of those, there would not be many people left editing at all.  Giacomo  10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be good, too. HalfShadow 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We block as many as can be found. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On that premise: I expect to see this User indeffed imediatly. Or there is going to be an immense amount of trouble! User:GiacomoWasHere.  Giacomo  22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Like what? You'll type mean things at us or something? HalfShadow 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and its indeffed now, so we will have to see who suddenly goes very quiet.  Giacomo  23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

These not-so-great impostors turn up now and then. They usually get sent to the phantom zone quickly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User pages imitating article pages[edit]

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. I have found several user pages that seem to be imitating namespace articles, either ones already created or some that seem fabricated. "They" all have been editing each other's user pages and they to each through wikilinks. I have found only one IP address, 24.184.11.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that has edited a handful of the pages. Here is a list of them:

User:Cmlf1 · User:Lade_Films · User:Ttlf3 · User:Tcdlf4 · User:Gglf2 · User:RichMaples · User:Mike_Glavine · User:Nyc2354 · User:Jjlf1

I don't know what kind of action should be taken on these articles, although I think they should be deleted or merged/moved to name space articles. If this isn't the right place, I can move the discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Glavine and User:Nyc2354 are both blatantly obvious hoaxes, so I'm tagging them as such. The rest you may have to take to MfD, although you'll probably want someone else's opinion on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Blade. And the link should be User:RichMaples234. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to delete these. Tag them with {{noindex}} and move on. -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, they are all g11s from Lade Films (the remaining userpages are character-character-L-F-#). Just because they're bad attempts at advertising, doesn't mean they aren't advertising. Syrthiss (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted all the "character" accounts, blatant ads. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. And the user should probably be restricted to one account, rather than the ~10 currently being used. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's why they're called G3 and G11, and not A3 and A11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the swift action! BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed:

 IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, sockpuppet accussations, edit-warring, incivility[edit]

There seems to be a deeper issue here, but I observed that on the Tbilisi International Airport article User:Jasepl and User:Inspector123 were edit-warring over the inclusion of a particular Privatair flight (see this 3RR report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jasepl_reported_by_User:Stepopen_.28Result:User_warned._.29). In apparent response User:Jasepl went on to tag dozens of dynamic and shared IPs as suspected sockpuppets of User:Inspector123, with circumstantial evidence at best (Note: An admin deleted these notices from the IP talk pages, thus these edits do not show up in the edit history of Jasepl anymore). See [3] for one of this tagged as sockpuppet and then deleted pages.

Furthermore, after being warned for edit-warring Jasepl canvassed at least one editor [4]] and indirectly asked him to revert on his behalf. Also note this racist and bitey remark towards an editor who edited the controversial information to the Tbilisi airport article, [[5]]. Stepopen (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your hands are not fully clean here. I protected the page because you and others were in a slow burn edit war. This is being discussed at the Airports project page. You have been to my page asking me to do something to him because he made a comment to another user you didn't like. This problem will only de-escalate when you walk away for a few minutes. JodyB talk 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Inspector123 labeled himself as Pakistani, admits not logging in when not absolutely necessary and types something not English in edit summaries. Why would it be racist for Jasepl to use the word Pakistani? Why would tagging admitted IPs be inappropriate? HkCaGu (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so over half a dozen contributors have weighed into the discussion that supposedly was a result of my canvassing. Some of them I haven't even heard of, let alone canvas. And most of them I've had some skirmish or the other with over the years. But I'm sure a way will still be found to pin it all on me.
As for the other charge of racial assault, all I can do is laugh. The serial-vandalising user, Inspector123, happily swore away in English and some other language that I do not understand. I do know it certainly wasn't English. Inspector123 has on his user page, proclaimed to one and all that his is a Pakistani Wikipedian, so to presume that said swearing was in Pakistani wasn't too much of a stretch. If, after his leaving a bunch of (presumably) swear words on my talk page in a non-English language, saying "I don't understand Pakistani" and "swearing will not be tolerated, whether it is in English or Pakistani" are racial assaults, then I'm not the one who has issues.
Besides, this is the English language Wikipedia, isn’t it?
And regards the intimidation, Inspector123 has self admitted, on more than one occasion, that they have been editing using any of hundreds of IPs, for reasons ranging from "I'm lazy" to "I don't want to pretend to be an editor" to "I forget".
All of this has been clearly communicated to Inspector123 (or one of his many IP avatars) on hundreds of occasions. Yet he continues to do as he wills, resolutely refusing to follow editing guidelines or established procedure, while swearing away at those who revert invalid edits or remind him of the rules.
The fact that the serial illegal (for lack of a better word) edits and swearing has gone unnoticed likely is a result of his using so many IPs – a classic case of escaping accountability.
If anyone wants specific instances of any of the above, I'll be happy to provide.
So, as I asked before on more than one occasion, try to get a grip of the situation and an understanding of the guidelines first, and then wage all the war you want.
And yes, I still find it odd that an editor, who had made about a dozen edits in total, with the most recent one being a year ago, suddenly gets all hot and bothered about one line in an article about a relatively insignificant airport and about the imaginary mistreatment of one other editor. And those sockpuppet tags clearly said "suspected” – even after the above mentioned admissions. jasepl (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
So why did you edit-war on this article and then canvassed User:Snoozlepet for support? Seems that you do not want to answer this question. And interesting how you are lying what you actually said. You said "Sorry. No understand. No speak Pakistani." NOT "I don't understand Pakistani". The fact that you lied about what you actually said suggests that even to you it is clear that you crossed the line here. Stepopen (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Carmonians and image problems[edit]

