Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228

ArbCom injunction violation ("banned" user editing)

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo regarding User:Hipi Zhdripi: 3) Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user. unanimously passed at 02:54, 21 October 2006.

..and: 4) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year' from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing.

As per the the article's history, Hipi Zhdripi has continued violating the injunction repeatedly under his traditional 172.... IP address. However, on 10 April. He also edited under his registered account. Besides this, he has been editing under 172. IP address quite a lot throughout all the past months. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AE. Naconkantari 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no issue here. He is banned from editing the article but he has only edited the talk page. While he could be banned from the talk page under the "disruptive editing" section of the ruling, this has not happened yet. Thatcher131 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:XColonelx

Could somebody figure out what's going on here? Corvus cornix 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And here? Corvus cornix 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Generic page-move vandalism I'd say. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The link is that these are all school kids going to Oldenburg Academy Oldenburg, Indiana.

• 64.184.29.18 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) vandalized Oldenburg 10 March
• XColonelx (talk • contribs) created account and reverted the vandalism.
• Coolkristoff (talk • contribs) created account to continue the vandalisma (prob. was 64.184.29.18)
• Patweisbrod (talk • contribs)   a friend     (doing nothing good)
• Lava64 (talk • contribs)   a friend     (doing nothing good)
• Wats69 (talk • contribs)   ? another friend?

• Coolkristoff did nothing but vandalism and was the instigator of this mess.
• XColonelx mixed anti-vandal reverts, stupid retorts on user talk pages, and some weird (uninformed, obviously) move page vandalism (to make a point?)
• Patweisbrod and Lava64 did nothing good here, but nothing 'too' bad.
• Coolkristoff has been blocked and should have been.
• XColonelx has been blocked because of the page moves, and I won't disagree with that. (but consider unblock if asked?)
• The rest of these could stand an additional warning about Wikipedia not being a social site.

Shenme 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice report, Shenme. Thanks. Corvus cornix 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bluefield needs a block

A content dispute over at Colin Cowherd and the show's page The Herd with Colin Cowherd has escalated, with Bluefield's frustrations boiling over and replacing the pages (and User:STS01's talk page) with a Personal Attack. He's admitted his frustration to me and says that he will not protest any block/ban on his account, and while I don't support an indef, I think he needs at least a short-term block to cool off SirFozzie 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This situation appears to be resolved for the time being. Would another admin who isn't about to start cooking dinner care to review this indefinite block? A Train^talk 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While the user was clearly abusing editing priviledges, I erred in see it as a "vandalism only account" and have reduced the indef block I applied to 24 hours. I'll keep a watch on and reblock if necessary. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should you have signed the block notice? I've generally seen them signed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All entries should be signed.Rlevse 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...looking at it more closely, it appears it is signed, but the sig isn't showing up. I fixed it so the sig would show up properly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fecapedian (talk · contribs) blocked, need review

I've blocked Fecapedian (talk · contribs) indefinitely for, in addition to his username, glaring personal attacks, harassment, and incivility at various discussions related to Don Murphy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Need this one reviewed quickly, particularly given the most recent diff. --Coredesat 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Nothing productive from this user. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also endorse. Question is: whose sock did you block? Bubba hotep 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AZJustice. --BigDT 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Viktym and RICO lawsuits

User Viktym (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting boilerplate text referencing civil RICO lawsuits claiming illegal pornography distribution and racketeering by companies such as UPS (diff), Movie Gallery ([diff]), etc. The text has obvious NPOV/undue weight/notability/reliable source problems, as I've detailed on the user's Talk page. Their latest action was to remove an old comment from an unrelated Talk page in what I assume is some sort of misguided attempt at tit-for-tat (diff). Could someone visit this user, whether as an admin action, or the sweetness and light "how to be a good Wikipedian" brigade, or adding the articles to watchlists, and take over this for me. - Quietvoice 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note and will monitor (but must shortly sign off for the evening, so someone else should as well). Newyorkbrad 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added another warning. I agree that the material and behavior are inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 05:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maxman24

Somehow i ended up looking at Special:Contributions/Maxman24, in which his first edit leads me to believe he is a sock of some kind. Not sure what/where to go, I'm posting this here. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since he gave away his password on his user page and invited others to use the account, I deleted the user page and blocked him indef as a vandal account. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment and personal attacks by User:DaVoice

After heated debate on Talk:Wikipedia, DaVoice (talk · contribs) has violated WP:CIVIL and personally attacked me ([7], [8], [9] - all with a edit summary of "Refuting CloudNine's absurdities/absurd comments/absurd allegations"). He is now harassing me on my talk page, reverting to the same message each time. [10] [11]. I believe he has violated WP:NPA several times. CloudNine 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you both seem nice editors to me. Sorry for stalking you, Cloudnine, I was reading just a couple of hours ago your talk page, to check whether you replied to my last message regarding your invitation to add info at a WP alternative music page. After reading DaVoice's message, I went through Talk:Wikipedia, and I read the posts by you and him (ehm, I haven't finished yet). I would like to mediate on this matter, too bad when valid contributors waste their time in this way....--Doktor Who 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that some misunderstanding occurred between you and DaVoice: while investigating Wikipedia's policies and philosophy at Talk:Wikipedia, and joining the relevant discussion, he likely was seeking evidence that he had been misrepresented with regard to his famous link in an article. I'm sure that he didn't want to attack just you; you both should have suddenly moved your chats in a proper page. --Doktor Who 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs) is a user with a lengthy history of uncivil behaviour. Has recently lashed out with numerous personal attacks against BertieBasset on that users talk page. User is also blanking any/all warning he has received including past warnings for other policy vios. 156.34.227.198 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

user blocked by dgies.Rlevse 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nowonline

Nowonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gone on self-destruct and applying inappropriate speedy delete tags to all his contributions, after consensus that some of his articles had major problems with WP:CSD, WP:RS and WP:COI. Tearlach 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John C. Autry was already in AfD, so I removed the author requested CSD template, because AFAIK, one WP process (CSD) cannot invalidate another in progress (AfD), unless an admin closes the debate as speedy. I assume if the article is a keep, then CSD will apply, though it is likely the article will be deleted.

As an observation, this is about the third instance of "WP policies don't apply to me, and if you won't let me do what I want, I'm going to behave wholly inappropriately" that I've seen in a week that's COI related. Would there be a way to prevent obvious COIs (and spam, for that matter) through the article creation process or by requiring a certain type of source to be cited in a new article before it is approved? MSJapan 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

141.155.10.116's continuing edit war at William S. Burroughs, etc.

This anonymous user has repeatedly altered the external links of the following articles: William S. Burroughs, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Mohamed Hamri, Bachir Attar, Frank Rynne, and other articles directly of indirectly linked to the Master Musicians of Jajouka and/or Paul Bowles. Said user claims, and I quote his own words here, that "FRANK RYNNE & JOE AMBROSE's article on Brink.com is Libelous against Paul Bowles & Living Persons. KEEP THIS OFF WIKIPEDIA". I left on a message on the user's talk page encouraging said individual to provide evidence in a public forum of said libel so that other editors and administrators can review it and decide if these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. I was ignored. He is well past the point of violating the 3 revert rule, and his continuing actions are vandalism. I gave him a level 4 warning, but it has not dissuaded him. He seems to have a grievance, and I would like, if it is possible, for there to be some kind of discussion of the matter. If this proves impossible, he needs a block to bring the vandalism to a halt. Thanks. ---Charles 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs. I don't have time to revert anything right now, though... Georgewilliamherbert 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:70.83.4.91 blanking vandalism warnings

User:70.83.4.91 has, on about eight occasions, removed vandalism and blankown warnings from his/her own talk page. This IP address has a history of vandalism on multiple pages and is attempting to hide this from others. Administrator intervention is required. Joeldl 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from their own talk page is not against policy. Naconkantari 04:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but:

• 1. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages says that it is "frowned upon". Template:Blankown states that these edits may be viewed as disruptive; and
• 2. More importantly, there is ample evidence that it is being done in order to facilitate further vandalism by preventing scrutiny. Knowing that somebody has previously made edits viewed as vandalism assists other editors in identifying nonsense or other inexplicable errors as vandalism. The majority of this user's edits have been of this kind. Something that is not against policy in general may well require intervention if it is done in the furtherance of something that is, such as vandalism. Joeldl 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• 3. The fact that the warnings have come from multiple, independent editors makes it unlikely that any objections the user has to the warnings are founded. Joeldl 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

An administrator can check the block log before blocking to see if there have been problems from the address in the past. Simply removing the warnings from the page may be a bit disruptive in the short term, but in the long run, it's just not worth wasting time over. Naconkantari 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore that guy, by reverting the warnings, you are giving him the attention he wamts. See WP:DENY. Only be concerned if he is really vandalizing articles. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo vandal update

As of this edit, this vandal is now targeting plastic surgery, I assume because drugs and prostitution, hag, Michael Prue and Cheri DiNovo are all sprotected. Natalie 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the link to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, although they might keep vandalizing it a different way. I've been thinking about the wisdom of anonblocking the IPs. Although the vandal claims to have a dynamic IP address, the same dozen addresses have been vandalizing the articles, so I think this claim is unlikely. Thoughts? Natalie 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Compliant

I'm wondering if this website is following Wikipedia's copyright status, since they have not cited Wikipedia but just copied and pasted the contents in. I don't see them as being a mirror of Wikipedia since they only copied one article, but I think this needs attention. [12] as compared to a part of the Tennis#History history. --KZ ^talk 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see [13] Naconkantari 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

Link: George Galloway

The above article has been fully protected (by myself) since 22nd February 2007. The dispute revolves around a section about charges of anti-Zionism, Galloway's criticism of Israel, etc - a section which I removed from the article after protection, hoping that it would faciliate better communication on the talkpage. Quite apart from WP:BLP, Galloway is, as one editor puts it, 'notoriously litigatious', and there's a fairly real chance for the subject to bring charges against Wikipedia.

All unofficial attempts at mediation have been roundly rejected due in part to the nature of the above noted accusation, and in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be

• The use of potentially questionable sources
• The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words
• The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV.

This is a request for an impartial admin or experienced user to take part in the ongoing debate, and attempt to cool the flames, because an editor has asked me for help and I'm, quite frankly, out of my depth. The page has been locked for far too long, and consensus is nowhere in sight, mainly due to the fact that it's the same editors spinning out the same arguments. An editor new to the page and not party to the prior debates attempted to mediate with little progress. Some fresh insight into the matter would be great. After that the next step will have to be mediation (which has been rejected by some of the users), or an RfC.

Thanks, – Riana ^ऋ (with help from Jackbirdsong) 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It seems to be an unfortunate rule that Religion+Wikipedia=really, really sucky articles. Grr. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'll have to rule me out of this one. I'm come across one of the main editors involved in this before: we spent a couple merry hours revert-warring. The person he was revert-warring on behalf of quickly turned out to be a sockpuppeting troll who quickly got permabanned, and the page stayed at the Right BLP-compliant Version. Hence, I don't think he'll be very pleased to see me after our last encounter, or at least not on something as contentious as this. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. Baristarim 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is not whether George Galloway is anti-zionist (because he is openly supportive of Palestinians) but whether he is anti-semitic. This is quite a different issue and needs to be handled extremely sensitively, even if the subject were not inclined to take legal action we have a duty to be fair. Sam Blacketer 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious. It's not just religion, look at alternative medicine etc etc. Are there any projects that help people maintain calm? Dan Beale 11:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've just eloquently said something I've been trying to figure out how to express into words for over a year now. Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious.. That should be policy or something. Thanks for brightening my day Dan Beale! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The passage has gone through numerous revisions already. All arguments were considered. I will go step by step.

• "The use of potentially questionable sources"
  • All sources that say what Galloway has said are perfectly reliable, and there are several of them. Furthermore, a video of the interview is available online. The criticism of Galloway's comment appears either on news sites or the official websites of the critics.
• "The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words"
  • This has already been taken care of during revisions. The passage either writes Galloway's words verbatim, or the new sources's words verbatim.
• "The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV."
  • Every single statement relates. Every single one. --Shamir1 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Riana, you wrote, "in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be..." You are mostly correct. I have been active in the discussion, listening to others, while they all smeared me as "biased" without telling me what is wrong with the passage. I continuously asked for compromise and never stopped asking what should be done before requesting mediation. They did not reply politely and rejected any mediation, although I myself had nothing to fear in it.

Riana, most editors hardly stated any violation of policy. They simply said why they dont agree with the criticism. They said "my" sources are "driven by the agenda of demonizing critics of Israeli policy like Galloway," a smear which he has no basis for, to which I replied, "Who do you expect to criticize it? The Sierra Club? A women's rights organization?" In actuality, members of Engage are harshly critical of Israeli policy themselves. Most, if not all, of Galloway's cited comments are not critical of Israeli policies but rather of Israel. This editor further talks about Jewish critics of Israel, trying to argue why he believes the criticism is wrong rather than arguing for any WP policy. Many of them jumped to conclusions, saying that the sources labeled him an antisemite, which not a single one of them did.

As for any "violations" of policy, this is what User:Halaqah had to say: "'South African white citizens are settler in African lands' . U define the term to fit the people. U have such a narrow definition that if i said 'jews own Hollywood' i am antisemitic. Jews were part of the slave trade. Israel is a neocolonial state. Jews control the central lobbying powers in America. Now if i said this about another group it isnt necessarly racism. White people control America. Isnt racist."

I was being attacked by numerous editors, by people who refused to even discuss it or have a mediation. I could not believe the comments by Halaqah who just began an attack campaign using some of the most irrelevant and disproven myths (slave trade) about Jews in the discussion, hardly even mentioning Galloway. This is of course the same pattern of just saying why they think the criticism is wrong, without saying why it is worthy of mention. I repeat that I still asked for mediation, even from these people, but they would not participate. I was talking to a wall until User:Jackbirdsong came along. Finally someone who did not attack me or the criticisms. We did not always agree, but we often did and we certainly moved along more in those 1-2 days than in the weeks with the other editors. I wouldnt say this last passage is in need of any more heavy-duty revision. --Shamir1 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, it was actually me who wrote the part about an "unwillingness to compromise", and I feel it applies to all parties involved. I appreciate that you feel as though you were attacked for putting what you clearly see as noteworthy and legit info into an article, and I agree that some of the other editors were less than cordial with you, but you must have been aware that this info would stir up heated opinions, right? I am glad that we were able to perhaps at least get the compromise ball rolling together, but I would strongly disagree with your assertion that no more "heavy-duty revision" is needed. On the contrary, I came to Riana for help in part because I believe a revision, mediated and furthered by an objective party(s), is the only solution that resembles any form of compromise here- something that has yet to be accomplished.--Jackbirdsong 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it has yet to be accomplished. Both times I requested mediation other editors rejected. --Shamir1 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how a request for mediation works, but if you like I will try to contact other involved editors and get them to participate in the discussion here.--Jackbirdsong 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The ridiculuous "anti-semitism" section that User:Shamir1 is desperate to get back into the article is one that I oppose absolutely, cheifly, as I and others have stated before it is an egregious violation of BLP (and, as I've said before as well, Galloway is famously litiginous). It also fails notability (why are the musings of Engage or a single obscure resolution by the NUS executive encyclopedic?), and appears to have been orginally included to smear Galloway. Mediation will not change either of these points.FelixFelix ^talk 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:COFS

I request an administrator look into this Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Added_Dead_File_to_template.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically, with regard to COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) -- DIFF 1, DIFF 2, DIFF 3, DIFF 4.

More discussion and response from previously un-involved editor, at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Smee 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that the several issues raised (see below) that involve Fahrenheit451 be pulled together into one incident with subsections. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uncivil_edit_comments_from_User:Misou ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Same warning 4 times = ?

The suggestion that trouble could result from one's actions is either meant as a genuine warning or an attempt to intimidate the person being warned.

