Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive676

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

Noticeboard archives


More vandal fighters please[edit]

We need more vandal fighters on a regular basis. This has been up for nearly a full day, and this was up for five hours. Who knows what else got missed. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is borked right now, which is why NPP is getting flooded as well. Hopefully that's resolved very soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, all this edit needed was a CN-tag, no? ;) As for Twinkle--that's irritating enough. Fortunately some of the old folk around here still remember how to type "db-band" and "subst:uw-vandal1." Hear that, Blade? A blast from the past! Practice your typing, and re-read this--I'm quizzing you tomorrow morning. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Twinkle is for pussies anyway; I don't use it and on good days I'm so fast I get mistaken for a bot... HalfShadow 05:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I manually tagged pages for months before I started using Twinkle; don't worry. It just takes longer, that's all. ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
On the bright side, this is a chance to bring our automated edit percentages down, to satisfy those who hate 'em *ahem*WP:RFA*cough*. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • cough*Huggle*cough* I've long preferred it to Twinkle. Banaticus (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
For vandalism, yes; for NPP, I'll stick with Twinkle, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing things manually while Twinkle isn't around, but I'm much slower at it when I have to dig out and paste in warnings manually. Also, I suspect a lot of people will just have stopped NPP altogether while they wait for Twinkle to be fixed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's back (although still not marking pages as patrolled), I've been running full tilt- I have to stop for a few hours, but it's good to be back all the way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there's some way to keep track of the number of active vandal fighters at a given time? Some automated way to see the number of users who have made GLOO or HUGGLE edits in the past 15 minutes or so. I've had a few times lately when I've gone RC-patrolling in GLOO where it seemed like I was the only vandal fighter on duty. The alert levels are nice, but they don't tell you how well-manned the defenses are and that I feel is important for best allocating labor between building the encyclopedia and keeping vandals at bay. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be easy enough to watch the recent changes feed and count the number of edit-summary adverts for the tools. –xenotalk 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
STiki from the University of Pennsylvania is also worth a look. It uses a different metric and a revert/pass/innocent trichotomy. Pass edits get returned to a "pool" for other users to check. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
TW is back up. What we really need is a tool that interfaces with Cluebot. Whitelist-based tools are simply ineffective in my experience. You have to wade through dozens of good edits in order to find one case of vandalism. A cluebot-interfaced tool would monitor pages recently reverted by cluebot, users recently reverted by cluebot, and the edits cluebot didn't revert on but were close to the revert threshold. Such a tool would be much more effective. Anybody know how to write code for that? N419BH 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As the author of WP:STiki, I'll chime in here. My tool does interface with Cluebot, it is one of several "queues" that users can pick from. When Cluebot suspects an edit is vandalism, but doesn't have enough confidence to pull the revert trigger -- it is shown to user's of my tool. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-organization of Amusement Parks and Summer Camps categories and content.[edit]

If you look at:

you will find more defunct parks than active parks in many states. Since there is a category for defunct parks, and since it is a great waste of time for people looking for active parks to click on all the dead parks, I would like permission to move all inactive parks to the defunct category. This is also true for summer camps.

Also, every state has a subcategory of waterparks, which creates redundant entries and rather ludicrous directories, like a state that has 2 parks, and a sub-category with only one waterpark. So, I would like to get permission to migrate all waterparks to the state level.

Wiki commons has a single category of parks for all states, and that list is going to get huge, as North America has 65 combo parks, 34 large amusement parks, 237 waterparks (and hundreds of smaller aquatic centers and fun parks, which should not be in a Wiki anyway). So I would like to create a set of commons sub-categories for each state, identical to the wiki articles.

With over 850 traditional summer camps (not including scouting, day camps and special needs camps) it gets confusing to have summer schools in the list. I would like to utilize the category for schools, and clean out the traditional camps directory.

I am doing all of this in preparation for a massive 2011 update to the summer vacation wiki categories. Tons of photos will be uploaded, all CC3.0, and hundreds of Wikis created. After that I am going to walk on water and ascend to heaven.

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer Vacation (talkcontribs) 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! Can I ride on your coattails in that last part? (Seriously, though, that sounds like fun. Let me know if you need help creating articles.) David Able 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As a Category Gnome, let me weight in on this. If your intention is to have a separate "Defunct Park" category for each state, and have that category under the current category for the state, then I would agree with the idea. It seems like a logical separation, and would serve a useful purpose.
I'm not really sure what the ultimate use of this current posting is, though. It's not really an idea that needs Admin assistance or input. If you are looking for general input, you might be better asking at an amusement park wikiproject, or at the Village Pump. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user[edit]

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This is a clear case of refusal to get the point and vandalism. User talk:Mathiiuz is continually changing the sourced cover of Blow (song), this has been ongoing for weeks, he will not discuss it, he just changes it despite multiple warnings, and a warning on the actual page stating if the cover is changed without discussion its vandalism, yet he still changes it. a block is in order. Please share your thoughts. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


Took a look, and it doesn't appear to be vandalism. It appears to be a content dispute. Both users are changing to their

preferred cover. L-1 CLK-1-1 appears to be using a downloaded cover, Mathiiuz is using the actual album cover. I'm not really sharp on all image policies, so I'll let someone else who knows that area better than I say anything about which image is got the right useage for it and what not, but , as I said, this appears to be a content dispute. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies maybe im incorrect on it being vandalism, if so i apologize. WP:VANDTYPES, "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. <---- which is vandalism, but also a content dispute i guess as well, continual removal of an sourced cover is not in good faith, especially when he is refusing to read his talk page messages or communicate. Am i incorrect? O_O - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:IllaZilla acting as though he is the owner of The Boat That Rocked[edit]

User:IllaZilla is acting as though he is the owner of The Boat That Rocked article. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He has undone almost every edit that has been made to the article by other editors since his first edit on January 6th. I raised this issue at his talk page, but it has not altered his controlling editing. What can be done to loosen his editing grip on this article? Mice never shop (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most recent 50 edits to the article go back to late December 2010 and don't include any edits by you. Furthermore, IllaZilla's edits seem to be documented and, generally, make reference to existing policy. Whether they are correct or not is perhaps subject to discussion, but the appropriate place for such would be on the talk page of the article, not here. Finally, I don't see the required notice on User talk:IllaZilla regarding this thread being started. Did you see the big orange bar at the top of the page when you created the section? (I will add the required notice.)  Frank  |  talk  02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On an close issue. Would you please declare your sock puppet on your user page. (Your are claiming "I" did something but that is another account.) I am currently assuming good faith/that you don't know how this works. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)It seems that signbot was a bit jumpy. I read the signbot signature and then looked at the diff. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sinebot fooled me when an apparent e/c was corrected by a possibly unrelated user. Still, I see two edits by you (User:Mice never shop) that were reverted by IllaZilla, and that was weeks ago. I still don't see the issue here.  Frank  |  talk  02:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kinda agree. Its not uncommon for users to keep pages that they edit regularly on a watch list, so it just looks as if IllaZilla is just keeping up with general upkeep of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment by the accused: I think this is fairly groundless. To my recollection I reverted User:Mice never shop (MNS) on 2 issues: (1) where he split up what he perceived as a run-on sentence and broke a paragraph after only 2 sentences, which I perceived as poor structure and to which I left direct explanations both in my edit summary and at the thread he started on my talk page, and (2) another where he insisted on adding "coming-of-age film" to the lead, an issue which I discussed at length in a thread that MNS started on the article's talk page (a discussion in which MNS never commented beyond his initial post, and in which an RfC—not started by me—involving 5 editors determined that Mice's wording was not appropriate). I don't really think I need to say anything more, except that since I started work on the article in November all of my efforts have been to improve it: trimming down the plot, tidying up the cast, removing unref'd & irrelevant trivia, and reverting vandalism and other unhelpful edits like overlinking. Any content disputes that have arisen I have directly addressed and discussed on the article's talk page, whereas Mice has only ever made 1 comment on the article's talk page. I can't help feeling that this is simply MNS lashing out because consensus didn't go his way. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ugh, that run on is particularly nasty and should be fixed. Other than that; from here your actions seem fine here. --Errant (chat!) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Augsburg Railway Park[edit]