Over the last several days, User:Carmonians has been uploading a significant number of images (see file contributions) and placing them on the Carmona, Cavite article. While this editor has indicated a source for these images, he has refused to add any licensing tags to these images, despite many, many warnings to that effect (his talk page is filled with them). On 5 November, administrator ESkog placed a warning on his page asking him to stop this behavior, and cautioned him that continuing it may result in his blocking. The editor continued anyway, uploading another six unlicensed images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I placed a final warning on his talk page with a rather large stop hand sign after those six unlicensed uploads, advising him he was receiving a final warning [6]. Subsequent to this, he uploaded another two images, this time claiming he had rights and was releasing them to public domain (1, File:Patronjoseph.jpg). Editor has been notified of this thread, though he has to date refused to engage in any discussion on his talk page. Some assistance please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User hasn't made a single discussion edit, I suggest blocking until he wants to talk about it, he clearly has little understanding of copyright and licensing so until he asserts that he does understand these policies he should not be uploading any more files. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Would any administrator care to take some action? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Talk:The Awareness Center[edit]

Not sure if it is appropriate to interpret this edit as a legal threat. User notified of discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Not really a legal threat, but that sort of discussion isn't constructive anyway. Stickee (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a good idea not to overlook the actual focus of the discussion, which appears to be that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<span id="Ncmvocalist <redacted> moving thread">

Suspicious edits[edit]

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Dollar Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer to the question the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Million Pound Drop question related edits[edit]

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Pound Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which was directly relevant to the question because it made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As said above by Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the "IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this". Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Owns the TV channel in Cardiff"? what does that mean. Cardiff has more than one TV channel available. The channel the program is broadcast on is Channel 4, which isn't owned by Virgin Media, nor is Endemol the producer of the show. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's what happened. Basically some bored teenager was watching the TV show while on their laptop. They decided it'd be a "lolz" to edit the article that the quiz show was asking questions about so that it seemed that the producers had got the answer wrong, tehehe! No big media conspiracy, just mindless vandalism. GiantSnowman 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Threads conglomerated because they are obviously about the same thing.— dαlus Contribs 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media is also an ISP. Do you have any reason to believe the IP is from their corporate offices rather than just a random broadband customer? Bovlb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that the Naomi Campbell edit was made before the question was broadcast - and bearing in mind that the edit was reverted by the same user just afterwards - is it possible that these edits were made by a member of the production staff in order to prevent people from cheating (by e.g. looking up the subject of the article on Wikipedia, and quickly texting the contestant?). The producers would pragmatically assume that most people quickly looking up a subject would go to Wikipedia's page and not do any further research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible User:Bambifan101 sock[edit]

Resolved: SPI filed, Rangeblock initiated. - Burpelson AFB 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been some suspicious IP edits by Special:Contributions/98.85.78.64 and Special:Contributions/98.85.10.44 altering running times and dates and other various film credits which fits the MO of User:Bambifan101. Furthermore it's from a suspected Bambifan101 IP range as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#03_October_2010_2. Can an admin look into this case please, and a possible range block? Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another IP from the same range corrupting film information since the sock investigation was filed: Special:Contributions/98.85.7.221. This is affecting dozens of articles, so a range block is seriously needed here guys. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh fuck, not him again... HalfShadow 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
what the hell I thought we were done with this idiot a long time ago, PS the range block would be 98.85.0.0/17Access Deniedtalk to me 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello anyone here??? Access Deniedtalk to me 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, he continued doing it for an hour or so after this report was filed, and no doubt will be back on tonight. I'm not going to bother reverting the damage if there isn't going to be some effort to prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI on Bambifan and the IPs but the SPI Bot seems to be down (or maybe I just need to be patient). - Burpelson AFB 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help manage the debate at Talk: Greek love[edit]

I would appreciate some help at Greek love where I am trying to nurture a debate on my upcoming nomination of the article for an Afd. However, the tags I have put on the article are being removed. This looks to me like an attempt to stifle debate. I am not the only WP user who believes the article is structurally compromised. The tags are appropriate. Please monitor this situation. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the next step. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed that the disputants could continue their debate so fiercely while the opening sentence of the article remained "Greek love is a tern in Modern English synonymous with other similar phrases". Suggest you all cease warring over the tags and go find sources to actually improve the content for our readers. Skomorokh 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet[edit]