COFS could very well be right, but unless he/she mentions some specifics they could also just be raising the idea to discourage content he/she doesn't "like". The first mention of the warning and the first reiteration could be forgiven for not providing specifics. By the third or fourth they should have realized the warning was not being heeded with the information provided.

• COFS: WP:Fair use warning to Fahreheit451. I am not a lawyer, but I've seen people getting in trouble for less that your two new articles (or better: copy and paste of LRH materials). 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Warning
• COFS:Here I come along, save you legal costs by giving you prior warning and you say what? 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Reiteration of warning without specifics of "I've seen people getting in trouble " aspect of warning.
• COFS: Ok, harm yourself, get toasted. It's your right, who cares. Further reiteration of warning w/o specifics.
• COFS: I am alerting F451 that he is going to harm himself. Third reiteration of warning, essentially COFS is saying "Negative consequences will follow if you don't listen to my warning, I've seen it happen." but isn't saying what happened, when this was, who was involved, etc.

I think the line between helpful warning and ambigous legal threats is crossed by repeating a threat of legal "harm" from unknown parties without an attempt to explain one's concerns. This is especially true when the editor issuing the warning is asked for but does not give said specifics. (Those being items like court cases, diffs from here, or anything showing people getting into trouble as described by COFS in his/her warning.) Anynobody 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS is editing my user page

I think this user is being disruptive. Please see [14].--Fahrenheit451 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he should have asked you first, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he did. Maybe you could make a user subpage for that discussion in order to keep his fingerprints off your primary user page. YechielMan 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may not be aware of the history of this disruptive user, COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), see also subsection above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User:COFS. Smee 04:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

User Fahrenheit451, several WP:NPA violations, WP:NAM and other WP:PG violations

This is a Scientology story. Fahrenheit451 started putting copyrighted material up in articles. I alerted him that this might exceed fair use which brought him (Fahrenheit451) and Smee to attack me broadly. It ended with the fact that heated accusations flew around and I got very personal attacks and "questions" which were supposed to introvert me and get me out of Wikipedia. I decided not to respond to Fahrenheit451's accusations anymore while on "Smee", well she has a long story of why she does what she does (she tries since about a week to trick me in 3RR and other such incidents, sometimes unfortunately I notice too late). My proposal is to give out a warning to each party not to go in discussion at all anymore but concentrate on editing. This is what I am going to do at least. COFS 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) has been warned multiple times on talk page for violating WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:DE, etc. See also subsections above on this page about this editor, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:COFS_is_editing_my_user_page and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User:COFS. This disruptive and offensive troubling pattern must stop. Smee 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

COFS, you are accusing us of the things you have done yourself. As for the questions I asked that you did not like, on both your user page and talk page you post a message that you are a scientologist and "Feel free to ask questions." I did and you got rattled. Then you vandalized my user page.--Fahrenheit451 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are tweaking the truth in your direction, once again, and I am not willing to discuss anything further with you. Your "questions", easy to see, were hidden insult. It is sick that this ended up on this board at all. COFS 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am presenting the facts and if you are not willing to discuss edits with me, then I see just future conflict. That is not good. Whatever "hidden insult" you see in my questions is your own view.--Fahrenheit451 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, COFS you have made several mistakes in this notice. The first is you haven't included any evidence (diffs or links) to:

1. The copyrighted material which ws the origin of your dispute.
2. The "broad attacks" against you.
3. The introverted questions designed to get you off Wikipedia.
4. The accusations from Fahrenheit451 you refuse to answer.

The second is WP:NAM is neither policy nor guideline, it's an essay.

The third is a violation of WP:PG has to be specified (like WP:NPA).

I am curious to know what Fahrenheit451 asked you, so could either of you provide a diff for it?

An admin will want proof, and isn't going to do the research for you because this board is very busy as you can no doubt see. Anynobody 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. My time is up for now and will have to get back to it later. You can find the questions he asked on his user page and on his user talk page (if he did not delete them from there) . Note to anyone watching: I won't have much time to pursue this before Monday. If there is any Admin working on it, please let me know what you need to follow up on the "discussion", thank you. COFS 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Background and diffs

Comment: Actually, Justanother has mixed his opinions in and called them "facts".--Fahrenheit451 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am comfortable with neutral admins/editors evaluating the veracity of my remarks. ps, please do not cut your comments into the body of mine - thanks. --Justanother 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some background facts:

1. Fahrenheit451 created Dead File article.
2. I (Justanother) warned him that it likely exceeded WP:Fair use. See Template talk:ScientologySeries#Added Dead File to template, 2nd post in thread. I added that policy says I should blank the page but I would wait and see if the issue was addressed.
3. F451 mis-stated that my following policy and blanking the page would be vandalism and a discussion of copyvio legal liability followed in the thread and the following thread Template talk:ScientologySeries#Legal threat discussion.
4. Rather than simply discuss the problem with the article and ways to improve it, Smee and F451 started attacking COFS.
5. Smee canvasses for a block on COFS; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
6. A number of the admins/editors that Smee canvassed stated they found no blockable offense (see Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Veiled legal threats ???) and at least one came down squarely with COFS diff.
7. Smee continues canvassing for a block on COFS here.

This is what happens when, rather than improve articles, and discuss how to improve articles, and discuss differences of opinion; editors try to avoid that time-consuming and proper process with the tactic of getting their opponents in trouble. Can we just give that a rest, please? It is tired. And in actual fact, the continued use of that tactic is disruptive and grounds for User RfC/ArbCom if the "victim" cares to pursue it. --Justanother 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a witch hunt but I have my share in reacting to provocations. In summary I spent half my time with "postings" rather than "edits" and this was wrong. Thanks for the reality adjustment, I'll heed it. COFS 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And I hope that F451 knocks it off as well, e.g. that. COFS 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 2. Comment:Except that there is no evidence that fair use was violated in that article. That is your view, which seems to be parochial.--Fahrenheit451 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 3. Comment:And the discussion was the proper course of action.--Fahrenheit451 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Superdeterminism and Archimedes Plutonium

I'd appreciate very much if some administrators could take a look at the article Archimedes Plutonium and the behaviour of Superdeterminism (talk · contribs). I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I can't research the details, but I think that a few months ago some user vandalised the Jimmy Wales article, inserting into it a request to have the Archimedes Plutonium article deleted (or perhaps corrected — I can't remember). If it had been a request made on Jimbo's talk page, I wouldn't have done anything, but it was a whole pile of irrelevant text inserted into an article about Jimbo, so I reverted. This user came to my talk page to complain, and I told him that he shouldn't have made his request in the text of an article, and told him where to go. (He was claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself.) He went there, and I think someone rolled him back. Anyway, I think he repeatedly vandalised articles by inserting something like "Please deleted the Archimedes Plutonium article" into them. There was an AfD, and I think I voted to delete. I generally feel that articles about living people should be deleted if the subject is not clearly notable, and if the article's existence is causing distress to the subject. (Obviously, if the subject is notable, the article stays.)

I wasn't heavily involved in this, but kept the article on my watchlist. Yesterday, I saw this, and reverted it as vandalism. I don't think the editor in question has the same username as the one I originally encountered, but I'm sure it's the same person. Once again, it's someone claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium. I reverted, as I saw the edit as vandalism. He then did this, which I once again reverted as vandalism. (It also looked very much like a legal threat.)

When I got up this morning, I saw this. I had been thinking about the situation in the meantime, and had seen (and fully agreed with) a post from Jkelly, on a different issue, saying that "If someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly . . . the proper response is to help them out . . . Calling their edit 'vandalism', or reverting them, is just going to escalate the situation."[15] I thought I'd have a look to see what this guy's problem is, and then maybe try to correct the problem while undoing his vandalism, so as to keep him happy and also have an article that didn't damage the appearance of the encyclopaedia. (Obviously, leaving a mainspace article with a whole pile of text about how "Wikipedia is going to be meeting my lawyer" would not be appropriate.) Before I could do that, someone else had reverted.

I don't know who this Archimedes person is, and I don't know if this eccentric editor is the same person. I can't remember what the original editor I encountered was complaining about, exactly, though it was something to do with that article. This editor, who is presumably the same, seems to object to the (sourced) phrase "known as Arky by his fans". My internet access is going to be limited today, so I'd be happy if some administrators keep an eye on the situation. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is the same editor as before, who is claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself, and is certainly editing in a style that is very similar to that of M. Plutonium, with the creation of articles such as Earth Planetary Air-Conditioner; solving Global-Warming and edits such as this.

  For the background to the dispute over nicknames, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd), where I and several editors gave an explanation about verifiability, about our desire to avoid having the long list of wholly unsourced nicknames that the article had before, and about how reliably sourced content is the antidote to such things. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79#Archimedes Plutonium for some further background.

  This editor has already made several on-wiki clear legal threats, such as this (at the bottom), this (where xe states that the legal threat will be lifted when the ability for people to edit Wikipedia is removed), and this, and continues to do so here. (There are also several off-wiki legal threats.) Xe retracted some of xyr direct personal attacks, however.

  I refrained from blocking xem for the legal threats during the AFD discussion period because I weighed the likelyhood of the threat (in light of the off-wiki discussion) against the benefit of having the article's subject involved for the entire period of the AFD discussion. I refrain from blocking xem now because I am one of the major contributors to the article. However, I ask that other uninvolved administrators take a look at the diffs above, Superdeterminism's other contributions to other articles, and the deleted articles, and consider whether allowing an editor either who is Archimedes Plutonium or who is precisely imitating Archimedes Plutonium (the end result being effectively the same as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to continue having editing privileges will be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• ElinorD, this may be what you're trying to recall. I believe these edits are from before User:Superdeterminism created their account. I've also had an entry here on this same topic for a while. Keesiewonder ^talk 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of stalking

False accusation of stalking, with an unacceptable edit summary, in response to a complaint about an earlier unacceptable edit summary. There have been several other recent incidents involving this editor. Andy Mabbett 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Followed up with a false accusation of trolling. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative action is unnecessary at this point. If both you and Captain scarlet make an honest attempt to defuse the situation by allowing for some time to soothe each others' temper, then this conflict might resolve amicably. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but previous experience is that both my and others' efforts to discuss issues rationally and calmly with the editor concerend fall on stony ground; hence my bringing the issue here. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to go if dialog is failing is Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come here because dialog is failing, I came here because of repeated acts of incivility. Andy Mabbett 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have run into some difficulty in communicating with this user, my point is that there's no dire need for administrative intervention. My advice is to give this dispute some time, and if you still feel aggrieved at a later point, attempt mediation through a different venue than AN/I. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I left a message on his talk page so he'd be aware of this discussion. In it I mentioned that his choice of a couple of words could have been better, but otherwise what Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons did looked like good editing. Andy Mabbett you may be taking his feedback too personally, and I think that's what ^anetode╦╩ is saying. Anynobody 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I take false accusations that I'm a stalker and a troll - and that I'm owned - personally. Good grief! Andy Mabbett 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what does that "owned" mean?--Doktor Who 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See owned, or better still, pwned - Alison^☺ 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has got to use these pages as his personnal chat room, it is getting tiresome. this is I think the third instance of Pigsonthewing wasting his time on these pages by referring me. Anyone cane accuse anyone of doing anything... Like making a False accusation of stalking apparently. should I take your accusation any harder than you took mine? Look at yourself in a mirror, you don't like me, and all this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard fest won't make you any easier to work with. Damn, if I think you're stalking me, I'll tell you! thank goodness for contributions list or I owuldn't know of yet again more fun on these pages... Waste of your, my and other contributors' time Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can witness that his edits at the WikiProject Pink Floyd and related articles never bring to edit wars or other kind of disruptions or time wasting. Captain Scarlet, why do you think he doesn't like you? Likely he just doesn't agree with some of your edits.Doktor Who 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally, I'm not enrolled in feuds every five minutes, there seems to be a small group of people unwilling to accept comments outside of their clique (I await a referral for that comment, I'm sure it won't be appreciate for its face value), that's Projects confident of their superiority, confident no one could possibly be right and using their WP as a means to gain token voices when a vote is proposed (by the WP off course). If you really want to know what I think, I think Pigsonthewing finds it hard to see that anyone could disagree with his wisdom. My entire edits since I've met him have been a constant argument, to be honnest, I'm not into that and it is boring. No I don't accept most of what Pigsonthewing says, it's nothing against him, it's against the content. I am for an encyclopedia that has content, not tables. Pigsonthewing seems to be specialised in infoboxes and scripts, clearly against what I believe in. I have always, in good faith, removed his contributions were I sincerely deemed it a downgrades of what was already within the article, would the same type of content, or quality of content should I say, be inserted, I'd consider it with the same eyes; no exceptions and no crusade. It saddens me that Pigsonthewing has no other ways of voicing his opinions than constantly referring me (I believe this is the third, yet agian I spotted another one last night, so the tally must be four now). What has he got to gain, get me banned for life and implement his stuff? Childish. I feel stalked because wherever I edit, and articles I have specifically brought from stub to a fully fledged chapter in a book is massacred. I accept be bold and all that, I wouldn't have the contribution list I have now had I not applied that. Simple I know contribution lists and I see that edits by certain, Pigsonthewing, seem to have the purpose of antagonising me and fuelling an argument. That is what I think, explained I hope in plain non aggressive English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please see [16] and preceding comment; and [17]. Also Talk:Dore railway station. Andy Mabbett 15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• and [18] Andy Mabbett 15:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point [19]. I'm supposed to work with that? I'll be accused of being the reason for global warning next. Just on and on and on Pigsonthewing, do something useful Pigsonthewing, stop wasting everyone's time, I have other things to do than to participate to this charade. You constantly accuse people of Don't be so parochial, Your slippery slope argument is fatuous. and I can make no sense of your comment. I didn't like it the first time you used that, but you're using that on other people's pages too. Now for that stalking, there is no such thing as a false accusation. I did accuse you, there was nothing false about it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I thought you were accusing me of accusing me of accusing you of accusing of stalking? You're not going to report me for breathing are you? I had a bath around 3 this afternoon, do you have a diff dirty+bath+shampoo$clean*15minutes+later. You're making a sad example of yourself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice on set of articles

I've somehow got entangled in a large set of articles — one for each episode of a couple of Disney situation comedies (for children): That's So Raven and Cory in the House (neither of which I'd heard of before, and both of which I wish I never had). See, for example Ain't Miss Bahavian, on which I've just done a lot of work, reduced from this (not the worst by a long way).

The articles were typically long and sprawling, often with immensely long and poorly written plot "summaries", trivia sections, poor formatting, etc. I did my best to tidy them, and met determined opposition from a few editors, one in particular – Kid1412 (talk · contribs) – getting very emotional and abusive, though calming down after the intervention of a couple of other editors, and being cooperative for now. He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series. There are no online or other sources so far as I can tell.

Now, it's not important in one sense; as with more than half the articles here, the subjects are trivial, and who cares whether the summaries are accurate, well-written, properly formatted, etc.? (The same goes for the pop-music articles that I try to clean up and defend.) From the Wikipedia point of view, though, it presumably does matter. Or does it? Is our position that the guidelines and policies are only really for proper articles, and the fanzine side of things can be safely ignored, and allowed to go its own way? There are countless articles documenting the entire outputs of minor pop singers and bands, every episode and character in minor children's television series, discographies going into obsessive detail, all breaking many if not most of the formatting guidelines in the MoS and the relevant WikoProjects, including the fair use of images.

My specific question is: what should I do about the case that I mentioned at the beginning? In theory the plot summaries should all be removed (in theory, I think, all the articles should go as being insignificant and making no claim to significance).

My general question is: are we going to pay attention to the vast mass of the Wikipedia iceberg which most editors and admins prefer to ignore — the fancruft below Wikipedia's plimsoll line? If so, then I'll just remove all the articles from my Watchlist and breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I'll need a lot more help... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be resolved unless and until a fork will throw away 99% of Category:Fictional. Compare Category:Episodes by television series and Category:Television characters by series. Another example I recently stumbled upon is our complete (and nearly completely in-universe) coverage of Judge Dredd.