Would an admin look over the recent history of this article and maybe do some REVDELs as necessary please. I'm not 100% sure of using this part of the toolbox, so I'd rather leave it to someone who is. I've blocked the perpetrator indefinitely and see no reason to let them back any time soon. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All other editing by Hälleren (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) should also be looked at. Use of German obscenities seems to be being picked up by CluebotNG. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've got some; somebody else is also on it, I see. I left the ones to his own talk page, as they are (imo) garden variety and not BLP issues, even though one of them is personalized. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not so, it's apparently the real name of another editor. As such, it should go. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done that one myself. The Foxtrot Oscar one is not serious enough to worry about. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There's way worse than "so and so is a pig" in my userpage vandalism history. :) "ordinary" incivility and personal attacks are excluded from revision deletion, and that seems to fall into the latter to me, but I'm not that nuanced in German. Perhaps "schwein" has far more dire associations than I know. In any event, I'm not comfortable using revdeletion on such a statement, though I'm not bothered if you do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not so much that, but the BLP OUTING issue. I know who is being referred to but am not saying on here. Erring on the side of caution, but if another admin reviews and undoes, then it is fine with me. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I didn't follow that it was the secret real name of another editor. :) Yes, that should go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotional editing by Ramosa138[edit]

Ramosa138 is a new editor and WP:SPAM, that has been repeatedly warned for adding promotional material to Wikipedia, whose very briefly responded to those warnings here.

Additionally, Ramosa138 submitted this for article creation.

Since receiving a final warning, Ramosa138 added this to Love Systems. I believe that it is enough for a block for continued use of Wikipedia for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would block right now, except that since you referred him here, he might want to make a reply, or the report may have persuaded him to stop. . But if he makes one more substantial promotional edit, I will block to stop the ongoing promotional disruption. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Ramosa138 made some edits while I was writing the above that were a step in the right direction, and has now contacted me about this situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read the messages and because of that i have decided to delete the changed. I promise i wont make this mistake again. I am now looking at in detail to the tutorials and instructions of that is right and what is wrong. please give me one more chance. thank you. "" Ramosa138"" ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

That's fine with me. I do think it would be helpful if others could provide some guidance here, on Ramosa138's talk page, or at the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical edits at Ron Atanasio[edit]

Ratanasio has been adding unsourced information to this article. I reverted the edits and tried to explain various policies and guidelines such as BLP, V, RS, NPOV, etc, but the user reverts me and has not communicated. Some assistance would be most helpful. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the sourced version and left him a note directing him to discuss any issues he has regarding the accuracy of the article on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added a better infobox and removed all unreferenced information. GiantSnowman 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to understand another user's block[edit]

Hallo, I'm trying to understand the block of Otto4711 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely on 25 September 2010 by user:Vanished 6551232. So far I found the page

which however does not explain the reason for the block of Otto4711. Also, around the time of this block I found the threat

and from there to the Diff [1].

First I first thought Vanished 6551232 would be some kind of name, however it turns out that this is the former account "Rlevse", which entirely has been deleted as an account by another administrator. Why has Rlevse been deleted, and is the person Rlevse still an administrator in this project?

I understand that according to a Difflink provided by Rlevse, Otto4711 has changed a signature of Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) in an AFD on 26 July 2010: [2].

Also both accounts, Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711, have been Checkusered, again by this (former?) administrator Rlevse/Vanished 6551232. And Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711 have edited on a large number of the same pages. However, I don't know of a discusion, where both accounts would have edited stimultaniously without revealing their possible identity, or how one of them would have used the other as a Sockpuppet in any other abusive way.

So, from what I know so far, I don't understand how Are You The Cow Of Pain? or Otto4711 (or the person behind them if he is the same) would have abused the project, and what the excact reason for their blocks is,

--Schwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Otto, but I do know that Rlevse left the project not too long ago because of certain incidents and asked for his account to be deleted under the right to vanish. That's why his username is like that. SilverserenC 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder why people dig into these things, but the SPI report is quite clear: Otto4711 created an account named "Eddie's Teddy" in order to evade a block.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the Wikistalk result comparing Schwalker (the OP) and Otto4711. There's not a great deal of article overlap between them, but what there is cannot be explained by simple commonality of interest: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, List of persons considered father or mother of a field, Godwin's law. I bring this up not because of a lack of AGF, but because there doesn't appear to be any particular reason for Schwalker to care about Otto4711, and he or she is being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject of Otto4711's block. Naturally, that brings up concerns about motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to ask Schwalker how they missed this on the block log: ‎(Abusing multiple accounts: do not unblock without contacting arbcom first), which would have indicated that the place to go to inquire about this block was ArbCom. Why have you not contacted ArbCom, instead choosing to post on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 and here? Why not go to the source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Per the archive, confirmed socks of Otto4711:
Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your responds. I don't have the impression that all of my I questions have been answered so far, but since some questions have been posed to me, I will try to answer them.

Thanks Silver seren for the information about Rlevse. I've now learned that he has left the project, so he probably formally ist no administrator anylonger. I don't know of the "certain incidents" for which Rlevse left the project, and if he did something wrong as an administrator, but am not yet convinced it was all correct what he did in the case of the Otto4711 account.

Kww, you probably misread the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive. Otto 4711 had been acused in October 2009 of having evaded a block by using the account Eddie's Teddy. Back then, Eddie's Teddy was blocked, and Otto4711 was warned, but not blocked for using a sockpuppet. But this old incident is no sufficient explanation for blocking Otto4711 now in September 2010.

As already stated on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711, I don't know Otto4711, but have read very reasonable contributions in many discussions about categories, so I'm completely surprized by the block of this user.

I must also admit to feel a bit surprized by tone and content of Beyond my Kens's answer. Actually, when I posted this request here yesterday, I did not expect that the first thing an administrator would have in mind would be to start a statitistical analysis of my own edits, and compare them with the edits of blocked users.

How Beyond my Ken can easily see, I had made exactly two edits so far yesterday concerning the case of Otto4711 (here on the admin noticeboard and on the sockpuppets inverstigations talk), so I don't know how he comes to his assessment of me "being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject". Further, how "being fairly persistent" would even be a matter of "concerns about motivation" is beyond me.

I did not miss the block log entry. I am no administrator in this project, so I can't unblock users, and even have no very concrete idea what an "Arbcom" is or does. Since the "source" of this block is user:Vanished 6551232, to my understanding Vanished 6551232 would be the first place to inquire about the block, who however as explained above has left this project.

Of course my concern is that a mistake of law should be avoided. That is to avoid a situation, where first an able author (who probably has a number of opponents in this project) is blocked infinitely for unclear or even unjustified reasons, and then other sockpuppets are again and again attributed to this user, so that eventually it is almost impossible for him to return to the project.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the reasonable suspicion, Schwalker does not match Otto4711's recent socks on a technical basis, and I personally don't find the behaviour compelling evidence. To answer Schwalker's basic question: whether Otto4711 originally should have been blocked is really no longer the question. His account is blocked, and he has been using alternate accounts to get around it. He's been doing that so persistently that now the only way to get his account restored is by contacting the arbitration committee and making his case.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: User:Beyond My Ken is not now, nor has ever been, an admin. Also, despite the negative CU check (which did net a couple of new Otto4711 socks) Schwalker's interest in Otto4711's block remains inexplicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep: inexplicable. Just not compelling in my view. There are a lot of things people do that I can't explain. Heymid has gotten very interested in a few sockpuppeteers that I deal with, for example, but there's substantial evidence that he isn't any of them. He just found my treatment of them objectionable.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've occasionally taken an interest in blocks I'm not involved in, mostly if I am trying to learn more about the finer points of policy or if the reason for the block wasn't entirely transparent. In this case the block log is pretty clear, but I can see how a block log with a final entry from "Vanished 6551232" would look odd to someone who isn't familiar with the right to vanish. I'm not comfortable with the way the spotlight was quickly turned on Schwalker (even though I'm aware that boomeranging is always a concern). It's not like they could inquire with the blocking admin, after all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's true, but they could have contacted ArbCom, which would have been the logical thing to do, given the notation in the block log. And Kww, I'm not disputing your decision not to block, with the negative CU that was entirely reasonable. The behaviorial evidence was, in my opinion, sufficient to run a CU, but not enough to block on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good evening.