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Someone resolved the thread above but its obvious User:Bad edits r dumb and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back are the same VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Their editing behaviour is similar (like trolling), but "Bad edits r dumb" came after than the Fat Man, it seems. Diego Grez (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Does anyone but me think it is odd that an editor who has been here all of 4 days already knows all about ANI and spotted this right away? Risker (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Self-outing? Wouldn't surprise me if this guy's BerD. Highly interesting. StrPby (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • He's been around for a 4 1/2 years, albeit with some very lengthy pauses where he was presumably either editing under another guise or two, or was on vacation consuming donuts. Oddly enough, looking at his rap sheet, the length of his blocks have decreased each time, from indefinite to a week and now just 2 days. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Risker's reply was in regards to the OP.— dαlus Contribs 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, they're the same person. Unambiguous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, who's the same? The original poster and blocked account or the two blocked accounts? TNXMan 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Soryy, Fat Man and Bad edits. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The same person as in you CU'd them? If so, shouldn't the sock's block be upped back to indef?— dαlus Contribs 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
VoteJagoff is not the one who linked the two, although it is indeed interesting that the user started posting to ANI a mere 4 days after creation.    Thorncrag  01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If Fat Man has been trolling, not only with his main account but with a sock even (which is now blocked), why is he allowed to continue editing? This is what I find interesting and I think it's a legitimate question. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? I find Thorncrag's point more interesting Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • VoteJagoffForMayor (please consider changing your user name), Berd had started editing with a request to a cu, disclosing past identity(ies). Berd got blocked not for socking - but for disruptive editing. Fat Man is blocked currently on incivility issues. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should user talk pages be deleted under the right to vanish?[edit]

Page was undeleted and courtesy blanked. Further discussion should be centralized at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:28, 9 November 2010 (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.

This is an issue that's raised time and again, with inconsistent application by admins, so it would be good to get it sorted out so that admins know how to proceed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've contributed there, but I thought WP:RTV already stated clearly that talk pages are normally not deleted. If you refer to the recent deletion and apparent partial oversighting (?) of the talk page of Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), for which I see no apparent reason, I've asked the admin who deleted the user page about it here.  Sandstein  06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, RTV does say that talk pages are rarely deleted, but I think we need to make the guideline clearer one way or the other. Currently, some admins do it, and other don't, which leads to unfairness and people not knowing what best practice is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Avi changed [the] user name [redacted] to [redacted per RTV,  Sandstein  07:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)] and perma banned the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Commented at the RfC; thanks for the heads-up, Sandstein :) -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Struck the oversighting part above. For some apparently technical reasons, some deleted revisions of the talk page did not appear for some time, but now they do.  Sandstein  07:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'll comment here because my comment is about the specific case and not the general RfC: Rlevse's page should stay, because it contains historically important Arbcom-related discussions, which people may need to refer to in the future. By the way, what the heck actually happened to that page, technically? It currently has 11,000 deleted edits in its history, but they are not viewable, and there is also no log entry documenting its deletion. Huh? – That said, I don't know why everybody is so bizarrely overreacting to this affair, on all sides of the issue. Bans? Indef-blocks? Deletions? Renamings? Seriously, what the fuck? Fut.Perf. 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the WTF?, but according to Avraham, he deleted the talk page to protect the real-life privacy of the vanished user, which IMHO outweighs the interest to read old Arbcom discussions.  Sandstein  07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Privacy? If something was said that needs to be oversighted then fix that edit, don't delete the whole thing. Are we supposed to pretend that Rlevse never existed? With neither a clear reason, a discussion, nor a consensus someone has deleted years of discussions about content, policies and procedures that have occurred on that talk page over the years. There are likely mirrors of many of its pages elsewhere on the web, and the user is referred to on countless project and talk pages across Wikipedia. Must we delete all of those too? This is a bad precedent.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, for an ex-Arbitrator whose decisions in Arbcom matters are still in force and whose participation in them must therefore still be discussable, it is plain unacceptable to have his account renamed without an identifying redirect. If a user clicks on his signature on an Arbcom decision, they must be able to recover his edit history. This is not negotiable. Fut.Perf. 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, does this matter for any practical purpose? If a judge retires in real life, do his judgments become invalid because he's no longer working at the court and has no listed address?  Sandstein  07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It very much matters. Arbitrator actors are not detachable from the arbitrator's editing outside the Arbcom page, in the same way a judge's actions in court are detachable from his private life. Rlevse used to discuss his arbcom cases on user talk pages; and there are multiple other ways an arbitrator's actions may be related to interactions of his with other users elsewhere in his editing. All of this needs to be accessible. Fut.Perf. 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I suppose that's one way to look at it. That's why all process interactions should be limited to process pages... But wouldn't the correct forum in which to discuss the deletion be WP:DRV?  Sandstein  07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FPAS:

  1. Anyone can look at the rename log and see who the user is now.
  2. Arbcom should have a record of all their discussions; if they don't, shame on them.
  3. Users have the right to retire, regardless of the positions they have held prior
  4. There is no need for an identifying redirect. What would its purpose be, he is not returning. Period.