As an alternative you may want o learn German and switch to dewiki.

--Pjacobi 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "keep a lid on the fancruft" Wikiproject? If not, you can start it and we could join en masse. This highlights one of the current issues with the English Wikipedia, in my opinion: The number of articles is outpacing the number of competent users and administrators to maintain them. Eventually I think we'll catch up again, but right now it's too much. I've supported our liberal precedents towards episode articles, but this may get me to rethink that... Grandmasterka 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You only need to read the "notability" and "article inclusion" pages to see that this is a much trickier discussion than it appears. Part of the problem appears to be projects that aim for "comprehensive" coverage, and pages are being maintained by fans of the subject. Fans have a different calibration for "verifiability" than un-involved people. Here's some examples: List_of_bus_routes_in_London - wikipedia is not a list of bus routes. But, it gets worse. London_buses_route_226. The London Bus Route articles are good articles, but they have no place on wikipedia. But they've survived a few AfD debates, so some of the community wants them here. Well written, interesting, articles aren't so much of a problem as stubs for non famous sports players - Dominique_Dorsey is an example. It's a problem. I search for typos, eg "proffesional" and correct them. This means that I find many poorly written stubs that should really be deleted. I attach them to a few projects and leave them for a wek or so. Then I prod them. As soon as they're prodded someone says the article should be kept, at which point I drop out, leaving the malformed article to sink into the gloom. I don't want to be a deletionist AfD warrior. :-( Dan Beale 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • this is a subject that reflect how wikipedia actually works rather than how it should, my suggestion to you is just to look the other way - it's just too much hassle to do otherwise. Any fancruft filled article will have a special interest group (we call them wikiprojects but SIG is closer to the truth) attached to it. In theory, those SIGs will be involved in keeping the cruft to a minimum and helping to produce well-source, readable articles suitable for a general readers encyclopedia, in practice, the SIGs always act as fans first rather than wikipedians. AFD is a waste of time, because "it will be cleaned up!" will be cited by members of the SIG - then the afd is defeated and the clean-up never occurs. Just look the other way and stick to factual articles, it's better for your nerves. --Fredrick day 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As one who writes "surface transit cruft", London buses route 226 doesn't look that great to me; if that's all there is to the history, it might be better as part of a larger article like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn or List of bus routes in Brooklyn. But many bus routes are "notable" enough for a separate article; two examples are Grand Concourse buses and Myrtle Avenue Line. --NE2 11:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also recently did a mass merging with List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, starting soon after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 51 Line. Now most of them are part of a list where the history can be detailed; only the ex-streetcar lines and the one bus rapid transit route are not redirects. --NE2 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability again, in particular Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. The choice isn't a straight dichotomy between deleting the article and having individual articles. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well, the problem even exists with factual articles, as was cited above with bus routes. The best thing that could happen here is for more of those who are frustrated with fancruft and permastubs in the name of "comprehensiveness" to get involved with these, involved on AfD, all of that. Grandmasterka is right, we still can catch up-but only if more people get involved, more merges start happening (and firmly made to stick), and more in-universe/original research speculation fiction articles start to get cleaned, stubbed, or deleted (and, again, that gets firmly made to stick). In my experience, one editor coming in and bringing up such issues will be shouted down by a few fans, but several coming in and saying "Look, shall we clean and source it or head for AfD?" will actually get them helping. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several television series that have entire books devoted to detailed episode-by-episode documentation of the series. The problem is not that television episode articles don't belong. It is that only some television episode articles belong, the ones where the episodes have been already documented in depth outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Cargo Cult Article Writing leads to editors seeing one television series with individual articles for each episode, and falsely generalizing that to all television series. The only "trickiness" to the discussion is explaining to such editors that it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article, not a wholly fallacious "Article X therefore article Y." argument, and explaining that recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here.

As such, both positions, that "all articles on fiction don't belong" and that "every episode of every television series deserves an article", are wrong. Adopting the former position as a reaction to the latter position is certainly wrong.

Thus the answers to your questions are questions themselves: Do sources exist documenting the individual episodes in depth? Where did you look for sources and what did you find? Did you ask Kid1412 (talk · contribs) to go and look for sources? If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles. If the episodes are not documented in depth in sources, but are only documented as brief summaries or addressed tangentially, the individual articles should be merged into lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. If the episodes are not documented at all, then the content is unverifiable, and Wikipedia should have neither individual articles nor lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Deletion. It really is that simple.

I can understand the frustration with editors who simply won't adhere to our content policies, but hyperbolic suggestions that we give up our content policies are not the answer. Nor is nominating "poorly written stubs" for deletion with no attempt to actually do one's homework beforehand. The answer is to look for sources; to encourage other editors to look for sources, educating them on our content policies; to evaluate the depths and provenances of sources; and to remember that there is more than one tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see so much discussion; I'd been afraid that my questions would just move slowly up the page towards the great archive in the sky.

I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research.

Sources are part, but only part of the problem though. I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant, and that all of them are defended against deletion, merging, or even cleaning up by fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil. (Of course, it's true that doing something serious about the porblem would mean that Wikipedia would shrink to well below the million-article mark again — but I don't see that as a problem.)

The bus-routes issue adds another dimension to essentially the same problem, though the pop-music articles are also about factual articles. Normally, though, there is a significant difference between articles on, say, fictional and real people; the deletionists insist on much more stringent notability conditions for real people...

As for doing our homework; well, I do when I can — but really, this is like the often-seen response of editors to a request for sources: "how dare you demand sources? They're easily found on Google, just look". Well, no, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the material to provide the source; I don't work on Wikipedia as a research assistant for editors who can't be bothered to do their own work. (Maxim: If it's not worth the time looking for a source for your edit, then it's not worth making it. If it should be made, then eventually someone who's prepared to spend the time will make it.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting so this won't be as long, and apologies in advance for the length, but there are some points I've really been wanting to express on this issue. What I'm saying actually works out to be similar to what's currently in WP:EPISODE, but not exactly, and I'm also trying to provide a logical basis without reference to it, since it seems to be controversial.) I think part of the problem people have with television episode articles stems from different interpretations of what WP:NOR/WP:A actually mean. Mel, in discussing your problems with some episode articles, you said "He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series" and "I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research." You're making an assumption in those statements that the user's writing of the plot summaries was inappropriate on the grounds that it was a creation of original research. Uncle G's comment makes a similar assumption, and refers to WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR as the basis for it: "...it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article [...] recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here." My reading of the policies, though, does not lead to that assumption, and I don't mean this as Wikilawyering -- I genuinely think that what I'm about to describe is both the intent of the policy and the interpretation that's best for the Wikipedia. From WP:NOR, material counts as original research if it:

• introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article;
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

How does watching a TV show and writing down what happens relate to this? Well, it's clearly not violating the first three, as it doesn't theorize anything, argue any points, or invent any neologisms. But what about the fourth? One could reasonably say that it's an "explanation", and the fourth point says that such things need to be attributed to reliable sources. This leads to Uncle G's point, that "If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles." For many episodes, this is obviously going to be difficult to do in the sense that we look for such documentation on other subjects -- while the most significant episodes of a show are probably going to have articles briefly describing their plot in newspapers or magazines, many won't have any information in such sources beyond the fact that they aired. This interpretation, though, focuses on the lack of secondary sources and overlooks the fact that we always have a reliable primary source for the plot of a TV show: the show itself. WP:NOR says these three important things about primary sources:

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. [...] Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include [...] and television programs.

• An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

• All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It appears to me, then, that writing a summary from watching a show is a perfectly valid use of a primary source, as television programs are specifically listed as potential primary sources, and a plot summary is only making descriptive claims that can be easily verified by anyone else by watching the same episode.

As I said before, besides thinking this is the correct interpretation of the intent of the policy on original research, I also think it's the most sensible and practical interpretation for the purposes of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Yes, it's going to be very difficult to find traditional secondary sources for plot summaries in some cases, but those summaries are necessary to write useful articles about episodes of shows. Does that lack of sources imply non-notability? Well, we have one source (the show itself), and we can undoubtedly find a source for details about the show (production info, guests, etc.) I think this is another point where there's argument, though -- some people seem to think that's not sufficient notability. It seems to me, though, that there are good reasons to consider that sufficient/have the notability of the show and its more notable episodes be "inherited" by the others. As I argued in this AfD, for very popular shows, a fair number of episodes will definitely have sufficient secondary sourcing, so we should clearly have articles on those. Having articles for only those, though, may take something away from the usability of the Wikipedia for readers, which I consider important. Imagine that you've just started watching a show, say in season three, and you want to learn what's already happened. Ideally, if there's an article for every episode, then when you go to the main page (or an episode-list page, if it's been split off) for the show, you'll click the link for the first episode, read all about that one, then follow a link in the infobox to the next episode, and in this way you can easily read through the whole history of the show. If only some episodes have articles, though, you'll either have to click each one that exists, and simply do without information about the others, or, if there is information in some sort of summary page, switch back and forth to read everything, which seems like a much less satisfying browsing experience. Having individual pages with infoboxes also provides a nice neat way to present episode-specific factual information about writers, directors, guest stars, etc. Yes, for some less-exciting episodes the pages may be a bit stubby, but the convenience of having all the articles leads me to believe we should accept that stubbiness. In addition, this avoids the inevitable conflicts over what information is worth keeping about an episode when there's a long single page or season pages, and takes the reader directly to the information about a particular episode when searching on the name of that episode instead of nowhere, or to a redirect.

No, I don't think every TV show should have a page for every episode. Shows that are over and never had many episodes may be well served by one or a few pages. Shows for which we don't currently have much information can stay in a summary page or pages until we have enough material that most will be more than stubs and someone makes the effort to create all the episode pages with appropriate infoboxes. If we go by my interpretation of TV shows as appropriate primary sources for themselves, it shouldn't be hard to create such pages for any fairly popular show. While there are people here who are "fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil" who will write, and defend, bad articles on TV shows, there are also many fanatical editors who, while only interested in a limited subject, are willing to put in the effort to make genuinely well-written, encyclopedic articles on that subject. Editors who aren't interested in that subject, but who are knowledgeable of and interested in the Wikipedia as a whole, should be happy that such people exist and are expanding coverage in areas that might otherwise go ignored. Mel, you said "I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant...." I think that's too limited of a view of what we're doing here... remember, this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Those articles aren't taking anything away from articles you care about simply by existing. Now, they could be taking something away from the project as a whole if they're badly written, but there are plenty of bad articles about historical or scientific topics and plenty of great, well-sourced articles about pop culture topics. This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value.

Ok, that probably went on longer than it should have, but I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about this.Pinball22 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for writing on every episode is continuity-- these series usually have running plot lines. As one who rarely watches most of them, when I need to understand a reference to some notable episode, I need the context. The way of doing it for WP, of course, is to have articles for chunks of the series, usually seasons, with the individual ones broken out into detail if justified (for example, if they become more than 1 or 2 paragraphs long) But is is much easier setting up such a group of articles by having a stub for each; and it is not all that easy moving the less notable ones back into articles for the season. So I see the temptation. I think the only way is to try to get them back, group by group. Some of the people at schools are trying that with respect to school districts. It might also work with radio stations. There are intermediate stages between a nondescriptive list and a separate article. But organizing the disorganized take work, and the editors who could best do the work would -- understandably--rather write new and excessive articles. DGG 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinball22, you say: "This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value." That glosses overf my point, though: the vast majority of these articles don't mee the guidelines for notability; they don't meet the relevant WikiProjects' guides for notability; they're utterly insignificant. They all, however, have a flock of fans, whose attitide to editors arriving from the main part of Wikipedia and asking for sources, MoS formatting, notability, etc., is aggressive;ly aggrieved incredulity — they've never heard of the MoS, etc., they don't care about it when it's pointed out to them, "notability" means "I like it", and an adequate and verifiable source is "I know it". For example, I recently speedily deleted Bossa Nova Hotel, an article on an album that consisted of a track listing and an infobox; no claim to significance, and a little investigation suggested that it had none to be claimed. I received this:

Hey, Buddy are you stupid????? I wasn't finished editing the page and what the hell do u do delete it!! You call yourself a editor?? i'd say you need to lay off, next time this happens i will start destroying every page u create just like u did me on this one. Which in my opinion wasn't right at all. Good Day!, Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

That's pretty much par for the course. You see, I'm not talking about articles on ephemeral pop stuff that meet the notability criteria — this isn't an attack on popular culture; I'm talking about the vast amount of stuff that doesn't come near meeting those criteria (singles that sold 350 copies, greatest-hits albums, minor characters in low-audience children's television, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1

This user, among other things, has repeatedly refused to clean up double redirects after moving pages. Can someone please advise? Thank you. --NE2 05:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted an notice here, because you are not so great of a character yourself. Admins, let me tell you about NE2. Ugh, this character is really frustrating to deal with. One of my wiki-friends spent the better part of last summer working on bus related nyct articles. He was working for transit, and he spent a lot of time looking around and taking pictures for the articles. He never reallly told people that. Then along came NE2. This character went through and systematically removed my, as well as contributions. He even accused him of becoming upset. He also accused me of nagging him to reach consensus, which is how we work around here.

This character is unreasonable and completely heartless. I can't put it any other way. He needs to be brought down to his place. Rest assured, I'm eagerly hoping that starting here, something can be done about him before it's too late. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to act in a more mature manner in your contacts with each other. WP:CIVIL applies both ways, and WP:AGF also is important. NE2, you know better. Imanumber1, further comments like "unreasonable and completely heartless" are completely inappropriate.

Treat each other like mature adults. And please clean up double redirects if you cause them. Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never meant to fall out of accordance with WP:CIVIL, and I'm sorry if I might have. I've just been caught up in a difficult situation with him for the past month, and it has got worse ever since. So right now, I've asked him to leave me alone. What else should I do? How am I supposed to treat him like a "mature adult" if he keeps on? Can you please help me?

It's not that big a deal on fixing a doub. redir. If he has caused you trouble, just avoid editing things that he edits. --KZ ^talk 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried and failed. Try dealing with him and see how much trouble he can do to any page. I have to keep an eye on him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit involved in this myself, having been the user who spent the better part of the summer working on the bus articles. For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of incivility going both ways. Imdanumber1 filed an RfC, but there really hasn't been any meaningful result. I've been called on to intervene, but I'm a little too busy with other administrative tasks to wade into this quagmire. Coincidentally, in response to your comment, Georgewilliamherbert, not all of the parties here are adults.

To summarize the conflict for others, it is a repeated skirmish across WP:NYCS articles. It's incredibly similar every time. NE2 will implement a change, typically removing sections of an article or renaming that article (naming conventions for subway stations are not agreed upon). Others will challenge him, and he'll respond harshly (such as the comments about me). NE2 will persist, not giving any ground. Eventually the issue will boil over into a more public venue (such as this page) or will die in talk pages. Inevitably, interest will fizzle and the issue will be dormant for a week or so. Then it'll happen again. I can see that happening again now.

I'm not quite sure what the best course for Wikipedia is. Although I admire some of NE2's goals (such as removing every single piece of information without attribution), I strongly question some of the techniques he uses to achieve them. NE2 has basically taken over WP:NYCS since he started editing subway related articles. That isn't bad, but his manner tends to hurt and alienate editors like imdanumber1. I can see that happening right here. I'd really like to see these debates happen without the inevitable hurt feelings I'm seeing from imdanumber1. Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) are both great contributors, and I'd hate to see either of them leave the project.