A basic question is not answered by simply claiming that the question "is no longer the question". So far, the only two sockpuppets of Otto4711 which were confirmed through checkuser were "Eddie's Teddy" in 2009 and "Are You The Cow Of Pain?", according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#21_October_2010 and the answers by Rlevse on his user talk. To my understanding, all later accounts have been attributed to Otto4711 because of their edit behaviour, but not by direct checkuser with "Otto4711", "Eddie's Teddy", or "Are You The Cow Of Pain?". While I would agree that it is likely that they are sockpuppets of Otto4711, the only "abuse" would be to evade the questionable block by Rlevse from September 2010.

Can anyone please explain to me what is going on here? First I have to read that apparently I am under "reasonable suspicion". I've been working for this project over a period of more than four years now, and have collaborated on articles and in discussions with a number of other authors.

Then I have to read something about a "technical basis". I really cannot believe this, but have to ask if this means that you have now checked my private user-information, just because I've asked a simple question here?

Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really aren't seeing what Schwalker did that was so bad here. If he would like to question a block I would say he has every right to do so. Now, would someone please answer his questions? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 00:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to answer his questions, but I'll try again. A user doesn't get to create socks to evade a block he believes is questionable. Questionable or not, the initial block has to be undone, or any subsequent account believed to be from the same user will be blocked. It really doesn't matter why Otto4711 was blocked in the first place, his actions subsequent to that block are blockable in and of themselves. And yes, a checkuser was run on the Schwalker account. I provided a link to the investigation above.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Schwalker hasn't done anything "bad." However, there've been a lot of blocked users who come to ANI using a sockpuppet account, trying to argue they should be unblocked, while pretending to be an uninvolved party. Folks here are a bit gunshy when an uninvolved person pops up randomly asking about a blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This inquiry is possibly related to Schwalker's recent retirement from the German Wikipedia, although I haven't read much into that. It would of course be easiest, if Schwalker were more forthcoming in telling the reason for this inquiry, rather than calling it a "simple question".--Atlan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the reason, Schwalker is not letting go of the issue: [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not understanding why we have editors failing to assume good faith here. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I rarely see any good, faith or otherwise, in editors white-knighting for one another. If Otto4711 wishes to be unblocked, then he can make a request to do so on his own. We don't need wiki-public defenders. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in it. If an editor wants to call an action into question, let them, and treat them civily and assume good faith, particularly if it is an established editor as Schwalker is. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by demeaning the idea of a "wiki-public defender.".. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between assuming good faith, and not applying due diligence for the sake of it, also known as naivete.--Atlan (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The point I was making about "wiki-public defenders" is...don't be one. If a user wishes to be unblocked, the solution is in their own hands. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Your second statement is undoubtedly true, up to a point. However I have seen many cases where someone has needed a "wiki-public defender" or at least would benefit from one. We even had a system for it at one point. And while I would advise anyone who asked me "don't be one", I still have admiration for anyone that takes on that role. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
And I can't believe we ran a checkuser on Schwalker, maybe the system has changed, but last time I read the procedures that would have been counted as a fishing expedition. Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

───────────────────────── This is a clear breakdown of good faith here, the check user was a fishing expedition and inexcusable. If I questioned an editor's block, would I then have a check user run to see whether I am somehow related to them? That's ridiculous, I may just question a few editor's blocks to make it more commonplace if that's the case. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's only fishing if you have no idea which account is linked to which. In this case, the Schwalker account was checked to see if it was related to Otto4711. I think the checkuser was kind of a knee-jerk reaction, but I certainly wouldn't call it "inexcusable".--Atlan (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." We've had so many socks troll this page trying to get themselves unblocked that it's at least worth questioning why an unrelated account is becoming involved. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Tarc has frequently accused me of bad faith because I defend other editors, even editors who may have been doing some things wrong. I consider doing this a moral obligation for myself as the way to prevent the ill effects of bullying and mobbing. The classic explanation for defense attorneys in the legal system is that anyone is entitled to defend themselves, but the system is so complex and technical that most people need somebody who understands the rules to speak for them, and their role can be seen in the same way as the role of a translator: they say no more than what the person would say himself if he knew how to say it. A second frequent reason--the reason why lawyers themselves employ other lawyers to defend them--is that nobody can be objective in their own case, and will not be able to tell what are the arguments that should and should not be made, or know when it is best to remain silent, or will defend themselves in so improper a manner as to arouse antagonism. The refusal of effective defense counsel is generally seen as characteristic of tyrannies. In the US, from the beginning of the Republic, such refusal was one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independences, and reiterated in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps Wikipedia should be a place where this is not necessary, but that's contrary to the plain facts. The system here is complicated, with many of the rules both abstruse and self contradictory, with many of them unwritten, and no one who is not very experienced in how we work here can properly defend themselves against an attack by someone who does know how. The system of community judgment is very susceptible to vote-stacking and sockpuppetry and manipulation, leading to piling-on and mobbing. And, of course, people who get into trouble are frequently inept in being apply to articulate a proper defense. We are not a formal governmental structure, but even administrative agencies preserve this right. Wikipedia --despite initial expectations--is now so important in the world and so prominent that this gives us a commensurate responsibility to act and be seen to act, in an open and equitable manner. This applies very strongly to our articles: that why we found it necessary to adopt the rules of BLP and (probably) accept the inconvenience of pending changes. It also applies to our treatment of one another.
If anyone wonders, I'll give a personal note: the reason I did not become a lawyer is because I could not face the emotional effects of losing cases involving people whom I would inevitably come to know personally. The reason I can adopt a role like this at Wikipedia is that I do not know the people personally and thus can maintain sufficient emotional distance. I am aware that some people employ this sort of emotional distance here to attack more freely than they would be willing in the real world--the counter to that is to use it to muster up the courage to defend them.
As I understand ethical defense attorneys do, when someone has obviously done wrong, I advise them to admit it, & if they intend to conduct a clearly dishonest defense, I will not assist them. And I am saying this in the context of an attempted defense of Otto, an editor with whom I came into very frequent context. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
First, the check here is well within checkuser discretion. There's at least a reasonable suspicion that Schwalker may have been Otto. Second, if we are really going to borrowing from legal systems, then forgive me for not seeing how someone who is not Otto has standing to challenge Otto's block. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with the running of a checkuser in this situation, nor am I disagreeing the block. But with respect to the question you ask, I think any user has standing to challenge any action by an admin. The unique feature of being an admin here is our ability to take drastic action even without prior consultation. Hence the need for accountability to anyone who might ask: the necessary counterpart to our very facile use of authority is the knowledge of the very facile ability to challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh. That's totally not the impression I got from your soliloquy above. Thanks for clarifying. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone should have the right to question any admin action at any time. That is one of the few, and yet weak, protection against rogue admins. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Everyone does. Anyone that investigates the block of someone with 19 confirmed socks should expect that reasonable people will suspect that he is sock 20.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sort of a "Fellow traveller" argument? Are you now or have you ever been a sock of Otto? :-] Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