-- Avi (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Not every user is wiki-savvy enough to find the rename log, and even for the rest it's a hassle. Of course he has a right to retire, but that doesn't mean his participation in Arbcom may be obscured. As for "should have a record of all their discussions", that's beside the point I made. If I see Rlevse's signature in an Arbcom page, I must be able to figure out how and where he was interacting with (for instance) the other participants of the case outside that page. This is an essential part of the case. That's the purpose of the redirect. And, by the way, if by "period" you think you can just decide this by fiat and be done with it, you'd be mistaken. Fut.Perf. 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and something else, somebody needs to re-register the account name or prevent it from being re-created in some other way, to avoid recreation by impersonators. Fut.Perf. 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to, but it is not possible since the username Rlevse is not available for recreation due to their unified login. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, FPAS.

  1. Have you tried going to the old userpage? The rename is right there at the top, at least it is for me.
  2. His participation in arbcom is not obscured, and if anyone has any questions, I am sure there will be plenty of people who can say, "oh that was so-and-so".
  3. If you see his signature, you will be taken to the userpage with the rename at top. If you se "Vanished xxxxxxx" you'll be taken there; and you can ask.
  4. You can always ask the other people and read the comments. His comments on ArbCom cases and workshop pages will remain; it is solely the user talk that was deleted. AND if you have a good reason, I am sure you can get an admin to read the appropriate diff and get you its contents.
  5. Yes, I am trusting that he will keep his word.

-- Avi (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, when I click on User:Rlevse or User talk:Rlevse, I don't currently find any link to the new account. It's merely a redlink. If you agree to have a redirect there, then I'm covered as far as that is concerned. The deletion of the talk page history is another matter though. Fut.Perf. 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I see it in a red box at the top. You are an admin, you see nothing at the top of User:Rlevse? As for a redirect, that defeats the purpose of the right to vanish. You may be interested in making your opinion known at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a red box too, but it contains only the deletion log, not the renaming log. BTW, about the argument of "you could just ask": if you don't have access to his edit history and/or his talk page history, you might not be able to guess that there is anything to ask about in the first place. Fut.Perf. 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have no reason to guess, then why do you care? Anyopne specifically looking for Rlevse will know where to look or whom to ask (even if you don't see the renames, you see the deletion log). Anyone not looking should not find it; that is the point of RtV. -- Avi (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't remember the specifics, I know that Rlevse's talk page contained several important postings related to an arbcase. Therefore, it should be undeleted, and all future and current arbs should be forced to sign an agreement to prevent the deletion of their talk pages. Deletions like this are completely unacceptable. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that strongly, please comment at the RfC. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That RfC concerns the general issue of deleting user talk pages. For the specific issue of undeleting Rlevse's talk page do we need to open to DRV?   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
He's been a controversial editor, and if he comes back under a different name and edits the same way, his presence will be obvious, yes? And if he doesn't come back, then it's moot, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I find you all completely rivetting, how you can argue on RLevse's behalf. This [7] is totally unacceptable - I can only assume those who left their "lovey" messages are ashamed of them and want them hidden.  Giacomo  08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

11,000+ edits removed in one foul swoop. Crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Erasing all evidence of the user's existence does not strike me as being appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I very much support Rlevse and his desire to leave Wikipedia but the thought of thousands of broken links makes me want to pull my hair out. -- œ 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would normally like to contact the deleting admin (or whoever did this) before reverting, but since the deletion log looks like this:

(collapsed 'cos it widens the page loads – ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
   * (del/undel) 18:42, 3 November 2010 Bencherlite (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (more...)
   * (del/undel) 11:05, 5 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:46, 14 May 2009 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse ‎ (removed content for 1 revision: gaveout IP) (diff | more...)