I think both parties need a cooling off period. I sincerely hope some type of mediation can happen here, and I'm going to suggest it to both of them. Cheers, alphachimp 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I think our interests are best served by them both taking several hours off. Imdanumber1 is hitting the hay, and NE2 does not appear to be editing. I really hope this will cool things off a little. alphachimp 06:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have opened several discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, including compiling Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. I said there that I will not move any stations to what I believe to be the common names while the discussion is ongoing, and suggested that Imdanumber1 do the same. Yet he continues to "revert NE2's move rampage", and also has not fixed any of the double redirects he has created. When do we say "don't move any more pages until you fix your double redirects?" --NE2 07:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Itsnotacase (talk · contribs)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Itsnotacase. The account was created today and only had three edits but it seemed clear to me that this was a single purpose account from the edits it made. [20] [21] I would like to see if fellow Wikipedians agree with my issuing this block or whether it should be reduced. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for racism, but I'd have to say I endorse that block. Natalie 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block. That kind of editing can not be tolerated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Proxyorg

This user Proxyorg first started to spam Proxy_list and ignore talk and warnings using ip addresses Special:Contributions/210.17.217.161 and Special:Contributions/210.17.220.40 and now is back with username Proxyorg contribs and continue to spam and ignore talk and warnings. Graciella 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Joestella and continuing disruptive behaviour

A user User:Joestella is not getting his way in a couple of current AfDs, especially one at this link. Checking out WT:AUSPOL and also Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that he is in a minority of users on a list of subjects and has a habit of pushing controversial ideas onto the rest (he even brags about this on his user page). He tried to have a user page deleted which disagreed with him. Then a few days ago, he blanked an FA at South Australian general election, 2006 because he didn't like it (this is covered here), fought consensus and reverted/editwarred almost to the point of 3RR all the way until the page was protected (which it still is), then started work on a POV fork from it to stop it from getting deleted, and now is modifying votes on the AfD that disagreed with his. This is utterly unacceptable. DanielT5 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Annrex

Resolved

 – User blocked. – Michaelas¹⁰ 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Annrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Possible troll. So far single-purpose account, insistently posting some off-topic rant about the Polish Wikipedia to WP:AN. User pages says on wikibreak but has only just arrived. Unacceptable licencing at Image:Coapon.JPG - "The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited to use this file and its derivatives". Can anyone shed any light on this? Block or not? --kingboyk 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a WP:POINT upload if I ever saw one. No wonder they blocked him on the other project. Part Deux 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Take him out. He started with a weird rant and turned it into a troll. --Golbez 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse an indefblock. User has joined in an attempt to rant about the Polish Wikipedia, while assuming bad-faith of the administrators. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Davesmith33

This user is edit warring at the Top Gear (current format) article in regards to a.. wait..... dog. Dave believes that this dog is a star, but has presented no verifiable source and is in "violation" of consensus on the talk page against the addition. Secondly the user is also warring at Template:Infobox Television in regards to a redundant (disputed) parameter s/he has added with no discussion. Matthew 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked by Gwernol for 3RR violation. Matthew 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ararat arev

The sockpuppets and Ips of this banned user is causing a constant 3RR violation on the article Turkey. Which was semi-protected to stop the trouble. However he is now using sleeper accounts to cause heavy disruption and harmfully break The three revert rule daily. I suggest a WP:RFCU and a full scale community warning. I have brought this to the attention of admins as it appears to be getting full scale out of hand. Retiono Virginian 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.

I could provide a list of diffs. But it is easier if I just direct you to the current problem page: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Use the find command of your browser to look for "Humus" on the page, and check each occurrence until you find his replies to me or "Bless sins." Start with the section titled "Proposal to rename" and go down the page. It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user "Bless Sins." Here is a link to the last revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada&oldid=121777542 --Timeshifter 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite the community to take a look at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada#Proposal to rename and below. Note how 2 problem users: Timeshifter and Bless sins are trying to impose their POV against the results of survey and against scholarly research. Using WP as a soapbox didn't help, so here we see another attempt to intimidate an opponent in content dispute. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I don't have a POV. And there was no survey or poll. Trying to follow wikipedia guidelines is not using WP as a soapbox. You have now amply proven my point about your method of personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. And I proposed using both article names in the title in the last section of the talk page before making the incident report here. "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)." So how does that fit into your POV-smearing attempts? --Timeshifter 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Girls, girls, calm down. Keep it polite. HalfShadow 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is trolling allowed on incident boards? Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong section is it? Fail to see why this requires any admin attention. Obviously a dispute. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is both a naming dispute and this incident report here concerning an admin's personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be giving as good as you get there, and this is obviously a content/naming dispute. Please don't clutter the admin board with frivolous complaints. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others commented on an incident reported here earlier involving you and ChrisO. So there is an obvious conflict of interest in you commenting on this incident report here involving me. Please let other admins do the commenting on this. I have not attacked the character of Humus sapiens. I have commented on the content of his remarks. Whereas Humus sapiens has attacked my character and the character of other editors on that talk page. --Timeshifter 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't compound your error by failing to assume good faith. I don't recall what you're talking about, and it's not relevant anyway. This alleged incident is a content dispute, and you are wasting the board's time. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of not assuming good faith. You have nothing to base that on. Let me refresh your memory. Here is a link to the incident report in the archives: Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. I did not bring up the naming dispute in my initial incident report. I reported on the treatment by Humus of me and another editor: "It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user 'Bless Sins'." Humus, you, and KZ focussed on the naming dispute. I did not. --Timeshifter 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, pick your fights. Let someone else handle this one, OK? Over-reach is a terrible thing. Hornplease 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, but the irony of your statements in this section should be obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, Jay does not need to "pick fights". wiki is not a battleground nor a loudspeaker for attacks on respected admins.Bakaman 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is the fact that attacking someone using this board to complain about an admin's behaviour as 'time-wasting' is not very useful; and an attack on someone complaining about Humus might be more carefully read if it didnt come from you.

The irony is not obvious, possibly because it's been dead for years. Hornplease 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and nothing else. There is a "formal" RFM process underway. I think that additional discussion here will just confuse the issue. 6SJ7 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that a request for mediation is taking place. The participation of other editors and admins has already ameliorated the attacks on character somewhat. All I really wanted anyway with this incident report was to get some help from additional moderating elements. --Timeshifter 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of block

Quick links: Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice as requested by WP:Probation. I am blocking Zeq for 48 hours for openly defying an article ban imposed in accordance with his Arbitration ruling. More details at that page (at the end). --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. If he wishes to challenge an article ban, obviously editing the article is not effective as an appeal. And that log keeps growing... El_C 10:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge whatsoever of this dispute (that arbcom case is before I even joined Wikipedia), but arbcom found that you were edit warring in a dispute with Zeq (finding of fact #4). Is it appropriate for you to ban him from an article and block him for violating the same? Shouldn't an uninvolved admin make that determination? (And just to clarify, unless there is something pressing that I am missing, I don't endorse the block nor the ban and believe that you should remove both and allow an uninvolved administrator to deal with both issues.)--BigDT 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that I didn't notice. There's your challenge, then: find an uninvolved admin which has knowledge of the dispute. I, arguably, am one. El_C 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the article history [22]. It seems that Zero0000 is in a content dispute with Isarig and Zeq. No effort whatsoever has been made to discuss the issue on the talk page. My suggestion is that (1) the block and article ban both be lifted, but Zeq be cautioned to discuss changes on the talk page rather than revert war, (2) Zero0000 be cautioned not to block or ban people with whom he is in a dispute, and (3) if desired, the article can be protected to facilitate discussion on the talk page. Any thoughts? --BigDT 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq has been here long enough; the quality of edits such as this is too low. El_C 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Been here long enough? Are we talking about an article ban+2 day block or are we talking about an indefinite ban from the project? I think we're talking about the former. At any rate, regardless of anything else, no admin can block/ban a user with whom they are in a content dispute. Administrative privileges cannot be used in that fashion. Unless someone wants to make the case that Zero0000 is not an involved admin, the article ban is invalid and thus, so is any block arising from it. Any uninvolved admin is free to ban Zeq from that article if they have a good faith reason to, however, I would suggest that an attempt to resolve the issue should come before such an action. --BigDT 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the former. But I felt we've already passed the point where the latter could be applied months ago. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Zero0000 here, "the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator." Which, I gather, includes Zero0000. Regards, Huldra 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine that they intended for that to include someone actively involved in a dispute over the article. You can't ban someone you are currently in a dispute with from the article you are in a dispute over. That's just silly. --BigDT 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While endorsing the block, it really needs to be someone other then Zero. When someone involved in a content dispute lays down the block, its a MeatBall:PowerAnswer that just breeds resentment. El_C, why dont you lay the block on him? -M^ask? 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the block would be enforcing an invalid ban and is thus inappropriate. The user should be immediately unblocked with any administrator free to impose the article ban. HOWEVER, given that no attempt has actually been made to resolve the content dispute, I think an article ban is premature. --BigDT 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it an English course, and if Zeq's continues to introduce & edit war over edits which are consistently of too low a quality, then imposing the arbitration remedies will continue. Sure, hopefuly not by someone cited in the RfAr, so next time, Zero should drop myself a line. For my part, I have long suggested that perhaps he tries the simple Wikipedia for a while. It is unfair of him to expect others to so extensively reconstrct his edits, which he continues to revert. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the general quality of Zeq's edits (sorry, I'm too lazy to study hundreds of contributions), but there is no policy basis for a block for low-quality editing. If the opposite were the case, most Wikipedians would suffer regular blocks for poor editing. Beit Or 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tendencious pattern of revert warring over low-quality additions, it should not be others' responsibility to reconstruct these. His exhuasting carelessness on that front has long reached the stage of disruptiveness. El_C 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) On what basis would you reblock? Zero's ban is invalid because Zero was in a revert war with Zeq at the time he issued the ban. To allow such a thing is silly. If the ban is invalid, then there is no cause for anyone to block based on that ban. --BigDT 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already answered that question above and am not inclined to repeat myself. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The original ban at 1929 Hebron massacre should have been announced here, logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and posted on Talk:1929 Hebron massacre. While the arbitration case says He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing., good practice would require that the ban at least be reviewed here, or even better requested at WP:AE much like admins should request protection at RFPP when they have edited the article. I suggest that the correct course would be to unblock and then request an article ban at WP:AE. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's being reviewed. No point in unblocking if he'll just go back to inserting that poorly-written bit. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a generally accepted principle that any administrative action, including a ban, must be made only by an uninvolved admin; thus, the original ban was absolutely inappropriate and the subsequent block only compounded the breach of WP:ADMIN. Furthermore, I believe the probation has expired by now. Usually users are placed on probation for one year; at least, this seems to have been the understanding of the original ArbCom ruling when Zeq was banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid: the ban was set to expire on March 5, 2006, one year after the arbitration decision.[23] If the original intent of the arbitrators regarding the length of Zeq's probation is unclear, let's make a request for clarification. Beit Or 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The probation has not expired, nor is there evidence that Zeq's editing practices improved. El_C 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, that in light of objections, neither this block nor the article ban (per AC clarification a few months ago) should not count toward the 5-block-one-year-ban but any additional blocks should count it. Simply, Wikipedia is not therapy. El_C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that in such a situation a block must be overturned. A block by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. Beit Or 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can unblock and reblock for the sakes of procedure. El_C 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that a block enforcing an existing arbitration ruling (article edit ban) has to be done by an "uninvolved admin". - Crockspot 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better, nonetheless. El_C 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The block may or may not be valid; but I think it's extremely poor form for an admin involved in a content dispute to resort to his/her admin tools. The term "any" surely does not mean that the editor in question is an outlaw. --Leifern 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't enforcing an article ban imposed by the arbitration committee. If he were, this wouldn't be an issue. Rather, he was enforcing an article ban that HE HIMSELF imposed during a revert war over that very same article. I'm going to be bold here. I have a meeting coming up right now. It will be over in an hour or an hour and a half or so (so around 22:00-22:30). If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by then, I intend to unblock Zeq. The article ban was imposed by an admin in a content dispute and the block was made enforcing that improper article ban. If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by the time I get out of my meeting, I intend to undo the block as it is patently improper. I consider myself neutral and uninvolved. I have never edited articles in this topic area nor, that I can recall off hand, interacted with Zeq, Zero0000, nor El C. As such, I consider myself uninvolved in the dispute and have seen no justification for the article ban and ensuing block. If any uninvolved admin objects, I will, of course, defer to their judgment. --BigDT 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. El_C 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturn the block if you want but there should also be an independent review of the article ban, which should be reimposed if it is justified. Then if Zeq violates the article ban imposed by a neutral admin, he gets blocked again. I will do this myself after I get back from an errand. Thatcher131 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, disregard that; don't overturn it. I object. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may chime in for a moment, does the fact that Zeq is alleging that Zero's motives are racially motivated (see this section ("most likley based on discrimination") of the talk page, as well as his revert of my comment on the matter) have any bearing here? Seems like a rather serious accusation to level at someone, esp an admin. Tarc 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To echo the section above, it is a serious accusation, regardless of the accused in an admin or not. But I'm not seeing it. Can you quote? El_C 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I will raise it with Zeq. El_C 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that Thatcher131 ignored my objection and unblocked. It looks like a questionable unblock (certainly as much as the preceding block). El_C 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like he read Tarc's comment above, so I'll strike that bit out. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Crossposted from my talk page) :I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree, but it is within your discetion. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Tarc's comment, I did see it briefly, but comments are flying all over the place faster than I can keep up. I view the original block as improper as stated above. If, in responding to the block, Zeq made inappropriate comments or allegations that deserve a block for civility or something, then do so. As I said above, this may strike some as overly procedural, but I believe it is the best way to proceed. Thatcher131 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like there's been five blocks, so I would not be blocking for a year as noting on Zeq's talk page. I'll still give him one last chance to respond (so far it dosen't look promising). If there is a block, it will count toward the one year ban, however. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

El C, with all due respect, I don't believe that you should be the one to impose a block of Zeq other than for obvious situations. From your comments on his talk page, you seem to have significant history there. I just got out of my meeting. Had Thatcher131 not already unblocked him, I would have. Please understand that it is important to stay well away from the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you or Zero have an issue with something Zeq does, the best response is to bring the issue here and allow it to be reviewed by a completely uninvolved admin. I am well aware that purely taking an administrative action doesn't make you involved, but even if you in good faith consider yourself uninvolved, it doesn't look that way from the outside. --BigDT 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the AC about this last time and they deemed me uninvolved, administrative history notwithstanding. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an accusation of discrimination —unless retracted— goes beyond mere civility. El_C 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I say what if the accusations are true? IF somebody makes an accusation that is then substantiated but was originally had up for making the accusation isn't that allowing the problem through blind cover?--Lucy-marie 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq was invited to substantiate the accusation. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion to offer on the rightness or wrongness of Zeq's edits, but I'm disappointed that the conversation seems to have veered away from an administrator blocking an editor he was in a revert war with (in order, perhaps, to cut down on the number of editors on the page he had to revert). This is precisely what admins are not supposed to do with their powers. Was the block of Zeq justified? Let's say, for argument's sake, it was. It's a simple matter to come to this board and ask if any admins out there agree. If the case is so obvious, the block would be in place within minutes. That Zero failed to do this is extraordinarily troubling. More troubling still is that there are so few admins in his thread troubled by it. IronDuke 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for these comments and observations. I entirely agree that it would have been preferable for someone completely uninvolved, rather than me, to have taken action against Zeq. My feeling about it, right or wrong, is that it is not a "content dispute" as usually defined but rather a serious behavior problem on the part of Zeq. Nor is it, really, just a matter concerning this one article. The fact is, as anyone can verify with a few clicks, that a very large fraction of Zeq's edits are tendentious, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, he has been here a long time and knows perfectly well what is allowed and what isn't. He knows that it is not permitted to insert the claim of one side of a historical dispute into the second sentence of an article without qualification as if it is an accepted fact. He knows it, yet he did it repeatedly. That is how he usually behaves and it has to stop. Concerning this particular article: I just now reconnected to WP to see all this discussion and am confused about who is banned or not or blocked or not, but if other admins are willing to take over the resolution of this problem that would make me happy indeed. Undoing the block and reimposing the article ban, as Thatcher131 suggested (already did?) is fine with me. The only thing that would not be fine is for Zeq's disruption to continue. --Zero^talk 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I banned him for one month. I watch WP:AE and am certainly prepared to reblock if needed, or reimpose the ban if he resumes disruption after the month is up. As I told somone else regarding Ombudsman, with a user already found to be disruptive, you don't have to wait for the situation to become intolerable before requesting an article ban. There are still 1.5 million plus articles he can edit. Thatcher131 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. El C has reimposed the block. I'm sick of dealing with this garbage. We don't block people with whom we are in a dispute. We don't make punative blocks. If that's not a concept we can all agree on, then I'm done here. --BigDT 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BigDT seems to be taking too lightly the fact that I've given Zeq many hours to either retract or substantiate the charges of "discrimintaion." El_C 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So? You should not have blocked Zeq because you are in a personal dispute with him/her. If you have an issue that you think merits blocking, bring it here for an uninvolved administrator review and execute. --Iamunknown 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This board seems to be losing from its usefulness in this case, so I'd rather defer to the AC (the block was noted in Rfar log). I am not in a dispute with Zeq, although he wishes to present it that way. He could have even said, 'let me collect the evidence and get back to you in a few days,' but no, he said "that is my answer" and to this BigDT says "this is a joke. He complains about a patently incorrect block and then you block him for it?" as if I blocked him for merely 'complaining' ("excuse," he says) against a block, which although I felt should have stayed in place (for other reasons), I too took issue with. How is that helpful? I also note that the unblocking admin was aware of this situation and left it to my discretion. I don't have much to say beyond this. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, BigDT, and Iamunknown have all accused El C of involvement in the dispute, but have provided no reasoning at all for this strong accusation. Clearly, he was not part of the edit war. If it's about what he has said in this thread, that's not involvement, any more than yours or mine. Please offer some reasoning, as it's not immediately obvious to me at all. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, deserves more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page [24]. Note also the same behavior at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.