OK bottom line. Otto was blocked by a then ArbCom member, and the instruction was not to unblock without asking ArbCom first. As far as I know Otto has not requested an unblock, therefore no one has the desire to ask ArbCom about it. The reason for the actual indef block (as opposed to previous blocks) remains obscure. Is that correct? Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Not obscure. Checkuser confirmed socking combined with a block log like Otto4711's would have prompted many admins to issue an indefinite block.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes but Cow edited in 2010, and Otto's last block was 2009, so there was no question of avoiding a block. There's no injunction against multiple accounts in general, there has to be evidence of abuse - which there may well be. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
During the first CU, Otto was issued with this warning "so I am going to let Otto4711 off with a firm warning. He needs to stick with one account and not further violate the WP:SOCK policy, including the "Misusing a clean start" and "Avoiding scrutiny" items". Even thought a CU clerk (or a CU) can't issue any sort of binding warning, if a user has already received such a warning (and gave this response [4] [5] indicating they read it even if they didn't agree), I would argue a block of some sort does seem fairly appropriate for later concurrently using another undisclosed account which was blocked once already and also did stuff like [6] before the sockpuppetry allegations came to light, even if it's a year later. A year isn't really accurate anyway since the Cow Of Pain account had been used since February so they'd started that stuff about 5 months after the warning. (In fact it wasn't the only account of theirs that had been blocked independently either, [7] was too although not discovered to later.) Whether an indefinite blocked was warranted at the time, I can't say although what we've learnt now along with their recent behaviour suggests it is now so I don't see asking arbcom as necessary anytime soon even if they do request to be unblocked. As to why an arbcom member got involved, I don't know but from [8] (which was after the block) I take it someone had been emailing people and it reached arbcom. BTW, while using multiple accounts in a non abusive manner is allowed, I would argue the CU clerk's warning was entirely appropriate, editing wikipedia is a privilege, even more so editing with multiple accounts. When you have already shown yourself to have problems with editing to the extent of multiples blocks and in the (fairly distant by that time) past of using multiple accounts in a very abusive fashion which you then resurrected in an apparent attempt to avoid scrutiny after you were blocked, and when you come up with lame 'room mate' defences when caught you have to expect people are not going to trust you with using multiple undisclosed accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Good detective work. I had already seen the Eddy Teddie stuff. However in the Graboid AfD it appears as though Otto is taking steps to be avoid even giving the appearance of abusing a sock, by re-signing Cow's comment (even though its not a !vote - and even though this reveals his sock). The other observation I would make is that, not counting blocks of socks, which I didn't factor in, I noticed Otto's block record does improve dramatically 4 in 2007, 2 in 2008 and 1 in 2009 and no more up to his indef,if I remember correctly. Still unless they request an unblock the matter is moot. Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Explanation Needed[edit]

Hello. I am having a problem with another editor. Out of the blue last week I was given a very stern warning by Fut.Perf. on my talk page which stated that if I continue pushing a fringe POV I would be blocked. I then asked this editor for specific details regarding my actions as I consider this a serious matter but have been ignored instead. Is it considered just to threaten another editor with sanctions and not specifically explain why?

I also noticed that three other editors (Immortale, Arydberg, and Killdec) were blocked for certain periods of time from the aspartame controversy talk page within a period of less than a week (Feb. 8-14). Each of these editors (including myself) at one time or another expressed concerns on the talk page stating that they believed the aspartame controversy article was biased. Is it possible that these warnings were given to each of us because our efforts conflict with other editors? Can a fair uninvolved administrator look into this please? Jmpunit (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To fill everyone in on the missing details...Immortale (talk · contribs), Arydberg (talk · contribs), Killdec (talk · contribs) & Jmpunit (talk · contribs) received warnings, blocks and/or topic bans after various ANI discussions (e.g., 1, 2, 3) highlighted tendentious editing by a series of WP:SPAs at aspartame controversy. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) distributed sanction warnings based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision; Immortale & Killdec earned blocks for their edits and behavior related to this article. — Scientizzle 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I am still wondering about the specific edits that I made which deserved the warning that I was given. Scientizzle, I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you but I did ask for uninvolved administrators for help (which you are not). So again I ask the above. Jmpunit (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It was an overall pattern of unacceptable behavior which you all exhibited. Count yourself lucky that you didn't receive a block or topic ban. You got a warning, and that should have been enough to keep you from making this frivolous complaint, wasting more of our time. Read that warning and just heed it. If you can't see what was wrong with your behavior after all the times you have been advised, warned and read our policies, then maybe you really should get a topic ban. You all exhibit the same type of behavior, which is rather discouraging. It's a pretty bad case of "I didn't hearitis". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of not hearing: I asked for an uninvolved administrator. Not only are you one of the most involved editors on that talk page Brangifer (at the moment) but you are also not an administrator. Jmpunit (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't make the decision as to who replies to you. I am not preventing an uninvolved admin from commenting, but as one of those whose time you have wasted, I have a right to share my opinion, and I think you've got a problem with understanding the nature and seriousness of your disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith and be civil. Jmpunit (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like the editor who placed the warning to kindly come and explain exactly why they felt the templates were necessary if I may? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not helpful to expect admins to take half an hour to respond to ANI posts on matters like this. A glance at Aspartame controversy and Special:Contributions/Jmpunit should clarify the situation (the article concerns how conspiracy theorists have once again found another conspiracy, and some editors cannot grasp Wikipedia's NPOV procedures). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed your editing history, Jmpunit. All of your edits since August 2010 have been on the subject of the aspartame controversy. 83% of your total edits have been on the talk page of that article, which you have now edited 167 times ([9]). There have been concerns about inappropriate POV editing on that article and disruptiveness on the talk page, about which I believe you were aware, and your edits indicate that you have strong feelings on this matter and appear to be interested in adding your own views to the article. In my view, the warning was correct, and any further disruption on this article or related ones should be met with preventative measures. I would very strongly advise you to diversify your editing; there is plenty of constructive work which can be done, and arguing on talk pages is very rarely fruitful. Consider this a fair, uninvolved administrator's view if you wish. --Kateshortforbob talk 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how many times I have edited a talk page no one has discussed SPECIFIC edits that I have made that show that I am pushing a fringe POV there. As I said before, this is a serious accusation and I do not take it lightly. I feel that I have a right to know what specific edits are in violation of pushing a fringe pov. Since I have caused much "disruption" these statements should be easy to find. If these specific edits are not found I would ask that my warning be withdrawn. Jmpunit (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy with rules that precisely regulate who can say or do what (see WP:BURO). All we need to see is that you are stridently pursuing a POV in an article concerning a conspiracy theory—that is not Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Please provide specific edits that I have made that are stridently pursuing a fringe POV. Jmpunit (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell us that we have completely misunderstood your stance all along; that you have not been pushing for and defending the edits, content and POV made by User:Immortale, User:Arydberg, and User:Killdec? Your arguments and actions have been so identical that sockpuppet investigations have been filed against two all of you! Single edits cannot show a tendency, but the accumulation shows a very strong POV which you, along with the other editors, have very aggressively pushed against the objections of many much more experienced editors and admins, over a very protracted period of time. You have all been warned and instructed many, many, many, many times on the talk page, and that should've been enough, but it wasn't for some and they got blocks and topic bans. (There's an abundant supply, so keep pushing here and you can have one, free of charge!) Since you were all obviously so allied in your actions and POV, Future Perfect at Sunrise was very justified in placing a warning on all of your pages, even if you hadn't edited for several days. You could have taken it as a friendly "FYI" and kept it in mind for future reference, but instead you caused more IDHT disruption by posting here. That's a frivolous use of a noticeboard, and many of us don't take kindly to such a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll thank you not to mislead other editors and lie about me (to push your points and muddy my name), no sockpuppet allegations have ever been filed against me. КĐ 18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
My apologies Killdec. You were the exception regarding sockpuppet investigations. I have refactored by comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I appreciate it. КĐ 16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Again, since you seem to have ignored that in favor of repeating your demand for specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg has left an unhelpful comment on Jmpunit's talk page. While this isn't Jmpunit's own fault, it shows that these editors still labor under mistaken impressions of what Wikipedia is all about. Maybe Arydberg needs another explanatory warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer you continue to repeat false accusations (i.e. sock puppetry, pushing a fringe POV, etc.) but you have NO EVIDENCE. You continue to be rude by invalidating my concerns calling them a "disruption" and threaten me in a sarcastic manner saying that there's an abundant supply of topic bans "FREE OF CHARGE!" Then you post an irrelevant message on the aspartame controversy talk page saying that there is an issue here on this message board that is relevant to the talk page, as if trying to recruit others here. Finally you give the trifling revelation that one of the editors that was blocked contacted me and somehow (even though it's not my fault) their message proves that I and other editors are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. You make many claims without providing facts- doesn't this go against the article in question?
It is editors such as the above mentioned that continue to hinder the progress of the aspartame controversy article. When a reference is presented that does not go with the view of some of these editors it is immediately shot down and the presenter is accused of "wasting time" or being "disruptive". These editors are attacked with sarcastic comments and threatened to be blocked such as I am now. This is why that talk page is a mess because a significant number of editors who read the article and are concerned about its neutrality state so on there and are met with antagonistic, uncooperative editors who refuse to allow a collaboration to take place. Jmpunit (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The reference to the "unhelpful comment" is not a reflection about you; it simply shows that there are a group of editors who have no clue about Wikipedia's role (hint: the encyclopedia is not available for partisans to push their points of view). Your stridency (repeated requests for "specific details" and comments about "no evidence"), along with a glance at Special:Contributions/Jmpunit, is all independent editors need to see that this case is exactly the same as the hundreds of other cases that appear here. Editor who cannot comply with WP:5P will be removed, eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to have a little input from someone who ran across your complaint and has no vested interest, you seem to be missing a major point here, Jmpunit. The warnings you received were in no way an official administrator action. Absolutely anyone can post a warning on any user's page. So it's not an action that has to be justified, as you were suggesting when you linked that admin policy, nor is it something that needs to be or should be brought to this noticeboard. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite correct in this case: it was a notification in the context of a "discretionary sanctions" Arbcom procedure, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Warnings. Those are in fact "official" in some sense, and they are normally handed out only by such administrators as would also be entitled to enact the actual sanction. Fut.Perf. 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, how am I pushing my POV? I keep asking this because I don't see how I have and I haven't been given any direct answers (saying that my edits in general push a fringe POV do not explain anything). Fut. Perf. now that you are here I am asking that you justify this warning per WP:ADMINACCT Jmpunit (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a bureaucracy, and not for advocacy (see WP:NOT). In the above, several independent editors have commented, and this section is now almost 2000 words. No one has supported your position, in fact the reverse has occurred. Experience shows that debating the finer points of procedure is not productive. Please read the links already given and refrain from attempting to extend this because the only result would be to confirm all the advice given above, and to strengthen the need for the warning on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Having glanced at the talk page and article, and some edits, it does seem that Jmpunit was far less of an offender than other (now blocked) users, and that the talk page was rather "robust" from both sides of the argument. I did not see " a coordinated campaign" although I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I do think that it would be far better for Jmpunit to question the nature of the warning on FutPerf's talk page than bring it here, where it simply attracts comment from others who cannot answer for FutPerf. With luck FutPerf will be able to share with Jmpunit enough of the reason for the warning to enable Jmpunit to avoid the sanctions the warning is about. Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I did go to FutPerf's page and inquired about the warning. I got one response which read "The warning was not directed to any one particular posting, but to a long term pattern of editing. It came to my attention through a recent report at ANI which dealt with the overall activity by several editors on that article." The warning was received on Feb. 14th though my last edit there was Feb. 4th (10 days). In this last edit I explained that if a phrase was not in a reference then it should not be in the article with that reference used to support that phrase. I didn't see how this was pushing any POV but rather an effort making sure that we used sources in a proper way. I had asked why I received a warning a week and a half after my last edit but this was never addressed. As for the ANI which was referred to, I was falsely accused of being a sock. The evidence supporting this was misleadingly taken out of context. (Can someone find this in the archives I'm having trouble?) Since I never heard back from FutPerf and his talk page remains active I came to the conclusion that my concerns had been ignored. It was only then that I came here. Jmpunit (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to repeat and endorse Jmpunit's request for specific differences which show the concerns you have. This discussion is pointless unless someone kindly provides these differences. You claim its a pattern, if it is so it shouldn't take much trouble for you to look through and find us a dozen or so examples that show this pattern. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And I would like to simply invoke WP:SHUN. This thread is a simple extension of Jmpunit's main avenue of argumentation- "If you can't back up everything you say, to the standard I choose, I'm correct by default". The truth is, Jmpunit, you know EXACTLY what you're doing (attempting to wikilawyer the system against itself), and I'm not going to poke through your contributions to pull out a list anyone can go get themselves. You're not entitled to it. --King Öomie 03:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was shunned by you before that ironic message. It is assuming bad faith to think that one is wikilawyering because they ask for an explanation regarding warnings that they have received. To say that one can not ask for justifications regarding these administrative actions is to say that administrators can do what they want without having to explain themselves. It's illogical to say that questioning the reasoning for these actions reinforces the actions themselves as citing rules accusing them of these offenses (wikilawyering) is hypocritical since you stridently push the "letter of the law" which is the foundation of the accusation.Jmpunit (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Sinharib99 (talk · contribs)