I am unable to determine who did this deletion. Since it goes against policy, and is not supported by consensus here either, I would have undone it, were I able to. However, it seems as if no mere admin can undelete this, and that a steward may be needed. Any revisions that contain problematic (personal) info can be individually deleted or oversighted if needed. Fram (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for this page ot be deleted. It need to be undeleted fast. What has happened here is against policy and protocol. Support Undelete.  Giacomo  12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please. I really don't see the point in either deleting or restoring that page at this point. Can we at least avoid a steward wheel war about this? Hans Adler 12:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, FPAS' argument makes sense, and it seems to be fixed now anyway. Hans Adler 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, who is this long standing sock [8] who even seems to have admin powers on Rlevse's page [9]. I am getitng very confided here. I think we need some proper explanations.  Giacomo  12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's simply his account, after being renamed, with all of his old contribs. Fut.Perf. 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yerse, I gather that, but how was the account able to have admin powers after we are told Rlevs handed in the tools?  Giacomo  12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have the admin bit, but it took a few seconds of staring for me to follow what had happened there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I wish you would explain because I see Rlevse using admin powers yesterday, days after he supposedly surrenedered them (11:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP)) Giacomo  12:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I do recall yesterday evening that I briefly thought I'd seen the same thing, until I understood from the log that an admin had unprotected his talk and user pages for him so he could put up his wikibreak tags, after which the admin snapped them shut again. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I am starting t have a spinning head, I think you have all been so underhand in this, admins, arbs, opening pages, revising pages, blocking editors, changing names, posting by proxy and supressing discussion. I am begining to think you are all so crooked you would not know yourselves if you met yourselves coming backwards.  Giacomo  12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the page in question has now been restored. David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If the vanishing editor is leaving under a negative cloud (such as the case of Rlevse)? then deletion shouldn't occur. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my undeletion worked after all, it only took some time, because of the number of revisions. Anyway, I can see my undeletion in the log, but not who ever deleted it in the first pace, which is a lack of transparency I don't like. If whoever deleted it has a problem with my action, they are free to contact me at my talk page or here: as stated above, I was unable to do the reverse. Fram (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason you can't see it is because the user was renamed and it took the deletion log with it to the new name. -- œ 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that seemed logical, but the history of the page, and the protection, revdeletion, ... are still at the one I undeleted. Only the full deletion wasn't logged (or at least isn't visible to me or Gwen Gale). The talk page of the new name of Rlevse also doesn't have a deletion log anyway. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I must say, I wasn't thrilled when I couldn't see who had done the deletion, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well ask who did so then?  Giacomo  12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Having read what you posted above, do you think I'm being underhanded? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Having seen all that has been going on and the recent behaviour of Arbs and Admins, I have not a clue what to think anymore.  Giacomo  12:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Anyway, it looks to me as though someone with a meta-wiki bit did the TP deletion. I'd guess it's likely to be found in a public meta log somewhere. Maybe someone in arbcom knows who did it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on this comment,[10] Avraham would seem to be the one to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he may know. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the talk page had more than 5,000 edits, I think Avraham likely used his steward bit to delete it. I can't find the deletion in any of his logs, but I've seen unlogged steward actions now and then before. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse is very clever at finding people on other projects to do his bidding here. I remebber when he imagined he was being outed as Randy in Boisse he found some oversighter who could barely speak English, perhaps the same thing happened again.  Giacomo  13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, I did the deletion as part of the RtV. Likely the logs are messed up b/c of the need for largedelete, which I have as a wikimedia steward. I searched for another steward to do the deletion, but none were available. While my personal opinions are contrary, as I posted at the RfC, I will not contest the undeletion by Fram while this discussion is ongoing. The last thing we need is to wheelwar. The Rlevse saga has caused enough hurt in the project, we should not be adding to it. However, I have courtesy blanked the page and I will protect it; I don't think anyone has issues with that while the discussion is ongoing. -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no special interface, it's just that the delete button works for >5K edits if you are a steward on meta. As to why the logs get messed up, you'd have to ask a developer like Werdna, I don't know. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, courtesy blanking and oversight of specific diffs has long been allowed. Deletion has long been discouraged,, and should be done via MfD. I do appreciate that as a 'Crat you are not expected to have as much knowledge of policies and procedures as non-admins like me, but you could, and should, have checked. Your behaviour was disruptive, contrary to policy, and served only to attract more atention to Rlevse. I do think you should refrain from acting in RTV cases until you can shew a better understanding of policy in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The RtV process at current does not prohibit the deletion of talk pages, Duncan, and sometimes bureaucrats have to make decisions. I appreciate and respect that you disagreed with mine (which was already overturned above by Fram) but being that you were not the one to speak with Rlevse, and I was, I think I have a somewhat better idea as to how much pain he was in. I'm human and will continue to make mistakes, but erring on the side of a human being in my opinion is not a mistake. Also, I have full faith that the wikipedia project can proceed and flourish even if we lose some information; we are too robust for that. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, Rlevse has my sympathy - he's one of the nicest people I've encountered here, as well as one of the very few sensible ones. I don't think he is helped by having you draw attention to him by ignoring policy. Courtesy blanking and protection are the best way to let things die down naturally for him. I am sure you acted with a kind heart, but unfortunately you just made things worse. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I obviously did make it worse, much to my chagrin, but he specifically asked for a talk page deletion, and I made the decision it was warranted. I will maintain, though, that while policy indicates that it is rarely done, it does NOT indicate that it is forbidden. Regardless, I've been reversed and I'm not going to wheelwar, so so be it. I daresay that if there was less vitriol and more compassion by all, even if one felt that Rlevse was undeserving of said compassion, the entire fiasco would have never happened (RtV, deletion, you name it). -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The way it was handled today, blanking the page but leaving the history, was the right way to do it. If there are any individual entries that could compromise the user's privacy or whatever, those could be individually oversighted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the "right to vanish" does not mean "the right to obliterate everything I ever did". Unless there are extremely specific and justifiable concerns of privacy, what anyone puts into this place should remain for good. The "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." line isn't just there for show. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • No IMO, they should not be deleted. A user talk page is a centralized location for figuring out what a user is all about. The reasons for leaving, the kind of editor a person was, though they are available in other locations (ANI, Arb pages, etc.), are most easily examined on the user talk page. Courtesy blanking is fine but leave a viewable history for anyone who wishes to see it. RegentsPark (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not duplicate the RFC at WT:RTV. And please let's not rehash the Rlevse issue at ANI any further, it serves no visible purpose. If any issues associated with it are to be pursued, it should be elsewhere, (re)formulated in a way that may actually lead to a concrete action. Rd232 talk 00:55, 9 November 2010 (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.