At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are meant to uphold policy, not violate it. Based on this presentation, it is difficult not to conclude that Zero0000 should be desysoped.

What has happened? Zero's ban of Zeq has stuck, and his block has been restored. I have no strong opinion about Zeq's editing, but there is the strong appearance of a double standard. To wit:

Zero2000 1) has edit warred, and 2) abused blocks and admin rollback to prosecute this edit war.

Zeq 1) has edit warred and 2) um...well, that's it.Proabivouac 09:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's it? Er, that's quite enough. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with what Dmcdevit writes regarding Zeq, and I thank him for both his research and level-headedness. I also concur with him, having examined the full array of evidence he provides, that Zero's conduct as an admin has certainly been problematic. While I'm inclined to give him one last chance (perhaps impose some immediate restrictions), I'll state my bias upfront, having had a positive editing relationship with him for nearly three years, as well as a great admiration for his skills as a ME scholar whom I share many views with. El_C 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the light of his comment, I must agree with Dmcdevit on Zero. In terms of the procedure, the only way of forcibly desysopping someone is to go to the ArbCom; however, as a community, we can ask Zero to voluntarily surrender his admin privileges in order to spare the trouble of an arbitration. Based on his comments above, I believe that he understands that his actions were not right. Beit Or 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq. I have admitted above that it would have been better to ask someone else to take the action that the ruling permits "any administrator" to take, but that is the limit of what I admit. Throughout this affair I have acted in absolute good faith. Thank you for the suggestion that I fall on my sword without sufficient reason, but I'll pass. --Zero^talk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not regard the criticism of my behaviour here to be justified. (1) I use Talk pages more than most editors: 37% of my last 200 edits were in talk pages and I'll be happy to have my use of talk pages compared to any other editor. (2) The list of reverts which Dmcdevit gives are not a counterexample. In each case the issue is very simple and my long edit summaries are quite sufficient to explain why I was making the edit. This might not have been the case if Zeq was a newbie or good-faith editor, but he is not. That's the whole point: when edits are being deliberately made in order to disrupt and destroy an article, the obligation to start a long discussion over it is questionable. And I mean long: Take the example of this edit and the following 14 edits (notice how Zeq produced a single web link that contains one sentence on an irrelevant subject, while Doron and I produced academic sources to show how he is mistaken); then started again by Zeq as if nothing had been said at this edit and 10 of the following 12 edits, plus a whole article on the subject written by Doron and I from the latest archaelogical sources. After all this effort, Zeq comes back weeks later with exactly the same claim, still totally ignoring the sources presented. This is what it means to "discuss the issue on the Talk page with Zeq"; I submit that it is well beyond the call of duty. (3) I dispute that this incident is similar to two similar incidents. In those cases the Arbitration Committee had not put the other user on probation and provided a remedy that "any administrator" can use to prevent further disruption. This makes the present case fundamentally different. --Zero^talk 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with the position Zero found himself in. He should definitely follow my advise and agree to immediately adhere to the following restriction: no use of sysop tools on Zeq under any circumstance. I don't agree with desysoping over this (at least not if recent issues are limited to Zeq), but in fairness to Dcmdevit, at least he's also arging to ban Zeq. Whereas Beit-Or, BigDT, IronDuke, and Leifern all found reasons to ignore Zeq's role and only comment on Zero, which does not seem even-handed on their part. El_C 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to not use blocks or bans against Zeq again. That's for sure. But the issue may become moot as I am probably going to leave altogether. The task that I really enjoy, writing articles on the basis of the very best sources, is nearly impossible in the mideast section of Wikipedia. As you know from your own experience, very few good editors last there more than a few months before they can't take it any more. It is bad for my health and I've forgotten what the point is. --Zero^talk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, the prohibition against admin action when involved is absolute. ArbCom often doesn't feel the need to specify that, just like WP:BP doesn't add that it is only for uninvolved admins in every sentence. Your claims about Zeq's poor behavior, even if correct, merely demonstrate that you chose to respond in kind with sterile revert warring rather than to seek a resolution, it seems. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But I did try to seek a resolution - the one that the ArbCom prescribed. I didn't do a good job of it, for sure, but I did try. --Zero^talk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to expand on this. The problem is, Dmc, if the arbcom ruling didn't actually mean that any admin could issue the block, then what was the ruling trying to say? I read this ruling some weeks ago via AoIa, and have to say I distinctly remember sharing Zero's reading. You may think this is incorrect, but there are in fact two very important reasons why: 1.) If the ruling was not actually to expedite the blocking process with Zeq, then what was it trying to do? I thought this was the whole point: while normally bad behavior has to be taken to an outside admin for action, due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him. Basically saying to Zeq: we'll let you go, but even if you're off editing in some far-off obscure corner of Wikipedia with just one admin around, if you get out of hand, that admin can block you, and without going for outside help. And why did I think that? Because 2.) If that's not what the policy was saying, then why did it specifically use the phrase "any admin"? While you're right, of course, that every comment in every rule doesn't state every caveat every time, that's rather different from language specifically going out of its way to say "any admin." That language sticks out like a sore thumb. Honestly, if you saw that in a policy, would you not immediately add "any uninvolved admin" or "any admin not involved in the dispute?" Clearly one would, since that is exactly what the general probation policy does. My understanding, then, by the failure of this to do so, was that it was specifically stating that this general rule did not apply in this case, for the reason stated above.

Should Zero have consulted another admin? Yes, at this point, that seems pretty clear. Was his reading of the ruling unfounded? No, I don't think it was. Is this the case for some type of harsh sanction? I really don't think so. Mackan79 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, on the basis of past experience, ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct. It is a substantial misrepresentation to say it is going out of its way to specify that involved admins may act; it uses that language because it is an admin action not specified in general policy. Also, "due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him" makes no sense whatsoever: blocking while involved is prohibited because admins acting out of a conflict of interest will always be acting under judgment impaired by personal and content concerns. That doesn't change because of the other editors' intransigence. Probation is not "to expedite the blocking process" but to allow an editor who is otherwise productive to remain as long as they remain within certain bounds. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Dmc. At the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we see a note from Will Beback that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." Perhaps ArbCom could clarify this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the point isn't that the CoI goes away, but that Zeq has lost his right to this safeguard. While you suggest probation isn't to expedite the blocking process, I think this also misses that arbcom was presumably doing something special in this case beyond ordinary probation. In that regard, expediting the process seems like a very reasonable purpose to me, considering the stress and disruption that seem to have instigated the case (and seemed likely to possibly continue).

This is all really ancillary, though, to what the ruling said, which clearly was that "any admin" could encorce it. I'm simply saying, Zero may well have reasonably taken this at face value, and there are reasons why he would have done so. I agree with Sjakkalle that a clarification seems most appropriate. Mackan79 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't special; as I said, it's the norm. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'll put it more simply. Did no one notice that I was one of the arbitrators that came to that decision? When I say "ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct" it is on the basis of the fact that I wrote many such rulings myself as an arbitraor, and that's what it means. And that's what the vast majority of administrators for years have understood it as. That is your clarification. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you should have alerted the ArbCom that you have a personal interest in defending the wording of Zeq's ruling? I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but the principle of full disclosure is there for a reason. Will you alert them now? As for your "clarification", I read it like this: "there is an unwritten shared understanding that everyone is supposed to have, and anyone who somehow misses out on this shared understanding deserves to be beaten up." --Zero^talk 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Alert ArbCom of what? I don't understand what you are getting at. But, yes, there is an "unwritten shared understanding" of adminship, in that we expect admins to have good judgment, since policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Admins who demonstrate poor judgment in that respect are invited to be full-fledged eitors without those tools. It isn't being beaten up, though. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an uninvolved admin I have come to the conclusion that Zeq has edited the article disruptively as specified by his probation; I have banned him from editing the article for one month. He is not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University

As to be expected, the entry on Capella University is currently being vandalized again after having been locked due to edit wars caused by Capella University users in the past. At the moment, Capella University's Financial Aid Director is being investigated for received kickbacks from a student loan company for which he served on the board, in addition to his employment by the university. It appears as if the same user (who uses the name "Pizzaman" and involved in previous edit wars is now vandalizing the current entry. Pizzaman and other users from Capella University have been previously warned for TOS violations. It might be wise to restrict edits again in light of this individual's past.

No sooner had I corrected [Pizzaman0000] and [Pizzaman6233] vandalism (while I was creating this post) and he has again vandalized the page and continues to engage in name calling and personal attacks.Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be better off posting this to AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article though... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll post this request on AIV too. Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A new user [ElKevbo] is now blanking the article. In addition, take a look at bottom of ElKevbo Talk Page - note the personal attacks by an annonymous user - more than likely [Pizzaman0000] or [Pizzaman6233]? Shac1 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo (talk · contribs) is hardly a "new user". Corvus cornix 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Shac1 for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on this article, but it seems that other editors are also editing in an unproductive way. User:Shac1 has asked for an unblock. I invite review of thsi block, note the report on WP:AN/3. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Shac1 has evaded his/her block as ShacOne (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have posted elsewhere, i don't think that ShacOne is a puppet of Shac1. ShacOne deleted content that Shac1 have been reinserting as part of his 3RR violation. However, i do rather suspect that Arla364 (talk · contribs) is a puppet of Shac1. Anothe admin has blocked ShacOne (talk · contribs). This is gettign messy. DES ^(talk) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be getting messier (even disregarding Shac1's messages below). Two more new editors, Picklepickle23 and Fizzleoneseven, have appeared today and jumped right into editing or commenting on the controversial section of this article. Their lengthy messages and obvious knowledge of Wikipedia syntax, combined with the known history of sockpuppetry associated with that article, certainly make me suspicious. --ElKevbo 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cow tipping

So, there was a RFC at Cow tipping about keeping a humorous image of "an unsuspecting cow" in the article. The result was "no consensus". Does that have the same authority as a "keep" vote? I wouldn't think so, but some editors there argue that because of that, no changes can be made. Not a dog 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No consensus generally means revert to keep I'm affraid i.e. take no action. Sorry Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia isn't a democracy, the result of this RfC can (and I think should) be re-examined. It's a pointless picture with a facetious caption, neither being suitable for an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I went over there to boldly remove it, but actually I see no problem. The caption explains succinctly why this practice is likely to be folklore and the image shows us what a cow looks like. It might be a touch trivial but nothing that needs admin action. --kingboyk 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Kingboyk. It's a somewhat silly topic, and it does no harm for us to approach it with a light heart. (Note that the caption has changed since Kingboyk saw it. The caption earlier in the day was "An unsuspecting potential victim"—which might be a little too silly. I might have gone with "Putative victim of this urban myth", or similar.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article only has value as pointing out an urban legend, and that the caption shouldn't be some silly attempt at humor. And, as I point out here, the references cited in it are little more than amateur original research, not reliable sources. All that said, Chowbok (talk · contribs) keeps coming back and reverting the caption, claiming simply it is somehow "better". Not a dog 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

need someone to watch an archive

An IP has been blanking selective portions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive211 recently. I've been keeping an eye on it, but I'm going out to dinner and won't be able to watch the page during the next several hours, so it would be great if someone could keep an eye on it for awhile. Natalie 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for an archive to be editted, & I find it odd that this page is targetted for repeated editting over the last 24 hours -- after being untouched in over a month. I've put that archive page under semi-protection against anon & new editors changes for a while. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the page has been protected, but shouldn't all the archive pages also be protected? And better than semi? Of course, having been inspected for removals first... Shenme 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No. If we start protecting things that don't needed to be edited, then we're not the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore. Protection is clearly appropriate there... but not in every case of an archive. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay... I didn't mean all archives so much as all (most?) project archives, like the above. If someone goes around altering the history of a dispute, slowly, quietly, and waited awhile, then complained that some past action wasn't 'justified'... That's why I think the history of the project does need substantial protection. I'm actually surprised it isn't automatic! Shenme 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, then I wouldn't be able to maintain the navboxes, and bots (who aren't admins) can't add to the archives. Bad idea, just semi it when need arises, or block in case it's a registred user. --Edokter (Talk) 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Through a somewhat fortuitous coincidence, I have found that this is likely George Reeves Person/BoxingWear and that they also attempted to delete a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive188, which I have restored. Those sections were deleted on March 26th without being noticed (an edit summary was used, so the blanking-detecting bots didn't notice it). The editor also contacted me, obtusely asking me to "do something" without specifying what that was, which is what eventually led me to discover the blanking. Natalie 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that closer watch be kept as well. The aforementioned bit deletions or alterations (say to dates of commentary) could occur, and then a user could claim the entire archive was suspect bc adequate protection wasn' provided. Something similar happened in France last year with a telecom firm, who deleted the recorded complaints of a user and then claimed that the user had never complained at all. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The main difference here being that even deleted items are technically still there, though only admins can view them and restore them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm less worried about anything being deleted permanently (they were just blanking, which can be reverted by anyone) then this person trying to convince some new admin (like me!) that they have somehow been framed, and pointing to the archives as proof. I'm relatively sure that's what was attempted here. Natalie 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I think you mean to say that the deleted information on Wikipedia is still viewable in the article histories. Anyone can view those histories -- unless the page itself is deleted. This was one of the reasons why I hesitated a moment before semi-protecting this page: nothing was actually being deleted. However, the fact some anon was willing to edit-war over this, that no one should be forced to spend their time contributing to Wikipedia baby-sitting an archive like Natalie was doing (& that I had an appointment offline to keep, so I had to act) made my mind up. -- llywrch 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I guess my thought got a little jumbled somewhere between my brain and my fingers. Thanks for clarifying that. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection may be needed

Resolved

 – Good call Deskana ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An Admin might want to wander by and put SP on Alan Johnson which was featured on Have I Got News for You tonight in a Colbert report style vandalism comment - diff. Looks like this might be needed for a couple of days until all the juveniles have got bored of it. SFC9394 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Semi-protection is not to be used pre-emptively. Also, please take further requests to WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2 comments - 1 it isn't pre-emptive, it has already been heavily hit by vandalism. And 2, I was simply letting some folks higher up be aware, I am not jumping through the bureaucratic hoops of an RPP posting for something like this - it is a pretty straightforward case of vandalism that may require some SP for a few days to avoid editors having to waste time reverting it every 5 minutes due to the page having appeared on national TV in the UK. SFC9394 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Steel 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it is repeated tonight so it is probably best left in place until tomorrow. SFC9394 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts appears badly back-logged. Andy Mabbett 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this board needs to be retired as it's not being actively watched anymore. Naconkantari 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Having alerts like this is pretty pointless, and we don't need administrators for every single thing. If someone isn't editing nicely, just pop over to his talk page and politely bring it to his attention. That's all you need to do. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone willing to historify and tag appropriately? Its all part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Iamunknown 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--------Restored--------

From personal experience, I know Wikiquette alerts needs to be promoted or upgraded, not retired, because it fills a gap in the personal dispute process. RFC requires two editors to have had the same problem, and requires a lot of formal effort. Yet "politely bring it to his attention" doesn't work during one-on-one, tendentious, smokescreen-logic disputes.