User:Sinharib99 Is currently (or was recently) creating dozens of very short articles about rulers named on List of Assyrian kings these articles do not really expand on what is already contained at 'List of Assyrian kings'. I feel these should be tagged as CSD A10, but due to the shear number would like to garner some Admin input before proceeding. Pol430 talk to me 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest redirecting them to the list article ... that way, if someone really is searching for them, they will find them. One liners about kings for whom there is no information and will never be any expansion do not seem to be useful. --B (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion B, thanks Pol430 talk to me 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have informed Sinharib99 about this discussion... GiantSnowman 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks GS, it was remiss of me not to remember to do that, all relevant pages have been redirected Pol430 talk to me 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. There are almost no figures for whom something can not be said beyond the list, if checked in the appropriate specialist reference works, such as the series of Cambridge Ancient History. Our normal practice is to regard every named figure from the ancient world as notable, certainly if there is some information beyond the mere name, , and also to regard every monarch as notable, and I see no reason why these practices should not be applied here--I might not be so positive if only one of them applied, but they both do. . I plan to expand and revert the redirects the redirects as soon as I have the chance to get some more information; since while I support not deleting minimal stubs for notable subjects, I don't myself like to make them. and then you may take them to AfD if you please. ANI does not deal with questions about whether the subject of an article is notable. This question should have gone there, or to a suitable content noticeboard. It does not belong here, unless there is the suggestion the editor is being deliberately abusive. I've offered my assistance to the editor if he chooses. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm thoroughly confused. No one ever called into question the notability of the kings. The point made by Pol430 was that someone was making a large number of articles with almost zero information in them, and the information that was in them was already contained at the list article. Therefore, they are just useless kittens. If you or some other editor would be interested in adding a minimal amount of substantive information (and sources) to these articles, then by all means undo the redirect and edit away. Until that time, a redirect is better than a duplicative stub. —SW— communicate 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohio-based IP's introducing hoax articles on TV shows.[edit]

Resolved: Users and IPs blocked, and articles that have been repeatedly created have been salted.  7  06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) (talk · contribs), Ziah978 (talk · contribs), Quenn 234 (talk · contribs), Odpod34 (talk · contribs), Zt123 (talk · contribs)

Admins only for the last two I'm afraid as they've already been deleted (twice). Looks like throwaway accounts are being used to create the articles an then an IP is editing them and removing speedy deletion templates. The articles are blatant hoaxes as there is no information on the shows anywhere except here. Also, how would one know the plot of an episode airing in 2012?