Requesting aid with an article that has continuously been page protected to preserve Libel[edit]

Not a libel issue. Further discussion should take place at Talk:MonaVie or WP:RSN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:51, 9 November 2010 (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.

DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There is quite a bit of Libel posted in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

Many users have attempted to remove the libel and it has only resulted in the page being protected for long periods of time. I think something is going on as their seems to be a group of users attempting to control the article for the purpose of Defamation of the company.

I have looked over the sources and found very little evidence to support the claims made in the lead. Could we have something done about the Slander Please? Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What do you allege is libelous? Also, what is your connection to that MonaVie company? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is surely the same user who has posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Vandalism of Article as an IP, and furthermore this is surely the indefinitely blocked User:Ott jeff, whose whole Wikipedia career consisted of promoting and defending MonaVie. Any chance for a duck block? Gavia immer (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ott jeff itself is not currently blocked. He was at one time, but was unblocked upon promising to follow the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any current connection to the company I only noticed problems with the article. If people would just see the points I am making instead of attacking me I think you would see the facts. I looked through the sources and The FDA never warned MonaVie directly and yet thats how the article reads.

The sources don't provide any details on how Dallin Larsen was involved with any false health claims they just say he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Is there not policies on wikipedia on information about living persons and what to do if they are improperly sourced?

There is no mention in the sources of the MonaVie company making any claims at all its just not there in the sources there is only mention of another guys website making claims and being warned.

If it is similar to a pyramid scheme would that not mean that everything on wikipedia with a pyramid shape such as countries and companies to be fair need to be called that? The source of the pyramid scheme allegations here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html is really a review of another organization called TEAM and not of the company of MonaVie.

And the 1% of people make a profit part is contested in two of the other sources provided. One source has numbers like 45% and 37% and another source disputes the 1% comment and yet the article leans to the weight of the POV of the 1% statement.It is a valid point to make that distributor is also the first rank in this company and many stay at that rank as they are only purchasing products with no attention to make a profit so the statement "and very few distributors actually make a profit." isn't very necessary.

I am simply challenging the articles views and from what I see the sources don't support these statements and I found that there is a confusion here of what TEAM is and what MonaVie is and what an independent distributors website is and what the MonaVie Companies website is and these lead to the POV of the article being extremely off and misleading to readers.

I wish to improve the article however instead of my findings receiving an unbiased review I am attacked and accused of sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Thanks Alot! DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How about listing the top 5 "libelous" claims, along with sourcing refuting such claims? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the attack on the CEO and calling the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is libel and the crap about claims coming from the company not being scientifically confirmed or approved yeah Im pretty confident in saying this is a distortion of the facts and libel. So you were previously involved in this article as well?

Are there any admins here that can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie without bias. Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I was previously uninvolved with this article, and have looked. When Forbes claims that "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." about Monavie, then us reporting that "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as [...] the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" is not in any way libelous or otherwise problematic, but just reporting what reliable sourcs have said about the company. These sources may be incorrect, but then you will need to find a retraction of their statements, or Forbes etc. getting a conviction for libel for those articles, or other reliable independent sources of similar standing refuting the arguments of Forbes and so on. Whitewashing the (lead of the) article and coming here for help in it won't work, and continued disruption of the article will lead to either protection of the article, or blocking of the disruptive editors. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

However you miss the point entirely when reading the Forbes article "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." "Orrin Woodward, cofounder of a company called Team" the article is about the company of TEAM and not about the company of MonaVie. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html DavidR2010 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

No, I don't. "Hope, for most of Woodward's audience, is a fruit juice gussied up in a wine bottle labeled MonaVie and sold for $39. Unload enough of this stuff on friends, recruit them to do the same, and you can be rich." and "Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" It is very obvious for anyone looking at this objectively that MonaVie is the pyramid, Team is the pyramid atop a pyramid, and hence "one step ahead" of other pyramid schemes. Fram (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright Fram so you are saying that because this source calls MonaVie a pyramid it is safe for wikipedia to compare it to a Pyramid Scheme? Look at the definition of a pyramid scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme.

Are you you saying Monavie has no investment or sale of products or services to the public and that MonaVie is a form of fraud? Accusing a company of fraud seems serious enough to me. And why no mention about the other points I made?