What I needed and didn't get was one to three editors to say, at the least, 'you can't edit someone else's posts to prevent yourself from being quoted'. But I also wanted to know if this was an admin-type issue; I think it has to be if there is no Wikiquette alerts. (Wikiquette alerts#13 March 2007; #Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics) Milo 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

-------End Restore-------

Done. Let the games commence.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  11:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange place, that. The pseudo-anonymity was a bizarre way of getting someone else to tick someone else off. I don't think this page's decease will be much lamented. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WHOA This issue needs a full community debate. My strongly supportive post restored above was accidentally deleted by Imdanumber1 working on the next section (diff) Milo 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be an administrator who deals with the backlog? Because this looks like a job for WP:ASSIST. Anchoress 21:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All you need, Milo, is a little tact when talking to editors who aren't being nice...anyone, sysop flag or not, can do that. REDVERS, awesome job! You're pretty brave and it looks like you were reverted (all part of the cycle!). Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts. Maybe we can agree on (1) if it should be historified and (2) if so, what the message should be (I think we should educate editors about what their options are when dealing with a tendentious editor). See ya there! --Iamunknown 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, did you think I was not tactful in the example that is my problem? Milo 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Wikiquette alerts deprecated somehow? Is this some zombie? --Kim Bruning 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Milo. The wikiquette page could be an extraordinarily useful part of dispute resolution if there were an admin or three working on it so that issues were addressed with the same speed that they are at AIV. RFC is too heavy-handed and cumbersome; polite notes on a talk page from the victim doesn't work when an editor is on an uncivil tear. And an effective Wikiquette page would eliminate a lot of chaff from AN/I. -- THF 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned by above, this requires a fully community debate, and User:Redvers's "closure" of the page was rather inappropriate, which was restored by another user. I have done some re-styling to the page.

This page does not require the attention of administrators. It's merely a WP:ASSIST type of page, as mentioned above. Note that lack of response does not mean the posted alert was not noticed. WP:WQA is simply a listing of minor incidents that's happening and work as the notification to other editors that monitors the page (like me). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Redvers's "closure" of the page was rather inappropriate Are you familiar with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The only "inappropriate" action would be if Redvers or another user attempted to close it again. Instead, we've initiated an appropriate discussion cycle. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is, in my view, an attempt at stifling proper discussion. And in the process, it looks like Wikiquette alerts looks a lot better. I'm surprised you characterise Redevers's action as such when, only in response to it, you've made the project page a lot better. --Iamunknown 02:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle concept as it's what I do in mainspace. I believe the case here was kind of different though. Making changes and shutting down a page is different. WP:WQA is a Wikipedia page with long history. Can you shut down WP:AFD or a more similar page, WP:AIV like that? Probably not. That was my sole concern, nothing else. I think you overreacted a bit because I did not challenge the good faith of the change, that's why I immediately improved the page system.

In a response to users who are confused with the page, I think the introduction in WP:WQA is clear enough, but I could be wrong. As for the backlog due to lack of monitoring users, maybe we can figure out a way to transclude new alerts in the community portal? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of editors who believe they have enough experience to become admins. Wikiquette alerts could be advertised as a place for wannabe admins to display their issue judgment and human relationship skills when future applying for adminship. Also a place for editors to do occasional peacemaking who don't want to be a full time admin. No tools of course, but that shows how good one really is. Milo 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmacrockets0115 and User:Kobetmacyao

I suspect that Tmacrockets0115 and Kobetmacyao are sockpuppets of one another. The two accounts edit tendentiously and are completely uncommunicative. I think that some blocks are in order. I am not in a content dispute with this user/these users, but in the interests of transparency I think another admin should perform the blocks.

Tmacrockets0115 (talk · contribs) has an editing history going back to January. This user's edits are primarily composed of:

• Adding POV "greatest player" lists to basketball-related articles (nb - these lists never cite sources nor can they; the lists are bottomless argument sinks that boil down to lists of particular editors' favorite players): [32], [33]
• Adding unsourced trivia to articles of basketball players he likes: [34],
• Enforcing a negative POV of basketball players he doesn't like: [35], [36]
• Some useful edits to basketball articles: [37]

Despite my pleas in edits summaries and on talk, Tmac continued. Specifically addressing the habit of adding the POV lists, pages, I communicated with him. As can be seen from his talk page, I went out of my way to avoid biting. Instead of making any effort to communicate with me, Tmac continued with the same editing pattern. When I persisted in reverting him and communicating with him, I believe that he made a sock puppet account, User:Kobetmacyao. In addition to the similar user names and near-identical editing habits, they also make contributions at he same time.

I think this is fairly open and shut, but I hope that another admin will make the blocks so that any appearance of conflict of interest can be avoided. I welcome any criticism. A Train^talk 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, but I don't see the name similarity and sametime editing. Tma went days without editing when Kobet did edit. Rlevse 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about the names. The name similarity is the common "Tmac". Tmacrockets0115 and Kobetmacyao, "Tmac" being the nickname of Houston Rockets player Tracy McGrady. If you're not familiar with the NBA, I can see how you might have missed that.

As for the similar editing times, the most salient only obvious occurance is the most recent occurance:Tmac - 23:16, 13 April 2007 ; Kobetmacyao - 23:13, 13 April 2007. Their entire edits histories if you look at them, are almost identical. A Train^talk 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

not to mention Kobetmacyao= Kobe Bryant Tracy McGrady Yao Ming....⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to have aroused neither controversy nor a great impetus to act on the part of anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and impose some blocks on these two accounts, if only to get their attention. A Train^talk 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a deeper look into this. I note TMAC has a block, but KOBE does not show one in his block log. I think my next move on this would be a checkuser, then I'd be convinced of this sockpuppetry. Your 30-day block (I think you forgot to do KOBE's though), may work. Rlevse 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the heads-up, Rlevse. Let's see if they actually get start talking. A Train^talk 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Anil Kr Gupta linkspam

Resolved

Can admins please look through the contribs of Anil Kr Gupta (talk · contribs). He's added links around Wikipedia to what seems to be his personal site (see his userpage), and looks like he's been warned for it before. If he continues to add links to his website it may be time to consider sanctions stricter than an external linkspam warning. – Chacor 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow blocked him for 24 h. --Coredesat 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – IP blocked. – Michaelas¹⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block this guy (and revert/sprotect talk page) before I go insane trying to revert him? For that matter, perhaps you could sprotect the AFD he's going for. Part Deux 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours by Redvers. Please report to WP:AIV any additional vandalism blocks you would like to be made. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

67.140.169.240 (talk · contribs)'s edits are pleasant. Corvus cornix 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Babcock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

User was recently issued a block warning by Durova for self-promotional COI editing, but has ignored warning and is continuing behavior. RJASE1 ^Talk

And now he has an obvious sockpuppet - PGG6327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RJASE1 ^Talk 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a 48 hour block on the main account and an indefinite block on the sockpuppet. This is one to watch closely because the history and some off wiki e-mails look like he's on a trajectory that heads toward sitebanning. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements

I have speedy deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements under CSD general criteria #1, absence of meaningful content. It was a bit of fun while it lasted, but I think the time has come to zap it. I won't wheelwar over it should anybody think I have overstepped the mark and I trust people understand that this is a good faith action. W"e have an encyclopedia to build" &c. --kingboyk 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this fits G1, it is not Patent Nonsense. I ,ight well have supportd deeltion at WP:MFD however, so i won't undel. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess I might have stretched the criterion somewhat :), whilst being totally transparent here and knowing that many admins knew of the page and could (and still can) easily undelete if they please. --kingboyk 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules are that we have to waste our time with this at MfD, so unless there are objections, I'll be restoring it and sending there (because otherwise, there's likely to be even more wastes of time talking about it here, endlessly). Who is('nt) with me!? El_C 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of that if it's for the sake of process and process only. What would it achieve? Wouldn't it be best to wait and see if anybody actually wants it kept first? Then by all means, send it to MFD, because it was a questionable deletion per process. Avoiding timewasting over such a triviality was, of course, and as you probably realise from your statement, the intention in the first place. A few comments here and hopefully forget about it would be easiest. --kingboyk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll only restore it if anyone wants it kept for reasons other than procedural ones. El_C 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it speedied. I was a regular contributor to the ill-fated project, too :) It's served its purpose and had always been slightly POINTy - Alison^☺ 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that made me smile more than the project did, I have to admit :) --kingboyk 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what it was, so it's hard to make any sort of distinction at this point since I can't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke WikiProject offering to endorse RFA candidates. --kingboyk 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Kelly Martin seriously propose it as an RfA criteria, or have I been misinformed? El_C 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly was seriously proposing "endorsement by a WikiProject" as an RfA criterion; this project was a joke reaction to that proposal, being created for the sole purpose of handing out such endorsements to any and all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've never been a member of any wikiproject and yet she supported my adminship, but that was then! El_C 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ach, I can't believe I missed the whole show. That was a fine joke (one that I would have loved to participate in), but Kingboyk made the right call. A Train^talk 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to keep it ... let sleeping dogs lie. While amusing, it was also a little mocking. -- Pastordavid 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize no one is suggesting keeping it; the question was about whether MfD or a speedy was appropriate. A Train^talk 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not G1 so I have undeleted... labelled it inactive. There are still incoming links... people will wonder what it was (the help desk thread showed that). Why confuse them? --W.marsh 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But it was never a serious WikiProject so that template is hardly appropriate, and a few incoming links can easily be undone.

Nevertheless, I said I wouldn't get into a battle over it, so I personally shall defer :) If anybody else thinks an MFD is in order that's their call. --kingboyk 01:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to edit people's comments and write this page out of history... it's harmless. --W.marsh 02:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Not particularly hilarious, but harmless. Not that I don't expect somebody to eventually MfD it. --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gitraffe

I have blocked Gitraffe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Block is up for review. The users contributions are quite bizzare, and I have a feeling that he may be a banned user trolling again. In his first few edits, he threatened Dab and Hornplease. His latest edit was also a weird one. See [38]. I thought about this and then finally blocked him for trolling. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Clearly a troll, transparent sockpuppet. – Steel 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but shouldn't requests for community bans etc go to the community noticeboard?.Tellyaddict^Talk 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has community banned anyone. – Steel 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte trolling again

Someone please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/219.87.129.180 for being an open proxy and block this reincarnation of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He 3RRed anyway. Thanks, --Irpen 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:NEMT again

Please refer Archive 176 as well as the user's talk page and contrib history for previous incidents. He's now taken to creating bizarre redirects such as daymoon to sun (a quick websearch reveals no connection between the two). A trawl through his history will bring up a few more. I've just about given up watchlisting this user, it's by time he be given a lengthy ban for this puerile vandalism which wastes other editors' time having to police. Don't bother discussing with him, he will just wikilawyer and become non-responsive as previous discussions have proven. I hereby wash my hands of this case (and if it's not taken care of I'll probably wash my hands of Wikipedia too, editing here is just getting TOO tiresome to be worthwhile). Cheers. Zunaid©® 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RM vote spamming

Not resolved

I'm not sure if the user in question knew about Wikipedia:Canvassing, but could someone please check out Special:Contributions/Paparokan and let me know what they think? He appears to be spamming all the Turkish editors in order to get an article moved. Someone should probably rollback all the spamming and possibily speedy close the requested move, as it appears that the changes of a consensus being reached at this point are null. Khoikhoi 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most with popups and left a note on Paparokan's talk page. --Iamunknown 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Or not, now a revert war is going on. Baristarim (talk · contribs) reverted my reverts, Juiney (talk · contribs) reverted Baristarim's reverts and then Baristarim (talk · contribs) reverted Juiney's reverts. --Iamunknown 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the RM, and I only saw popup reverts of user talk pages on my watchlist. Revert them back if you would like. Anyways, there is no reason to close the RM.. As for user Juiney, I suspect him to be a sock of a banned user - those reverts are his only edits. Baristarim 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Waheedmiah vandalism at Craig Winn

This user, who apparently has edited with the following AOL IP addresses: 172.188.13.28, 172.189.25.83, 172.159.97.14 is repeatedly adding link-spam type of vandalism and violation of WP:BLP at Craig Winn. This user has been very persistent despite several warnings. [39] [40] [41].

Please help with a course of action for this un-relenting vandal. --ProtectWomen 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

trolling for young people

Resolved

 – Foundation responded and user has now been indefblocked - Alison^☺

Defender of fantasy creatures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Finding out about spirits, which asks people between 10 and 16 who believe in spirits and monsters to contact him/her via email. What should we do in a situation like this? Assume good faith that it's a dumb kid, or indef block and disable account creation? — coelacan — 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I've blanked the page to start with while we discuss it - can an admin delete the actual page? It could be very innocent and a kid but frankly I'd rather not take that chance. In regards to the user, someone should drop by the page for a chat. --Fredrick day 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a ban. In situations like this it might be better to contact the arbitration committee. — MichaelLinnear 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the Foundation? This is not something the Arbitration Committee handles. NawlinWiki has deleted the article but not blocked the user... either didn't read the content (I had tagged it as G1 and Fredrick blanked it already) or NawlinWiki didn't think it was blockworthy. — coelacan — 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"... i don't want anyone under 10 or over 16 but if you are a true believer ..." - creepy in the extreme. Troll account at best, something else at worst. Short block for nonsense article/safety/MyPaging/WP:SPA - contact Foundation - await decision per banning - Alison^☺ 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone. I just remembered Fred Bauder asking things like this be mentioned to the Arbitration Committee once. I apologize for the confusion. — MichaelLinnear 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, actually, I vaguely remember that too now that you mention it. — coelacan — 00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

eek :| really not what we want happening here. should really be the foundation as the Arbcom don't actually run Wikipedia, they just decide disputes when consensus and other processes have failed to deal with issues I thought? for example, when one wants to establish permissions for a fair use picture which has been released by an organisation for use on Wikipedia, we have to email the foundation a copy of the permissions. DanielT5 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to block this account for two reasons; 1) I'm concerned that they're creating articles for contacting kids for whatever reasons, and that they will do so again. I'd rather an article like that didn't stay up for any length of time. 2) they're creating inappropriate articles anyway. I'm sufficiently concerned that I'm going to apply a 24-hour block and will then contact the Foundation as to whether to unblock or indefblock accordingly. I don't mind taking the rap for this one if I'm wrong and as most of you know, I'm the first person around here to assume good faith. Thought? - Alison^☺ 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I notified the Foundation about the incident, so that's that - Alison^☺ 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Instantnood was banned for a month a few days ago for using four different sockpuppets to avoid blocks, page bans, and subject matter bans after repeated ArbCom sanctions. He's back today as User:Pointe. Assistance please. SchmuckyTheCat 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrigible it seems. — MichaelLinnear 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Instantnood's record, but if it's clear to others that this new user is the same editor then I'll be glad to block the account for a WP:POINTE violation. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Creation of bunches of "of mainland China" categories, demanding singular interpretations of "China", re-categorization of Hong Kong, and doing it all in a massive spree. SchmuckyTheCat 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty likely here. I'd say there's definitely cause for a checkuser. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed: [42]

Harvardy userpage vandalism, further comments

The archived discussion relevant to the incident that I reported yesterday, now contains a new comment here. Thanks.Doktor Who 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: As I understand it the incident is pretty much closed - the parties were warned and the page was protected. The reason I added the comment after the incident was archived is that I was not available to add the comment while the incident was on this page. I was not involved in the incident at all, but had to comment because one of the parties brought my name in about an unrelated matter, and that needed a response. While I wrote that response, I added some background information, in case someone needs to return to the archive and review the full story. I stated clearly that my comment was added after the incident was archived, to make sure that there was no misunderstanding that my comment might have been part of the original discussion.