I will now notify the IP and user in question, and restore the speedy templates that have been removed AGAIN. N419BH 01:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to point out the throw away accounts like Ziah978 (talk · contribs) so they can be checkusered.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't see them anymore as I cannot see the deleted articles' histories. Admin assistance required. N419BH 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, they all also seem to try to remove the redirect on The Bad Girls Club (season 8).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Dug through my contributions and found another throwaway userID. N419BH 02:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You can see who a bunch of them are if you look at the history of The Bad Girls Club (season 8). There's a new one continually restoring the article right now. is there any way this could be page protected?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the redirect page for one month. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that just leaves a dozen socks to deal with and an IP address adding massive quantities of unsourced content to several dozen articles. They seem to be focusing on Disney Channel shows and actors. N419BH 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added more, this is clear socking now, taking this to SPI. N419BH 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OFF TOPIC: Beat Night sounds like a pretty cool show from the title. :P WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Unresolved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user: disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user: not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

I have re-notified, for fairness. Also,, are you Simon Dodd? GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just forgot to sign in. It happens. I wouldn't have thought that renotification was necessary since this isn't a new issue?. It's a little disappointing that a dig through the archives (and this conversation) became necessary, truth be told. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of socking or whatever, I just wanted clarification - it happens with me as well! I re-notified because the IP may well have seen your notification, come here, and found nothing (the discussion already having been archived) - now they know that 2 days later, it's back up, and the issue still isn't resolved. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, as I mentioned above, the user is an SPA; that, plus the tone and content of their edits and talk page comments tell me that there's a COI problem. The article edits are too numerous to detail here (check the history), but the talk page comments in particular are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," user: objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was trying to do, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." And as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.
Having opened this case here at AN/I, I don't feel that I open a case anywhere else without leave from an admin (I'll be accused of forum shopping). I opened the case here because at the time, my immediate concern was the user's actions in blanking my user page in retaliation for proposing a merge and the attempted removal of the merge templates. Well, that was two days ago (certainly demonstrating the kind of prompt admin response that encourages people to use process rather than dealing with problems themselves), and those problems haven't yet recurred. At this point, the COI is the larger problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You could easily defend yourself from any accusations of forum shopping by pointing them here - you've posted twice over a period of days, and received no reply or help from admins. Now you've explained it a bit more, maybe the COI noticeboard is the place to go. GiantSnowman 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Case opened at COI; I'll notify the user. I'd still like an admin to do something about the user page blanking, so I'm leaving the request here open.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the IP seems to have stopped editing on the 20th, and a note was left about the page blanking. I'd be inclined to let it go as a newbie mistake for now. Sorry no one responded to your post, I guess the drama-filled threads are more attactive? Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
Thanks, Rich—I guess it's good that I'm not bringing drama! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Since no one has responded, I have reverted the tag removals and warned the user again.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Still unresolved and basically unaddressed after six days.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? Until opining on the talk page last night, the IP hadn't edited since removing the templates (which you had already reverted). If the IP vandalizes again, we can block it. --B (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "until"? There was the original incident which led to this report being filed. And then, as I mentioned above, there was another round of it after five days of this report languishing unanswered. So are you saying that you will block them if they come back for a third round, or that you'll block if if they come back for a second round, which has already happened since the original report was filed?
As to what admin action I'm asking for: I want someone other than me to slap the user's wrist (whether with a warning or a brief block), because obviously hearing it from me—whether because I'm involved in the dispute or because I'm not an admin—ain't getting it done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that a 24-hour block would have already expired anyway. Regardless of whether the user should have been blocked, it is now three full days since their last bad behavior. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and there's nothing to "prevent". If the user returns and demonstrates by their conduct that there is something to prevent, then they can be blocked. --B (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I moved this request down to the bottom so that it will attract more attention. The submitter, quite rightly, feels that it has been ignored and I am moving it down here so that other admins will have a chance to see it and opine or take action, should they care to. --B (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with B's comments above, and I add that if the IP should remove the merge templates again, the place to report the vandalism (as such it would be) is WP:AIV. LadyofShalott 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Simon, the IP in question hasn't edited (bar one small contribution to a talk page) for 3 days; I'm pretty sure you've managed to scare them onto the straight-and-narrow, and so no admin intervention is required. Should they start acting up again, report them to AIV. GiantSnowman 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For anyone looking at this situation, FYI, Simon Dodd has been blocked. --B (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have blocked Simon Dodd for 3 hours for disruption - any admin is free to undo the sanction without further reference to me, if considered excessive or simply wrong - as ANI is a venue for requesting the assistance of volunteers, specifically admins, rather than an arena for haranging the habitees for not acting/commenting as desired. Of course concerns should be presented here, and certainly appropriate action or commentary should occur - and this issue may have been better actioned; but nobody need be slagged off over it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Based on "any admin is free to undo the sanction without further reference to me" and affirmation of the same at LessHeardvanU's talk page, I have removed the block. As always, I welcome review of my actions. --B (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Nope, good unblock. GiantSnowman 01:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I want to thank everyone who got involved and got the block reversed. Everyone on the receiving end of a block thinks it was an injustice, and it's really gratifying to see other people step in and say that the blocking admin made a bad call.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon, if there's any further interference with your user page, then post a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. As said above, nothing we can do whilst the issue is stale, but further disruption can and will be acted upon. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

New page disambiguation problem[edit]



I just made a new page for a published author, James Robison (Writer). My problem is that there's another James Robison (televangelist) who prevents me from loading my page with only the name "James Robison." I tried creating a disambiguation page, and have put headers in both articles with disambiguation redirects. I have a draft disambiguation page, but I don't know how to make it go live. Please help!

Best, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfitz00 (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of questions are best for WP:HD :) But I will fix it for you... CTJF83 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My Hero! Thank you! Kfitz00 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're welcome! I also renamed James Robison (author) for a lowercase "a" CTJF83 07:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat or attempt to enforce POV?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a legal threat, but it certainly is a statement of an intent to use police to enforce a POV on Wikipedia: Check out the second user box on User:Felixhonecker stating:

This user supports the government of Libya in its fight against Al-Qaeda. This user does not hesitate to report userIDS making pro-Qaeda edits to INTERPOL.

Somehow I think that's a bit different from the statement on my user page saying that I report threats of violence made on Wikipedia to appropriate authorities.