I think the admins here should just decide to play it safe with this article. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I think what other editors have been trying to tell you is that Wikipedia isn't the place to fix your concerns - the article (like the rest of Wikipedia) reports what other sources say about the company. You need to address your concerns with those other sources first (e.g., get a retraction or print an update) before the article on Wikipedia will end up being changed. Shell babelfish 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
When Forbes says a company is a pyramid scheme, it's pretty much settled that it is a pyramid scheme. See WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let me get this straight if Forbes says MonaVie is a Pyramid then it is assumed they mean it is a Pyramid Scheme and that automatically makes MonaVies product line dissapear magically and also makes them a fraud? How the heck does that make sense? It doesn't that is the issue we need to use common sense here to improve the article.

What about the other issues Do the sources really say Dallin Larsen was involved in false health claims of another company? Is he some kind of scientist that would know what does and doesn't work? All I see is that he quit a year before the FDA shut it down is it not POV to say he was involved based on that? What about the other statements about the company of MonaVies health claims not being scientifically confirmed or approved? Wheres the proof of the FDA having issues with claims that the MonaVie company made. Whats the big deal its only juice?

And why is it notable to say very few distributors make a profit? Is that an attempt to scare people away from building a business? Is it not a fact that most people don't make a profit in life? DavidR2010 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

If you want to contest what Forbes said, you need to take it up with them.
If the MonaVie company has pubilished a refutation of Forbes' claims, that would be suitable for inclusion in the article, in general. Have they?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This reminds me of the argument I got into with Insider201283 regarding claims regarding pyramid schemes in general (Talk:Pyramid_scheme/Archive_1#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant). It got quite bizarre as his argument was effectively claiming books published by Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press were unreliable because they were saying there were such things as legal pyramid schemes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2010 (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.

I am a terrorist...[edit]

WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: Thank you for the input Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

174.118.149.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[11]

...as are Materialscientist and Jpgordon

Comments?

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Constant reverting without discussion or reasons point the "terrorist" label to Seb az86556. Name calling and labelling help your cause a lot...NOT! --Special:Contributions/174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else see a problem here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could start by cleaning up your signature.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It's Navajo, right?
174, please stop calling people "vandals" and "terrorists" if you wish to be taken seriously at all -- have a look at what vandalism is, for a start. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If the user is vandalizing the page then the normal warn/block process should work, no?    Thorncrag  05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Was blocked. Returns with different IP and restores the talkpage section on "Administrator terrorism"... I don't know what to do with this anymore. I need someone else's opinion. I don't appreciate "vandal", much less so "terrorist". Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
174 does not appear to be a vandal, but he's a persistent edit-warrior, and has been blocked at least twice (that I saw on a quick look). The section on "Talk:Long_and_short_scales#Administrator_Terrorism" indicates he doesn't quite get it. 174, will you please stop the name-calling and discuss calmly what your issue is with the article, on that talk page? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I give up. You have your power trip. Discussion was open and you made it clear none was wanted by deleting my edits, threatening me and removing my comments. --174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By now, at least 5 other people have warned you, disagreed with you, blocked you, reverted you, and declined your unblock request. No bell ringing. And no, I don't think I have to "discuss" whether I am a terrorist or not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

174.118.149.54 and 173.35.12.221 do geolocate the same. Given the evidence, a block would probably be uncontroversial given the extensive warnings and blocks already imposed.    Thorncrag  05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to at least take a crack at reasoning with him. Unfortunately, he shows a pattern we see commonly with some new editors -- immediately jump into a revert war on even a mild disagreement; shout and stamp feet and call the other editor abusive names; claim it's our fault, threaten to run away, we won't get their great contributions, etc. Bullying and abusive behavior are so endemic on the internet that I wonder if a majority of our first-time editors expect it to be that way here too. Often enough it turns out to be self-fulfilling, as an abusive newbie is unlikely to encounter someone calm and patient -- two qualities in short supply on Wikipedia these days. Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. –George W. Bush 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

At least this is a different take than the usual "Nazi" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist moving thread[edit]

Resolved: It's here, and that's where it's staying. GedUK  09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a thread above asking for a community ban for SRQ. I moved it to AN because that is the proper venue for discussion of community bans (they can take place here when they arise naturally from a discussion regarding a specific incident}. Ncmvocalist moved it back, and when I attempted to correct his error, reverted me in the middle of the process. I'm backing off now, will someone please inform Ncmvocalist of the proper placement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him of this. Also, he changed the title of the thread, overriding the request of the initiatoing editor with his own opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
From WP:BAN:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so. He's misrepresented the way the title of the thread was changed; it shows he has no clue of what is going on when he edits here: he didn't look into what it was the user was actually requesting and why it was that the discussion started here (not AN). Ban policy' was amended when the Community rejected the view that all ban discussions must take place at AN. Policy now permits ban discussions to start at ANI (Community banning discussions generally take place at the administrators' noticeboard 'or a subpage thereof. [emphasis added]) That's why another ban discussion is also taking place in this venue (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_proposal:_User:Justa_Punk) and why other ban discussions have also taken place at this venue (irrespective of whether it stems from an incident). That Beyond My Ken isn't happy with this development doesn't mean his views trump policy (never mind the fact that policy isn't fully up to date). He boldly moved it to AN and it was reverted; instead of discussing anything at all, he's come here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so.

    Thank you!, that gave me the best laugh I've had all day.

    Oh, and I restored the word "disruptively" from the title I gave this section. I meant "disruptively" and I stick by it. Your disagreement with my assessment doesn't authorize you to change what I wrote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's well established that you do not use titles to grind your personal axe. Please cease unless you wish to be blocked; the alternative is to keep the username as the title on its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're supposed to keep you headings neutral (not that that guideline isn't frequently ignored on this page). Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you insist that "disruptive" remain? I didn't find his reversions disruptive, and he explained them in his edit summary, and from what I read, it makes more sense to keep the thread here. Why haven't you tried to discuss this with Ncmvocalist on his talk page?---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, because Ncmv was moving the thread back, Doc of Soc's comment ended up floating free and posted to the wrong thread over at AN. I initially moved the thread when I did because I happened to be here just after the thread was posted, so it could be moved without any dislocation. As for the title of this thread, it is "neutral", in the sense that it neutrally presents the problem I saw with his moves, that they were disruptive. The title is not pejorative or a personal attack, it's a dstraight-forward description. I can't help it that Ncmv objects to it - many people object to having their disruptive behavior called out.

Anyway, what I came here to say before I leave this thread was to point out this consensus discussion on WT:Banning policy, in which it was established that AN was the preferred venue, because ANI is archived too quickly, among other reasons.

So that's it from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, one more thing -- I see that the thread has now attracted comments, so at this point I think it's too late to move it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Please note the use of the "anchor" statement, just above the section header (go into edit mode on the previous section), which preserves links to the previous titles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral page moving against consensus[edit]

Resolved

The article currently named Eggenberg Castle, Graz is so named because one user has recently moved it unilaterally on two occasions, firstly [12] and now again (after it was moved to a compromise title) [13] and [14]. All this despite the fact that there is a move discussion ongoing, there is clearly no consensus for it to be called "Castle", and the user making these unilateral moves hasn't contributed a word to that discussion. Could an admin please take a look and move the article to the appropriate place (I would suggest back to the original title, before the minor move war began, until consensus is reached in the discussion), and perhaps give some friendly advice to User:Gryffindor about respecting and engaging in the consensus-forming process. (I could trawl back in the logs to show that this isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing and had it brought to his attention, but I'm not asking for any sanction to be applied, just for it to be pointed out how we properly do things.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't really see consensus on the talk page. WP:NC suggests that we title articles according to common English-language usage. A rough-and-ready google comparison, excluding Wikipedia results, shows 6560 results for "Eggenburg Palace" and 9050 for "Eggenburg Castle". Make of that what you will.
It takes two sides to move-war. However, as a fellow admin Gryffindor should really know better than to short-circuit the consensus-building process and impose a solution while discussion is underway. I'm not going to reverse their move (see WP:WHEEL), but I suggest that you conclude discussion on the talk page and, when you can show a policy-based consensus for one name or another (a few suggestions have been made), request the move via WP:RM. I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well not really, since it implies that someone can simply get away with, as you put it, short-circuiting the consensus-building process simply by virtue of having admin status (I find it rather astonishing that he's an admin, but in any case, it doesn't seem relevant to this issue, since the behaviour in question could have been done by anyone). If people can just get their way by move warring (no, it doesn't "take two to move war" - if A moves, B moves back per BRD, then A moves again, then only A is move warring) totally ignoring discussion, then that is how things will come to be decided. It's not up to me or anyone else to show a consensus for some name; it's up to him, as the person proposing a change; and if he can't show such consensus (and he has shown such contempt - now I discover he's an admin, I feel stronger language is justified - for community processes as not even to lower himself to participate in the discussion), then his action should be reversed. Ideally by himself, but if that doesn't happen, I would expect another admin to do it (and really have a serious word with him about how to use his admin rights).--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to back up my assertion that this user (admin!) has a history of this sort of behaviour, I've found this previous discussion which resulted from the exact same thing. (I see he does a lot of page moves, most of which are probably useful and totally unobjectionable, but I would have thought he needed to learn that when an issue is or has been the subject of discussion, then he doesn't get to just make the decision himself.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski, you can put your axe down. I didn't see that there was a discussion going on about the rename, sorry about that. I'll put in my feedback there. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But you remember doing exactly the same move before, right, so you knew it was opposed? Oh all right, consider this resolved (I assume you'll move the page back to its original name if your proposal doesn't get consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Err, not sure what you mean with "doing the same move before", but whatever it is I'm sure we can discuss the name over on the talk page. Gryffindor (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate[edit]

Resolved

This article is being repeatedly blanked out by this user. He claims to be the subject of the article, and wants the article removed. I am unsure of what policy this comes under, but his repeated blanking is a definite COI. Can an administrator please look into this? And please put a lock on the page for now - Amog | Talkcontribs 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved this from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), as it is an ongoing incident right this minute. I have no comment on this otherwise. Gavia immer (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Article has apparently now been proposed for deletion, looks like the best course of action. ~ <