Interested parties are welcome to review the archived material, but I do not believe this incident needs any further action as the user's page has already been protected. --Parzival418 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for kindly claryfing this issue.Doktor Who 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate linking

Resolved

New user Creative1985 is adding many single-word links to articles, even inside links. May be a bot. I have added a note to the user-talk page, but automated roll-back may be called for. Andy Mabbett 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked the account because it was completely indiscriminate - almost too indiscriminate. It's not obviously a bot, or in bad faith, though the account has done nothing else. Hoping for some discussion on the talk page, there isn't much conversation happening right now... -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422 egging user on

User:Scorpion0422 has been trying to egg on a user by editing Template:Survivor contestants and putting in edit summaries "remove Calderon" even though that's not what he's really doing: [43] [44]. This is an attempt to egg on User:Otto4711. The two had a dispute back in January which concerned Scorpion removing the Calderon article from the template. Both users were blocked for 3RR. Scorpion is attempting to egg Otto on by making him think that he's really removing the Calderon article. I have told Scorpion on his user talk page twice to stop, but he removes it with no response: [45] [46]. I also told him that I would take this to ANI: [47]. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: You said you would report me if I did it again, and I didn't do it again. -- Scorpion 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you removed my comment without addressing the problem. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To correct TeckWiz, it appears that Scorpion0422 did in fact respond to the first warning, confirming that his edit summary was intended to make Otto4711 mad [48]. Also, a February discussion at Template talk:Survivor contestants indicates that this is not the first time that Scorpion0422 has engaged in "bating" tactics. --Maxamegalon2000 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why this is worthy of administrator notice. Do you want me banned? scolded? whipped? -- Scorpion 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We want you to stop editing in ways designed to make other editors annoyed. Can you do that? Newyorkbrad 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see you being more concerned with the fact your being asked not to disrupt the project and less concerned about being reported here. -- Nick ^t 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This behavior is increasingly disruptive. I suggest you sort the matter out with Otto, as deliberate attempts at infuriation will only make things worse. Behaving civilly is important. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ellis sock at Warren Kinsella

User:Arthur Ellis is under community ban for various abuses, many of which involve sock-puppetry at the Warren Kinsella page. Yet another sock is now revert-warring there; a checkuser has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis, but the most recent iteration, User:Shoppers15, is so blatant that waiting fr the checkuser is hardly necessary. Can someone block? Also, if a few admins could watch the page and police it, I'm sure that he'll get bored soon enough. Bucketsofg 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User Page 125.212.108.206

User:Harvardy who is a known sockpuppet of User:Johnski continues to revert the user page posting his drivel and will not leave the page alone. A few days ago, I posted that I believed this user was a sockpuppet of both Harvardy and Johnski. Harvardy continues to add the counter accusations that the user is a sock puppet of Gene Poole. I have reverted this page once again, but I ask you to please block him to prevent him from his continued vandalism. Davidpdx 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User vandalizing the Hispanic article

Hi,

User:Burgas00 has been repeatedly removing entire sections from the article Hispanic. He is mainly obsessed with the section Hispanic#Racial diversity. Here you have some of his actions:

1.- He deleted a whole section that had been there for months and where tens of users have contributed. It was full of references and it had been discussed for long in the talk page. He did not obtain any consensus to remove it:

1 → "Racial diversity - I think this section is useless. It is quite evident from the rest of the article that Hispanics are an ethnicity not a race. This section contributes nothing to the article"

2.- The section he deleted was re-added. Now, he deletes a half of it. Someone re-added this piece of content that he had deleted, some time later:

2 → "Racial diversity - This bit is random, irrelevant and very lame. I think the whole section should go, but if not, at the very least this bit should dissapear"

3.- He deletes the whole history section where lots of users contributed, and all the small sections that talk about the Hispanics from Spain, again with sarcastic comments:

3 → "Cutting down stuff which is not relevant to the article on hispanics. Whats all this stuff about "The historical mistake"?????"

4.- He deletes, again, the section of the racial diversity:

4 → "Racial diversity - I'm erasing this section which is just garbage.Someone please rewrite a short coherent section rather than this rambling collection of users' personal issues"

5.- Again, he deletes the section of Racial Diversity:

5: → "Racial diversity - This section is shady racial politics. It is not acceptable..."

6.- And finally his last edit, copy pasting an entire section from the Spanish People while removing already existing pharagraphs in the Racial Diversity section:

6 → "Racial diversity - Copy pasting from Spanish people article... I still think this section is not necessary"

I think that some admin should say something to him, since me and other users have already told him not to do so in the Talk:Hispanic (check this part of the discussion, for example). Thanks. Onofre Bouvila 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution that-a-way. Viridae^Talk 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that user Burgas is close to Vandalism. He has had the same problems in the Spanish people article. He has a long history there of disrupting the article, for some reason always targeting the same type of information, deleting it or going around with one hundred excuses to attemtp to ge rid of it. Piece-here 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti

I wish to file harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti, who have been tracking my articles and deleting as many as they can find. They usually cite "lack of notability".

Prior to mid-March, 2007, I had had only two articles out of several hundred killed. Since mid-March, with dhartung and iridescenti, usually following dhartung, I have had nearly twenty articles removed. A number were suddenly deleted. Several were deleted, and I did not find out for several days later.

I will focus on the following seven articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malouf_Abraham%2C_Jr. Malouf Abraham of Canadian, Texas, is a retired physician and art collector. He is building a $7 million art museum in Canadian. He has also underwritten the Abraham Art Museum on the campus of Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, TX. I have over a dozen references. Dhartung wrote in condescension: "Successful allergist who knows a bunch of important people, apparently. Otherwise non-notable. Dhartung". Dhartung does not take into consideration that Dr. Abraham is building a $7 million art museum in a small town in the Texas Panhandle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_A._Bickley

Bickley was one of the founders of Denver City, Texas, in 1939-1940, the last TX oil "boom town." The town library bears his name. He gave an oral history interview with Texas Tech. When this article was posted, the editor put it under "Did You Know" about Bickley being a founding father of Denver City. It was found missing from Wikipedia without explanation on April 13, 2007. Dhartung wrote: "Delete per nom. I'm tempted to speedy it, as I don't consider being named 'outstanding citizen' is really much of an assertion of notability. Otherwise, it's just a nice obituary. Accomplishment is not notability." Dhartung did not check to see that this article was cited by DYK just two weeks earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KNM/Archive3#Cecil_A._Bickley_on_DYK_for_11_March_2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_H._Long

Long was a member of the Louisiana Long dynasty who did NOT run for office. In Louisiana, just being a visible Long makes one "notable." Dhartung wrote: "Just being a member of the Long family is not, by itself, notability." But Dhartung is not from Louisiana: in Louisiana Longism is notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_P._Hebert

Hebert was an elected member of city council of a city of more than 45,000 population. He was a star college baseball player and an engineer who developed a type of sewer pipe. Iridescenti wrote: "The highest office he attained was Streets Commissioner for a small (pop 50000) town. Plus, in light of the creator's history this is probably a copyvio from somewhere. - iridescenti). Iridescenti accused he of plagiarism, and there is no plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Boyce

Boyce was the STATE chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party from 1972-1976. He was also a Baton Rouge philanthropist. He is easily notable. State chairman is an ELECTED position, not from voters, but from the elected members of the 144-member Republican State Central Committee. Dhartung wrote: "Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level.". Boyce was not "local" but state. Guidelines say "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office . . . This could easily be interpreted to include state party chairmen, who are elected, or even county chairmen, who are also elected in many situations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_E._Bennett

Bennett was a professor active in his profession and often quoted in his local media. He was an elected member of his county school board. When this article was first posted in December 2006, there was objection. The article survived the test at the time. Then it vanished from Wikipedia on April 9, 2007, with no notice to me. (Dhartung did not participate in this deletion.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_Dunn

Mr. Dunn was a Portales, NM, business and civic leader with an impressive World War II record, which was rejected as establishing notability. He was the subject of several articles in the Clovis newspaper. His death was carried by the McClatchey newspapers and placed in nearly all newspapers in the West.(Dhartung had the secondary role in deletion of this article.)

I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality.

Billy Hathorn 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The length of this notice is excessive; please rephrase, aiming at greater concision. El_C 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: dhartung and iridescenti are Wikistalking me because they say to delete my articles. Anyway, to respond to that, I notice that the result of each AfD you mention is delete. Maybe they are right? -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of AfD is that it's just not one person's opinion. If someone is consistently adding articles that don't meet guidelines, then of course many of their articles will go to AfD, but at that point it becomes a matter of consensus from multiple parties. MSJapan 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan has explained it perfectly. The majority of the editors discussing your articles at AfD agree with dhartung and iridescenti, so perhaps you should rethink how you're approaching this problem. A Train^talk 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletions, please aim it to deletion review. Accusing other users of stalking you will not achieve anything, especially in case the community agrees with their actions. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have not nominated articles Hathorn has authored that indisputably meet notability, such as politicians elected to public office at the statewide level or above. In my comment here I state, "Hathorn is skilled at using Wikipedia tools and knows a bit about house style. And it's great that we can have holes filled like Lieutenant Governors and State Senate Majority Leaders. If only we could get these skills turned toward helping the encyclopedia in a way that is acceptable to the community, this would not be as sour a process." I truly wish, Billy Hathorn, that you would do so. These borderline locally-famous people that you've cited above as evidence of improper deletion are all cases that you are welcome to take to deletion review. I'm certainly willing to accept community consensus at either AFD or DRV on any given nomination. But I'd rather you just didn't create these dubious articles in the first place, and I -- and other editors -- are very uncomfortable with the extent to which you use your own unpublished academic writings as a source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, of the seven AfDs you cite, I participated in a grand total of three of them, and was not the nominator for a single one of them. You appear to think that myself & Dhartung have some kind of magic delete-power; I'm not a sysop and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Dhartung. Each of those AfD discussions resulted in a Delete decision by an admin (and not only that, a different admin each time). As per Amarkov, ever if we were stalking you, if the articles didn't warrant deletion the closing admins would close them as keep, even if everyone !voted to delete. I also must point out that on one of those AfD's you cite as proof of our 'hostility', neither myself or Dhartung made any comment whatsoever. As for your comment that "I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality", I don't know about Dhartung's edit history but to the best of my knowledge I have never edited one of your articles in any way, 'hostile' or not. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If it helps any, I'll offer that it's possible Billy Hathorn melded in his mind some of my actions with those of iridescenti. Unlike iridescenti, I have nomintated a number of Billy Hathorn's articles for deletion and have edited others. My deletion nominations have generated consensus to delete in almost all cases, and my edits have been to remove things like quotes from personal conversations that he has had with the article's subject. (He actually happily cites such references for quotes as "E-mail exchange between (subject) and Billy Hathorn".) He has been advised of WP:NOR and of notability guidelines many times (his talk page contains a veritable laundry list of such advisements), and shows no inclination that he cares or intends to change his actions in those areas. I readily confess that, as a result, his articles grab my attention more so than do those of other editors who do not sport such a track record of blatant disregard for policy. If that is somehow "harrassment", then I am guilty as charged. Mwelch 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd further remind Billy Hathorn that even if Dhartung/Mwelch/myself were following him around, of the actual text of WP:STALK: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". Besides as I say above, as far as I'm aware I have never either edited one of his articles or nominated one for deletion. As per Mwelch above, despite the laundry list of warnings on his talk page, Billy Hathorn is continuing to add similar articles (three already today, and it's not yet 7am in Louisiana) so this is likely to carry on indefinitely. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

banned user creating more sockpuppets

the following users are very likely user:Serafin sockpuppets. he is under a community ban. The anon IP address is definitely his, as it was blocked as one of his sockpuppets previously. the other two possible socks fit his naming style, and only edit on the articles he has, using his style of writing.

• Skazb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ciapek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Jadger 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Usernames and IP blocked. --  Denelson83  07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

203.153.230.101

This user appears to edit soley for the sake of vandalism and trolling. See Special:Contributions/203.153.230.101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Micah hainline (talk • contribs).

Not recently and also very infrequently. — MichaelLinnear 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Please review the block I made in the section above please - new section made to give this more visability. Viridae^Talk 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Masterbobo indefinitely, see below -- Samir 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BassxForte

I tried ANI before here, but I didn't get any admins acting upon or commenting on it, so I'm trying again. I have attempted an RFC here, but I had never been fond of RFCs, and a recent discussion on the lack of teeth in RFCs made me give up trying to get something out of it. I don't want to go over the details again, so just go look at the previous ANI and the RFC.

One thing I shall repeat though, is that his user page states the inability of punishment (i.e. blocks) to make him learn something. That is why I seek something greater than a short temporary block, as he will likely continue his editing habits without any regard for policies and guidelines. (This has happened before.) I must also implore you to read his user page completely.

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has explicitly told me to never mention this issue on his user page again, and if I do so he will delete it. Since I have already done a fair bit, I'd like someone to step over this line for me and notify him. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this sockpuppet of banned User:DavidYork71

Please see [49]. (IP #149.135.50.176). --Aminz 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this recent edit of his is interesting [50]. He continues having interest in binding of Isaac under his new IP: [51] --Aminz 10:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

random racist crap (user Holy Ambassador)

User User:Holy_Ambassador seem intent on creating the same article over and over again with the same racist crap in them ("colored criminals" etc), one version has already be deleted, a copy needs flushing and now seems intent on creating replacements. --Fredrick day 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also leaves talkpage messages like this --Fredrick day 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone re-delete this and salt it? --Fredrick day 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been deleted and the user has been indefblocked, so I don't think salting is necessary unless we see it come back via sock or the like. -- Avi 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User evading warnings with multiple sock puppets

Resolved

 – an admin blocked

An editor upset that his splog links were reverted has gone on a rampage against the two editors who reverted those edits, and is blizzarding talk pages using multiple accounts.

Editing as:

• Concerned person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.161.198.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thats what u think (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lets see now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I thought so (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy al (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And perhaps others by now. More details at WP:COI/N. //THF 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature closings of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

Since I have had to twice revert premature closings of this AFD, once by an admin who agreed to a revert, once by a non-admin whose closure did not meet Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, I would like to ask a non-involved, neutral admin to step up and volunteer to close this discussion properly when the due course of discussion has finished. FrozenPurpleCube 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with closing that early? Looks like you lost, find another battle! --kingboyk 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that WP:SNOW isn't a policy. Yes, the outcome of this will almost certainly be keep, but so what? If we let it run the full five day course then FrozenPurpleCube can't say that the only reason the AfD didn't end as he wanted was because of an invalid closure. --17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs)

I would like to know what the proper channels are for filing formal complaints against two editors, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs). The problem started yesterday when ElKevbo (talk · contribs) started blanking the article on Capella University. Until then ElKevbo (talk · contribs) had not previously spent much, if any, time editing that article. I appropriately posted a request for assistance on this board after ElKevbo (talk · contribs) whitewashed the article twice.

The following demonstrate the whitewashing and blanking done by ElKevbo (talk · contribs)

Blanking [example 1 by ElKevbo ]

Blanking [example 2 by ElKevbo ]

Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) then jumped in and blocked me a second time based upon her totally false accusations that I was another user who went by the name of ShacOne (talk · contribs).

Instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, as both Bobak (talk · contribs) and I were attempting to do, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) decided to retailate even though other editors had warned him that his edits were innappropriate. As noted on that link ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was warned

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from controversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it doesn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, others felt the same as I did - ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was removing a significant amount of content without discussing it on the talk page and then lashed out at others because of what he had done.

Had ElKevbo (talk · contribs) bothered to check, especially since he had never edited the [Capella University] before he started blanking, he would have found that another user or users,

• Pizzaman0000,
• Pizzaman6233,
• 68.117.38.94, and
• 75.134.132.66

were engaged in numerous personal attacks directed at me. A simple review of the Capella University edit history will reveal many of those. Perhaps the most blantant example is when Pizzaman6233 stated, F you.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Pizzaman0000 was merely warned while I was blocked. Why?

It also needs to be pointed out that over the past 24 hours since I was blocked by ElKevbo (talk · contribs), other editors have also gone in and restored the content that he had blanked. Instead of the whitewashing that was going on, they also made appropriate edits without the hostility and vindictiveness displayed by ElKevbo (talk · contribs).

In light of the contentious nature of the problem the Capella University article has experienced in the past, the article should have been protected - something which has already happened twice in the past.

My final question, how do I file a formal complaint against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) with Widipedia? Both acted rashly without adequately examining the facts and they now behave as is they flexed've their muscles to prove their points - that certainly does not show a sincere effort, as ElKevbo puts it, to want to "extend a sincere offer to work with (with others) in a collegial manner." That is certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia editors. Shac1 08:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common for us to see this type of complaint. I suggest you try mediation first; there is currently no basis for opening a complaint. However, if you do, you can try filing a request for comment, but you will need another established user to back you up. Part Deux 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I noticed while submitting an unrelated 3RR violation, that ElKevbo's name had been inserted into the template. I removed it, but thought it worth mentioning. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a point of courtesy, you could inform me and ElKevbo that you have brought a complaint here. Natalie 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Natalie and Elkevbo should have been informed of this being here. You state Elkevbo blocked you, but your block log only shows blocks by Natalie and DESiegel. Natalie also unblocked you when she realized she'd been fooled by the imitator, an honest error I'm sure. Admins are humans, and hence not perfect. If you care to pursue, I'd suggest mediation too.Rlevse 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) should have also informed me of their intent to block me first. Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) jumped to conclusions, first and was only "informed" that "she'd been fooled by the imitator" when I pointed it out. As you state "Admins are humans, and hence not perfect." Other editors, such as myself, should also be given the same custosy - neither ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) did, in fact, they engaged in personal attacks and gloated about their blocking.Shac1 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, ElKevbo never blocked you. You were blocked by DESiegel for violating 3RR. When it appeared you were using a sockpuppet, I merely restarted the block. When it became apparent that this was an imitator and not, in fact, you, the block was lifted because your original 3RR block had expired. I'm really not sure what you want - I have already apologized and I fail to see what else I should do. Natalie 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you were in fact using a sockpuppet (arla364 (talk · contribs), as established by this checkuser. Natalie 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That you used a sock, arla364, who interestingly found your 3RR case after only a couple of edits, does not help your case and proves you knew about the 3RR that was filed. Natalie has apologized for thinking Shac1 and Shacone were the same. Using a sock to evade blocks (or vandalize) does nogt require a second notice. My suggestion at this point is to let this go. Rlevse 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. ElKevbo (talk · contribs), Natalie Erin (talk · contribs), and DESiegel (talk · contribs) acted rashly and arbitrarily. Until this incident, I had never even heard of the term "sock puppet" - furthermore, I NEVER vandalized anything. In addition, I NEVER reverted the same person's edits THREE times - I only reverted ElKevbo (talk · contribs) vandalism twice. Even with that in mind, I had appropriately taken this matter to both the article's talk page and to this board prior to the time I was arbitraily blocked while both Pizzaman's and ElKevbo (talk · contribs) blanking, vandalism, and personal attacks were ignored. The actions of those involved display gross inconsistencies and abritrary actions against all those involved.Shac1 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you had heard the word sockpuppet before you started using the arla account or not - it was still a sockpuppet. If you felt you had been blocked wrongly, you should have used the unblock template as instructed in the block message. The correct response was not to create another account and file a frivolous 3RR complaint against another editor. Natalie 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your comments are absurd. You lashed out without checking the facts first and accused me of being someone else. The complaints I filed against you Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) and ElKevbo (talk · contribs), were valid. You acted frivolously, arbitrarily, and rashly without checking the facts. Furthermore, I did use the unblock message but, then again, you have shown that you do not check the facts before you act. It's grossly hypocritical for other's to claim that the error of your wrong actions "were only human" while, at the same time, you refuse to give others the same courtesy. Your own words display the hypocricy of your actions. The complaints I've made are valid. Shac1 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want anything else than the apology you have already received from me, take it to WP:RFC. No harm was done from my mistake so I think at this point you're just beating a dead horse. Natalie 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University Article Request for Protection

There is now a another new user, Fizzleoneseven who has just shown up and is blanking the article on Capella University. The article needs to be protected.Shac1 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: requests for page protection. Natalie 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The account is a self-evident sock. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If Fizzleoneseven is a self-evident sock. WP:RBI, then why hasn't he/she been blocked? Shac1 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They have. Natalie 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad: wikistalking etc

Rebroad has opened another Incident report on this topic:

User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings

At the end of March, when Rebroad move Person to Person (Philosphical), I warned Rebroad about this page move and others (Telephone (Jack) to Telephone (Socket), Nephology to Nephology (to be deleted)) he had made recently.

This somehow turned into an enormous thing--Rebroad got very upset and warned me that I was impersonating someone of authority, that two people did not make consensus (apparantly one person did), and the resulting discussion/argument not only went over our talk pages, but on the requests for expansion page, the etiqutte page and here as well, when Rebroad came to complain about my warning him (he was blocked).

This is all located in both of our archives:
User_talk:Rebroad/Archive_2#Warning_in_re_your_page_moves
User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen/Archive_1#reply_to_your_comments

I question the wisdom of dredging up the previous discussion. The only current issue is your continued practice of assuming bad faith for not clearly bad faith edits and thus warning inapprioriately. Would there really be any harm in being patient enough to issue a level 1 warning first, wait, then issue another warning later if the editor persists? Your level 3 warnings don't even help explain to them what they need to change about their behaviour, whereas a level 1 warning does. --Rebroad 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone really does want to read through all the past discussion (I wouldn't recommend it!), my final summarisation was provided here. Rgds, --Rebroad 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The background is necessary--we are in fact supposed to be avoiding each other for a reason. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And Rebroad's block discussions are located on his current talk page.

After his block was over we both agreed to avoid each other, and as I didn't know how much things had cooled, I even avoided editing articles he created/worked on because I just didn't want to deal with this all again.

When I got back from inactivity (lack of internet connection), I had a warning from Rebroad on my talk page however--User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen.

I replied to him on his talk page explaining the edit--that I was following policy, and then once again asked him to leave me alone.

Today I have another warning on my talk page about a different edit, one where he disagreed with my placing a uwv3 warning, and he not only warned me about it, he went to the user's talk page, removed the warning and replaced it with a level 1 warning.

Btw, the user in question has been vandalizing regularly for ages, is a current vandal--I couldn't find a actual good edit, and to see why I gave a level three--this is an average edit for this user.

Rebroad is clearly wikistalking me. I'm constantly being accused of bad faith, and warned or something else, but Rebroad doesn't bother to find out why. My real problem with Rebroad isn't constantly having to explain or even having someone watch my edits--it's that Rebroad doesn't do research or ask--he assumes and accuses and then I'm not explaining the policy and the reasoning--I'm defending myself and it's tiring.

If Rebroad is willing/able to stop this--then I think that we could get along fine--I wouldn't avoid article and nothing we be a problem. If Rebroad can't or isn't willing to assume good faith or bother to look into a situation, then Reboard just needs to avoid me, no matter what he thinks is going on. Rebroad removed merge tags and forgot to merge the articles--I didn't do anything because I'm not getting into this again. Someone else will notice, or will add merge tags again. Or they won't, and a different wikipedia will emerge. There are lots of wikipedians--if Rebroad and I avoid fixing each others mistakes, Wikipedia will somehow survive.

If Rebroad is willing to either cool off or leave me alone there's no problem. But since that hasn't happened so far, I'd appreciate people watching this so that it doesn't escalate.

I am looking for editors and administrators to deescalate, not escalate the situation. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say you are escalating the situation by bringing here. It's already resulted in my raising an AN/I for you now. Shame, since we seemed to be having a decent conversation about it on my talk page so far. --Rebroad 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In your raising an incident about me? Technically, this board is to report incidents not raise them, though really, it does seem to do a lot of the later. Bad joke aside--we had a solution--avoid each other. You clearly didn't like this solution and that wouldn't be a problem if you had decided to work with me, or even, if when you thought my edits were incorrect, you did some checking, or asked me, or others. But you didn't, and this is harrasment, whether you intend it or not. So we need a solution, one that sticks, and I don't think that we can come up with one on our own. And I emphasized that I expected the people who commented here to help cool the situation. I'd appreciate it if you worked in that vein as well. I'm trying very hard here, and I'm constantly being attacked. Please appreciate that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for Rebroad on his userpage today, which you may have missed (you just posted just above it). I had hoped this situation was resolved, since I had been keeping an eye on it for a couple of weeks and it seemed to have quieted down. I strongly repeat my suggestion that the two of you avoid each other. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Separately, is that title override on the User:Rebroad page Wikipedia-appropriate? -- THF 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are title overrides (outside of the title can't acurately handle the name sorta thing) allowed in general? I personally don't have an issue with it, and I really don't know if there is any sort of rule on this in particular but if there isn't, it would simply depend on whether or not it confused people, IMO. All I know about title overrides is that they're used when a title can't be done quite right for some reason... Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did see your note Newyorkbrad--and that's what I'm been doing--I didn't even wikify a particular article once I realized that Rebroad was the creator. Rebroad doesn't have this issue--he thinks that we shouldn't have a problem working together, but at the same time, he's clearly watching my watchlist and finding fault with my edits and coming to me about them. I've found fault with some of his edits that I've stumbled over too, but I haven't dealt with them, figuring that wiki is self cleaning. In the case of my edits unfortunately, he isn't coming to me and asking why, he's gathering from what he knows that I'm wrong, which is both not AGF and means I'm constantly defending myself.

It also has the unfortunate side effect that he learns less--if he came and asked why I did x--he'd be more open to learning why and I'd give him a nicer, less defensive, better answer. When he comes to me accusing, he's less open and so am I. The current situation is bad all around, and I'm willing to go in multiple directions--he just has to pick one.

Avoidance certainly seems to be the simplest but I also understand the bee-under-the-bonnet feeling that occurs when you see something you think is wrong and want to fix it. Rebroad has always been a bold editor prone to acting first and discussing later. This isn't right for all scenarios and it's especially wrong here. If this impulse could be curbed--and Rebroad could come and talk to me, and possibly someone else if he wasn't satisfied with what I said, before acting on whatever he thought needed to be done, we'd probably have a great working relationship and we'd both learn a lot. If not, then we should stick to avoidance. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI--I forgot to mention this earlier but I reverted Rebroad's replaced warning back to the uwv3 and also replied to him on his talk page letting him know about this discussion. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has been a problematic community member for a long time. I referenced a 3RR block and other problems in Wikipedia:Editor review/Rebroad. His history should be taken into account if further dispute resolution becomes necessary. YechielMan 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a blanket statement. In the 3 years I've been editing Wikipedia, I've been blocked only once for 3RR and that was swiftly unblocked when it was realised I'd mis-interpreted the 3RR policy (which I think had changed since I last read it). --Rebroad 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Rebroad's talk page

I think you'll find it's the helpdesk you should raise this with. Not ANI. You have been already warned previously about wasting admins' time by posting unnecessary comments at ANI. --Rebroad 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the helpdesk is a place to have factual questions answered. I do not have any. I haven't been warned about wasting admins time on ANI--one user didn't like that I, and several other users questioned an administrative decision. I have no idea what the user was thinking, as that user has never been in contact with me--ever--the user wasn't even involved in the multi-day discussion on ANI, and I don't know why the user singled me out, as over the four or five days that the incident took place--I made a grand total of six comments. That's a big whoop.

ANI is the place to go if there is an incident. I would certainly qualify this as an incident. I don't know how this will end--I'm simply asking for others to weigh in--provide opinions, other peceful solutions that you can deal with as you didn't like the avoidance once. We had a solution and it didn't work. I'm asking people to help us come up with another one--hopefully one that lasts a little longer.

However, in re ANI v. the Helpdesk, you could have gone to the helpdesk to ask if a level 3 was appropriate in that case. If they told you no, then someone there could have handled that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from user

Resolveduser blocked, comments redacted ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew Joseph Harrington has issued a legal threat on his talk page and has generally been a disruptive editor. He has made close to 100 edits, all on his talk page, his NN BIO article the he created (violating COI) that's now up for AfD. Rather than admit he has not been complying with WP policy, he has taken to claiming vandalism for GF edits, and claiming stalking where none exists, as well as PA on various editors. His latest comment here is: "Incidentally, describing Baen Books as scamming the public is probably actionable. I'd enjoy the results of you keeping that up too. Hiding behind an online alias won't stand up to a court order." Harrington's two stories so far are published by said company, so this seems like a veiled threat, as the user may act upon this statement wrt the company.

This is an extraordinarily disruptive user who is only here for self-promotional purposes, and I request that appropriate action be taken. MSJapan 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a legal threat. I've left a note on their talk page, a lot of times new users consider issuing vague legal threats lightly. If the user refuses to retract the threat, you should (or I will) report the user to WP:AIV. Regards, Iamunknown 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He's a disruptive editor. WP:NLT applies. indefinitely blocking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note, there was a nasty personal attack on his page from another editor. I've redacted it and warned the other editor. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't immediately see any reason to disagree with the characterization above of this freshly banned editor, subject of an article that's about to be deleted. But I also don't see anything that's "definitely a legal threat". Saying that doing X "is probably actionable" doesn't look to me like a legal threat, let alone a definite one, and the apparent imagined schadenfreude that follows it merely looks like some humdrum testosterone imbalance. -- Hoary 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally do not either. Even an implied threat is definitely inappropriate, but I'm not sure it merits an indefinite block. That's why I issued a stern warning first and suggested Mr Harrington rescind the threat. Sigh. --Iamunknown 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, one of the fundamental reasons for the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is that they have a chilling effect on free editing. The aforementioned statement would have precisely such an effect, and is exactly the kind of behaviour that the policy is intended to prevent. Looking at User talk:Matthew Joseph Harrington I see that this is not the only edit in which this editor has chosen to vaguely threaten other editors with legal processes in order to discourage them from editing, including discussions of involving the police on questions of stalking when an editor uses xyr talk page to talk to xem. Until this editor completely ceases this behaviour, we absolutely do not want xem here. Such behaviour is disruptive to the project, and damages the effort to write an encyclopaedia. The indefinite block is quite right. Uncle G 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm familiar with the reasons why we indefinitely block users who make legal threats. Thanks for the primer. --Iamunknown 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No need to get snippy. The point of indefinitely blocking threatening users (and by this I mean ones with legitimate legal complaints to the foundation) is so that if they actually follow through with it, there is no chance for tampering with any evidence, and the foundation can say "we did what we could to remove the user from offending material". When the suit/complaint is resolved, the block is removed. Now, for people throwing around baseless legal threats like "I WILL SUE U IN A CORT OF LAW IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY!!@!11!one!!!111!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!1!" we're indefinitely blocking them for the chilling effect those threats create, and we're not likely to lift it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

We have a whole new army of socks reverting pages in favor of a certain ethnic POV. Please check the contribs of

• Sparala (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Tricethin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• BWaves (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Torontz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Restaren (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Henbacl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Friesare22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), there could be more. ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) also appears to be a sock, check his recent contribs. Urgent admin intervention is necessary. Those socks apparently belong to banned User:Artaxiad. Since most of editors to Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles are on a revert parole, it would be good if someone reverted edits of sockpuppets per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Grandmaster 07:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

formatted. Thatcher131 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)