I'd appreciate some additional eyes on it. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Borderline at best, and non-neutral for sure. But it's a userpage. Does it indicate an intent to edit disruptively? Where's the line? It's going to be a judgment call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, he's not just threatened to do it, but claims to have already done it [16] – for something as harmless as suggesting that the treatment of flags in the Libya article should reflect the current revolt. Using the Al Qaeda bogeyman to stifle such debates is indeed highly problematic (or it might just be trolling). Support indef block. Fut.Perf. 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We certainly don't need that that kind of editor/behaviour on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Support block until he states unequivocally that he is not and has not actually done this. This is a blatant case of poisoning the well, trying to make editors afraid to edit because someone will report them to Interpol. I somehow doubt they care, though. It may not fit the letter of NLT, but fits the spirit more than any other situation I can think of. --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have extended his block to indefinite, and it will require a very good explanation to convince me to unblock.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Note, based on his unblock request he needs an explanation on why he's currently blocked. It looks like he thinks it's a 3rr block.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have posted that beneath his unblock request.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've declined his unblock request which only addressed the reasons for the first block. As for the NLT block, we should be clear that a mere retraction of a threat of further action may not be enough here, because if what he claimed previously is true then the damage is already done and cannot be undone. Fut.Perf. 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It will be near-impossible for him to prove he hasn't contacted Interpol, given his claim that he already has. GiantSnowman 16:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's actually fairly trivial to prove that he hasn't reported anyone to INTERPOL since individuals can't report crimes to INTERPOL, that isn't how they work. [17] In fact even law enforcement can't really report anyone to INTERPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So he not only poisons the well, but he's an ineffectual blowhard too. Somehow that feels worse. --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe he meant the musical Interpol anyways. GiantSnowman 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
He has posted an explanation, stating that it was a mistake made in the heat of the moment and that he hasn't reported anyone. I lean towards being satisfied although I do take exception to his continued insistence on his right to report Al Qaeda related threats to public safety. I think every editor would report any actual threat made in the name of Al Qaeda to the relevant authorities, but stating this upfront (and being willing to mention it in editing disputes) has a chilling effect that is not conducive to a good editing environment. I would support a request to remove his userbox that makes this statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Blatantly over the line, outrageous abuse of his editing privileges. Until that user box goes, and he recants everything to do with it, he needs to stay on ice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock declined. I have declined the block - his defence is that he said it by mistake, thinking he was editing his userbox, and he reverted immediately. O rly? First, it's not what the userbox says. Second, he was launching a personal attack on the editor. Third, he actually edited the comment [18] before deciding presumably that it might get him into trouble and deleting it. He'll have to try harder. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could throw in a commitment from him to tone it down a bit at Talk:Libya. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've closed down his talk page access for trolling anyway. Let him wait a bit until the situation settles down (hopefully), and then he can raise another request when he's gotten over his trolling mood. Fut.Perf. 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the punishment has turned out harsher than the offense merits. He did remove the threat himself before anyone commented and he has stated that he has not and will not report anyone who is not directly confessing to be planning a crime. I think his admittedly not very adequate response was a result of the large number of people all of a sudden showing up and creating drama on his talkpage. I would reccomend revising the conditions of the block and making clear for the user how he is to proceed in order to be allowed to return to editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free, at least as far as I'm concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have received an email from Felixhonecker regarding all of the above and what he has done asking for another pair of eyes. When looking through all of the diffs i spotted this edit. Does this not show a legal threat from User:Baseball Bugs in the last sentence? After looking into this a bit more I have now spotted User_talk:Maunus#Note which has resulted from the edit here. I think the where Baseball Bugs says "I made no threat, and it's perfectly clear that he didn't take it that way either". Both the email that I have received and the edits here, here and here. From here I am sat it almost looks like some people have jumped on one users bandwagon ignoring another. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, and continue to support the original block. Bugs' posting was clearly just a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. If Felix actually took that seriously as a threat, he suffers from a severe loss of a sense of reality; if he only pretended to be taking it seriously, he was trolling, and is still continuing to do so. I firmly believe the latter; in one of his last postings he was claiming he was genuinely afraid "his family" might be incarcerated. Come on, how ridiculous can it get. Fut.Perf. 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I support the original block. An apparently what Bugs' posted was not clearly sarcastic. A threat is a threat. If Felix' is just a troll then Bugs' just fueled the fire with a sarcastic comment, but if I were in Felix's position and i was no troll i would to some degree be feeling the same way. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I made no threat. Future Perfect's analysis of the situation is correct. And I don't believe for even 1 second that the user's response was anything but mockery and play-acting. But on the grain-of-sand possibility that his response was sincere (hence totally mis-reading what I had said), I will post have posted a clarification on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that Bugs', I think that has tied all of the ends that were in the email I received. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have posted the conditions under which I am willing to unblock FelixHonecker on his talkpage, and I have unprotected the talkpage to allow him to answer and make a statement there.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC results[edit]

How does an RfC end? I'm referring to this and basically the rest of the page. Who "decides" the results of the discussion, and when. It is getting out of hand and not going anyway, so someone needs to "decide" the results. Probably not the right spot to post this....CTJF83 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • They usually run 30 days. So this one has some time to go. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's already way out of control though, and not going anywhere. Can an uninvolved person weigh in. CTJF83 04:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Out of control" in what sense? WP:CLOSE has the lowdown on how to close an RfC. They are supposed to remain open for 30 days after creation. Ideally, either a clear consensus emerges from the RfC or maybe a compromise, so no formal ending is needed. But if that doesn't occur, and especially if there is an up-or-down decision to be made, someone can close using the procedures and templates provided at WP:CLOSE. Closing an RfC is not specifically an admin tasks as no admin rights are required (usually), so any experienced and uninvolved editor can close an RfC. But since admins are experienced closing XfD's it probably makes sense to ask one of them, and I think the proper place to do that is right here (but not until after March 5, or after no new comments have been made for a few days, whichever comes later). Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Out of control as in the length of the several discussions, and the repeating of the same stuff, over and over. I'll wait till the 5th though. CTJF83 07:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh OK. If you can't get anyone to close it, drop me a line. Herostratus (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I do think it should stay open until 30 days have passed. I think we've got two sides shouting at each other, neither making great arguments. With some luck we'll get better arguments (hopefully on both sides) now that it's shown up here. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok, Herostratus. CTJF83 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor blanking case filed against him[edit]

I filed a case [19] at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring against User:Mjs2010 who had violated 3RR. He proceeded to blank the case to remove all trace of: [20]. I think this highly inappropriate and should be looked into. The case should be dealt with independently on its own merits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It was quickly reverted and then removed again by an admin. I contacted the admin to ask why. Hopefully it was just a mistake.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - saw a revert by an anon with no comment and reverted too fast. Have blocked both user and anon for 24 hr for edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Many edits deleting Portuguese links[edit]

Editor User talk:LPrati has made a large number of removals of links to Portuguese templates. His edits may be perfectly valid! But some verification is needed. Can someone cursorily audit these? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if template usage is correct.[edit]

Is this correct? It links to this page, which links to a page that says it is not. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked it was Arbcom action that blocked him for Socking. I believe a user had emailed evidence privately to the committee. Its a pitty, for transparency's sake I which more info was available on the issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy POV pushing[edit]

A few years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a technocracy POV on wikipedia. The editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs).

Now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who are engaging in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated. The editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs).

I would be grateful if any interested admin could keep an eye on the situation please. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Not pro Technocracy, or anything, but interested in balanced information presentation. Johnphos tried to have one of the articles deleted previously in an articles for deletion, which failed. I think we could call him 'anti' for real. He is trying to control the article now against a more neutral presentation of the material. He was lobbied over and over to be involved in the debate on the talk pages and failed to do so. Johnphos edits do not favor new information regardless of citations being reputable and neutral.
Johnphos has stressed the implication that this group is fascist or fascistic. That is not correct, that group is around still and making that claim could be libelous? Johnphos acts as owner on these two articles and this fails the sniff test as he did not debate the edits on either talk page, just tagged the article. I suggest interested people look at the talk pages of both articles to form their own opinions and suggest also reading the history of both pages, back maybe 10 edits or farther.
A simple solution here is to make a request for comment and let some new people examine the situation. The issue being about neutrality and balance and being able to use a website that is the official web-page of the group in question. Johnphos says no. That does not make a lot of sense. See Technocracy movement talk page. Thanks. --Fidel Drumbo 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talkcontribs)
Skip, continue to complain about me personally if you wish, but all that I have said in the articles has been properly referenced and supported by various scholarly books. These are much more reliable than the self-published websites which you prefer. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Some background on the possibility that FidelDrumbo could be a reincarnated editor:
Skipsievert was indefinitely blocked by Moreschi in November, 2009, with this rationale. A request for an Arbcom case had been filed, but it was closed as moot due to the indef block. There was a previous sockpuppet case in April, 2009 but it was inconclusive. A defining attribute of Skip was an abundance of personal attacks, in addition to his strong support of technocracy. If other editors believe that FidelDrumbo has a chance of being Skip, the history of Skip's talk page should be undeleted. The discussions at Talk:Technocracy movement do suggest advocacy and POV-pushing. The IP removed criticism of technocracy here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice summary. I agree that Skipsievert's talk page history and user page history should be restored. If that is done, I believe a case can be made that Skipsievert is evading an indef block by coming back as FidelDrumbo. Johnfos (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP editor (who is now User:Googlesalot) has asked me to transfer a comment here, since semiprotection keeps him from posting at ANI:

I used to be editor and now I'm being accused of POV pushing and also being linked to some other editors as is shown here [21]. I find it very strange and sad that I have to defend myself for edits done in good faith and being labeled as a POV pusher when I had legitimate reasons for the edits. If this is how wikipedia treats editors who take a particular interest than I now know why it's scrutinized so heavily and has a poor reputation amoung schools, teachers, and educators. I especially find it very insulting that you use an edit that was very legitimate as evidence of POV pushing, especially as an administrator. That edit was towards an article about an organization Technocracy Incorporated when the subject of the deleted material was about the movement as a whole and there was no mention of Technocracy Incorporated in the reference or statement. Notice how I left the same exact reference and material alone in the Technocracy Movement article? How is labeling an organization fascists even remotely neutral? Even when the material is not even on the subject of the organization? After considering the edits done by Johnfos and this game that seems to be playing out on wikipedia I think the main POV pusher is Johnfos. I would like you to include this in the notice board please, as I can't seem to edit so I can defend myself. Googlesalot (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

-- EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently FidelDrumbo and the IP both turned up at Wikipedia together and started editing in tandem and in agreement on the technocracy articles. They are behaving in the same, unmistakable ways the banned Skipsievert and his meat puppet AdenR behaved. Their current incarnations interact with each other in the same ways, individually language things in the same styles, and edit with the same POV. They will probably try to mix things up a bit now, like awkwardly staging one or two mock disagreements, because that is what they use to do in the past when challenged. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought it may be useful to give a little of my background, since it seems to have been called into question by Googlesalot. I have been on WP for four years now and have never been blocked. I have written 11 Good articles, mainly in areas related to energy policy. I had never heard of "technocracy" until I responded to a request from Skipsievert for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Archive 1#Energy Accounting, in 2009. I was shocked by what I found at Energy accounting and suggested that the article be redirected, see Talk:Energy accounting#Redirect. As time went on I found that there were many of these articles where Skipsievert had added or remove content to support his own narrow POV and promoted his own agenda disregarding reliable secondary sources.
After Skip was blocked I did quite a bit of reading and tried to make some improvements to the technocracy articles by drawing on scholarly sources. Another editor complimented my efforts here. From what I can see, one of the best sources we have is Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941 by William E. Akin, published by the University of California Press, yet several references to this book have recently been removed from technocracy articles. One of my concerns is that these and other scholarly sources are being replace by references to self-published websites such as this, at All of this started when FidelDrumbo started editing in the same way that Skipsievert did. Johnfos (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, my question would be why am I being connected to this? I'm not skip seivert. Or involved with any other editor on Wikipedia. I've tried to have reasonable discussions over some edits I thought were bad. I contributed to the discussion and asked if you could do the same. I barely got a response and instead was accused of being "enthusiastic" and POV pushing on the subject by you. I was interested in it's history no more than you have professed on your user page and is why I have looked through archives which is what many scholarly historians do. As for the link, I ask again as I have done on the talk page of the Technocracy Movement, What is the criteria to meet in deciding whether or not that is the correct site? I never new Wikipedia was so strict on this subject. I assumed it was an official site with the reasons provided on the talk page. I don't want you to take this personal, but it feels as if you are playing a game, or have an axe to grind with previous editors who have had a POV or stake in Technocracy. I don't have a POV. I wanted the articles information neutral and technocrats side represented in the articles.
I'll admit some of the references I deleted I didn't mean to and I'm sorry. However the material I deleted were legitimate. The edits recently done by epipelagic that fixed the deleted references were good and I thank him/her for fixing my careless mistakes. Googlesalot (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I find it strange that an unknown editor(epipelagic) who not once contributed to the discussions on the Technocracy articles is now an expert in linking other editors together. Isn't it the admins job to do that? Why did you even come here? I could use your same logic and link Epipelagic and Johnfos together. Maybe you both know each other?Googlesalot (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
WP is quite strict on the subject of sourcing (see WP:RS), and I can see that you are still unsure about whether the site is acceptable, so please take the issue to WP:RSN and discuss it there. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with quite high standards.
I can see from what you have said that you are wanting to edit cooperatively. But you have been implicated here because you have been tandem editing with FidelDrumbo (whom it seems is actually Skipsievert) and pushing WP:Fringe views (even though you may not have realized it). It seems that you have been genuinely unaware of Skip's long and troubled history, and of the dozens of people who spoke against Skip at WP:Arbcom. I expect most of these editors don't want to open old wounds and are probably trying to ignore this thread, but a few (such as Epipelagic) will want to speak here. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect[edit]


--Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close and summarize the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect? The RfC was initiated on 17 January 2011 and no one has commented in it for two weeks. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving it a shot. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the illuminating summary about the community's view on "merge and redirect" positions. Your hard work is much appreciated. :) Cunard (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


RazzaMac (talk · contribs) has done nothing but vandalised Wikipedia, please block indeff. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Block what? The user hasn't edited or vandalized for five months. There's no action here to take, and you took their not-so-awful-at-all userpage to MfD, which was easily kept. Not seeing a problem here; move on and just don't worry about them. Nate (chatter) 14:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto, although there was one deleted page in January.  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user[edit]

Biosaber (talk · contribs)

This user, while seeming not to be a vandal account, has been making problematic edits in video game articles. Ranging from repeatedly adding questionable descriptions to removing sourced information. Almost every one of his contributions has been reverted - some of which he has tried to reinstate several times. He has given no explanation for his edits and repeated attempts to communicate with the user have fallen on deaf ears, see his talk page. He [or she] is making it difficult to assume good faith at this point. Rehevkor 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Advised to start talking when issues raised. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Unotretre making continued legal threats via email[edit]

The other day the article Gravitis was deleted as advertising, and a conflict of interest notice was posted. User:Unotretre, who created the article, promptly demanded the reinstatment of the article, then added a threat to sue the users should they not restore the article (bizzarely, at the same time attempting to redact all the uses of the company's name as "patent infringement"). THey were blocked per WP:NLT, however now they've emailed through Wikimail, demanding once more that "You would rather put Gravitis article up before monday, unblock User Unotretre, cancel the conflict of interest reference naming Gravitis, or we open formally legal actions against The Bushranger and SQGibbon because GRAVITIS is a registered name in Italy, I denied consensus to appear in an unfair discussion, and when you google Gravitis it still compares a red cancelation, damaging the worldwide name of Gravitis and ALL Distributors. In defect on monday morning I will present formal denunce because wikipedia is visible in Italy and the patent allowed us to advice you for a patent infringement." While I've redirected Gravitis to Freeboard (skateboard), I'm not sure as to what to do about the rest.

I've notified User:SQGibbon of this discussion, but not User:Unotretre yet, both per WP:BEANS and because, being blocked, I believe the can't edit here anyway, if they should be notified regardless then please let me know. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to notify, blocked editors can always post on their talk page and the comments can be copied over. As the LT is still active, no reason to unblock. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirm email legal threats — I have received four similar emails from Unotretre (and/or someone else at the same company) basically all stating that unless Unotretre is unblocked and the Gravitis article restored I will be sued on Monday. SQGibbon (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Yup, I confirm this as well, the user sent me three emails threatening legal action, and one email to let me know I had email from them. Dreadstar 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Time to re-block without ability to send emails on the grounds of abusing the email feature to harass other editors? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Dreadstar 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As a footnote, a trawl through the diffs of the article allowed a non-COI, non-WP:SPAM diff to be relocated to allow the article to be an unreferenced stub. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion sanctions discussion[edit]

Resolved: Courcelles closed the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... is anyone planning on closing this one way or the other any time soon, or is everyone else just hoping it will archive itself? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll close it.... Courcelles 21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
My sympathies. :-) Good luck figuring it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Minute late and a dollar short, as usual. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chuang Kuo-jung[edit]

Resolved: Article semi protected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a roving IP editor who insists on restoring (what I believe to be completely POV) information in Chuang Kuo-jung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that is derogatory to Ma Ying-jeou (whom Chuang had previously spoken ill against). I almost semi-protected the article, but I want thoughts on whether doing so is appropriate — and whether I am correct, in the first place, of believing that the edit was POV and should be removed. --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have warned this IP of POV editing. and I view that protecting the page will force the IP to sit down. There is not severe enough, IMO, disruption yet to warrant a block. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Block will also be ineffective; the IP is part of a portable block of Chunghwa Telecom. Thanks for reviewing the situation. Can you go ahead and semi-protect it if you believe semi-protection is warranted? --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have admin status and never will become an admin... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I note that the sprotect has been applied, and I consider this as appropriate in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation