Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive144

Sprotected

Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College. El_C

08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All indef blocked, I concur with Crz's conclusion. Obvious troll army. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to Kittybrewster (

I hope admins are keeping an eye on the trolling from the oppose vote that has spiralled out of control. – Chacor 10:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That user, Weixiang7326 was adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source in the article, Windows Vista. Please block that user. Thank you. --210.213.86.46 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that someone has created an account using my real life name (Adam Gawronski) and proceeded to vandilise the St Pius X College article with offensive edits. Although these have since been revereted, the username (and hence my real name) still exists in the history. As you can imagine, I do not wish to have these comments under my name as they can be used against me even though I am not at fault. It appears that the same has happened under the username Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs), which is in fact the real name of a staff member at the school. As these users are both 'joke' users, obviously created exclusively with the intention of vandalising the St Pius X College article I do not believe that prior warning is required / would have any effect. This type of vandalism and misrepresentation I consider cowardly and also borderline illegal.

I would request that both Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs) and Adam Gawronski (talk · contribs) have their names changed so they are not impersonating anyone then blocked (so that their names do not appear in the history of the article, as I gather that deleting history of an article / deleting evidence of specific posts is not permitted/possible). I will then request (in the appropriate section) to have my current username (Gawronski) changed to Adam Gawronski to protect my online identity.

Gawronski 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This request should be directed to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard as only they have the power to change user names. Dragons flight 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just posted here. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Already indef blocked. --InShaneee 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 blocked one minute after I posted. Thank you both. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I tossed a warning at the talk page, but I guess it's too late. --Masamage 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef block pending explanation. It looks like Theresa deleted some subpages of his (for good reason). If he has a convincing apology/reason, I'll unblock.

Thatcher131

21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems a little strange, but not particulaly threatening. Some kid I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to unblock him since you were the target, go ahead. I'll give him a second chance if he is willing to discuss the matter.

Thatcher131

23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm fine with you asking for an explanation first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not unblock anyone after a death threat, even if they say they're sorry or whatever. Even if you're okay with it, bringing them back gives them a chance to similarly harass and threaten others who might not be. I know the vast majority of them say they'd never really go through with it (etc) but that's no excuse to make it easy for the few who would. There's already been real-life murders on Myspace, and we don't need that here as well. Nobody should give their life for the privlege of editing a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Andrew. Certain edits are beyond the pale; death threats are one of those. If the person is truly contrite, they will create a new ID and edit properly from now on. If they revert to such behavior; they should be checkusered and permabanned on sight. -- Avi 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's high time we had a formal policy on Wikipedia specifically prohibiting death threats and excplicitly defining them as a bannable offense (our harassment policy mentions them in passing but is very vague). So I've started a very rough policy proposal at
      Wikipedia:Death threats. I welcome any additions, changes, or feedback. Andrew Lenahan
      - Starblind 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just posted a CheckUser request in the IP check section asking for contact with the appropriate law enforcement agency and ISP with the results. Should this be required for every death threat posted on Wikipedia? I know that most are probably empty threats, but I am not comfortable about the possibility that someone's death threat is not an empty one. Jesse Viviano 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Having been the recipient of a previous death threat, I would certainly support this suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[21]

User not only violated 3RR (I didn't, because only 3 of my edits there are reverts), but reverted and protected the article to his ideal version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Steel359 for three hours for edit warring on

Cowman109^Talk

00:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support this block based on the evidence presented here. Protecting to a preferred version while in a content dispute is also not done. Hopefully just an aberration though. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The block should be for 24 hours. I've never seen anyone blocked for less than 24 hours for 3RR before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Eight hour blocks are not uncommon. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Centrx. I see 8 hours used a lot for 3RR with experienced editors.

Bryant

01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, having very obviously broken the spirit of 3RR, A Link to the Past should be very wary of asking for blocks of admins with whom he has been edit-warring, to be extended. Guy 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting similarly to Lar, though Link has a point. I don't support changing the block length now that it's set, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The blocker said he did three hours to try to get Steel to engage in discussion, but he doesn't seem to have been interested in discussing it. So I think the block should be increased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) his block log has a good record, no previous blocks, and this block is in my view intended to get his attention and get him talking. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this block does the trick, why would a longer one be a good thing? I've given blocks as short as 15 minutes just to get people to stop and think about what they are doing. 3 hours seems right. Also, i'd rather we not establish the precedent of one of the parties to a dispute arguing about how long a block is for, thanks. ++Lar: t/c

01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins should be blocked for longer than, say, a long-time regular user. They got the position, and if they violate a policy that could lead to a block, they s hould know better than to do such a thing. It's almost like special treatment to NOT block him for 24 hours. I got blocked for it, and my 3RR wasn't as nearly as bad as his 3RR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All revert wars are bad. There is no such thing as "my reverts weren't as bad as his". Three hours is fine. Support block and block length. – Chacor 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, you've got quite a history. --InShaneee 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive; they are deterrent, preventive, and recording. In this case, the blocking administrator thinks that a 3-hour block will be sufficient to deter the user from future disruptive behavior. This could be because the blocking administrator has prior knowledge of the user, where otherwise he might give a default longer block, but that is not favoritism. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee: I've been blocked twice before that blocked, and had them lifted. Also, what can be deterred? "Oh, three hours? Better take a nap/watch a movie/clean house!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They can do whatever they like during the duration of thier block off-wiki. The point is to stop thier disruptive behavior on wiki. semper fi — Moe 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109 just directed me to this discussion. I filed a report at

If the initial block does not do the trick, I would support a longer block. I don't see any sign of discussion on Steel's talk page... so not sure how it would play out, let us wait and see. But again, I don't see a party to a 3rr (Link) having any standing to comment on who got how much blockage. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my belief that any user in good standing (including one with involvement) is entitled to comment on an issue (with others taking all of the facts into account). I obviously was not entitled to issue a block myself, of course. —

David Levy

12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll take a break. I've been really moody for a while and I'm surprised it took so long for something like this to happen. Some important things in RL are coming up and I'd rather not be dealing with this at the same time. I don't intend to start a huge discussion on ANI when there are more suitable places, but I'm going to vent a little. The content dispute itself is about vgcharts - a site of videogame sales figures. This site (apparently) uses shipping figures to estimate a game's sales, and ALTTP has been removing these in good faith on the grounds that they're misleading. The text in the article makes it explicitely clear that they're estimates, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, when removing the sales info, ALTTP carelessly left sentence fragments lying around (see the third line here), and then later removed content unrelated to the dispute when reverting me [22]. As for the spelling, the article was almost totally rewritten during the process of taking it to FA. There was no conscious effort to change the style. But seeing as along the way it did change, I can't see why so much effort is being put into changing it from one version which isn't inconsistent to another version which also isn't inconsistent [23]. When I was reverted, I was pointed to the manual of style. The first bullet point there says: "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.". It was unconsciously changed from one to another as huge chunks of text were removed and new chunks were written (by me) from scratch, and the end product did use the same style throughout.
Like I said, sorry to moan about article stuff on ANI. I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia lately, and formal logic isn't going to revise itself, so this is quite a convenient point to take a break. I worked really hard on

Steel, no. Just saying that it's an estimate does not cut it. Wouldn't you do the same if you saw a featured article saying "according to false information, Pocky & Rocky sold 800,000 copies"? Because that's what it is. I know the person who owns the site; on the forum that he posts on he's constantly plugging his site. It got so bad that VGCharts was banned from all sales discussions at NeoGAF. The owner of the web site, ioi, is not a professional by any definition of the word. In fact, I get review copies from various developers in the industry to review on a site I work on, so I am actually more connected to the industry than he is, because he has absolutely no connections. Just because you specify that the source is an unprofessional estimater does not make the numbers any less bogus. Additionally, just because I unintentionally reverted something, yes, but that could have easily been added back without reverting the VGCharts information back, so don't claim I did it when you did it as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your decision to take a break is a wise one. As I commented at

WP:AN3

, it was obvious to me that you were under a great deal of stress. (In our one prior interaction, you seemed quite reasonable.)

Regarding the dialect switch, I believe you when you say that this was unconscious, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improper. American spellings (such as "organization" and "humor") had been in use in the article since February 2005 (when the first dialect-specific spelling was introduced). You recently substituted British spellings, thereby creating inconsistency that remained until an anonymous user changed the heading "localization" to "localisation" a few days ago. When someone switched it back, you twice reverted (the first time with no explanation) on the basis that the article used British spellings.

Quoth the portions of the MoS to which I was referring:

"If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)"

"Follow the dialect of the first contributor."

"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

I don't doubt that your conversion from American to British spellings was innocent, and I never ascribed malice; I simply restored the English variety originally used in the article. I've done the same thing with articles that were improperly changed from British English to American English.

In any event, I wish you the best of luck in your personal matters (and your wiki matters upon your return). —

David Levy

12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I've always understood it is that the first contributor thing should be brought into play when there's an inconsistency. At the time you changed the style, there was no inconsistency, and so no need to revert to American spellings. Anyway, consider that my last message, I'm off now. --

Steel

13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "first contributor" rule takes effect when there's a dispute regarding which variety of English to use and no other valid reason to select one in particular. Otherwise, we would be inviting users to deliberately change established articles to their preferred dialects (citing the fact that this results in "no inconsistency, and so no need to revert"), thereby sparking massive edit wars. The fact that the article existed in consistent British English for two days (as opposed to the 1 ½ years in which it was written in consistent American English) didn't somehow render that particular status quo sacrosanct. —

David Levy

16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, if there were no dispute, such as if someone were to re-write a dormant article, the "first contributor" rule is irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A message I received

[24]
If he'd said that about someone else he would probably be blocked (by me) by now. I really don't appreciate being talked about in that way and consider it exceptionally insulting. This isn't a "go and block him for me" request, but I'd be grateful if in my absence someone could remind him to AGF or something. --

A comment that was unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I'd support a strongly-worded warning. – Chacor 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is true that you did 3RR, plus protected a page you were deeply to keep it at your preferred version and was only blocked for three hours. I mean, it wasn't as if you violated a petty policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of

" This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.

• Chinese people, people of Chinese ethnicity
  • Zhonghua minzu, the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality
  • Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group in China
  • Ethnic minorities in China
  • Overseas Chinese

I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"— Preceding unsigned comment added by User68732 (talk • contribs)

Hello! For a person who are not claiming to be

WP:3RR, but also made abusive edits and restored those edits when they were deleted. It is a pretty solid case, to say the least. Besides, I'm not sure this is the right venue to appeal a decision.--Niohe

19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at SNLE's talk page. There is only a warning of possible 3RR. I don't think violation of 3RR deserves to be indefinitely blocked. I also see that SNLE engaged in discussion on the talk page. There is no disruptive edits. People just have different ideas. User68732 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle has engaged in massive sockpuppetry, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Snle. Khoikhoi 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the reason for you to decide whether SNLE has sockpuppeted is on a shared IP address. That will be wrong, because many of the accused editors don't share any similarities at all. User68732 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What examples are you asking? I used a shared IP address and got indefinitely blocked. Is it enought. I'm accusing you of misusing administrative power. I think it is better for you to keep out of this. User68732 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. --Masamage 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People keep reverting this editors userpage. While I don't think much of the content being reverted, agreement appears to have been reached (and concensus) on the users talk page, yet evern editors involved in that formal request to User:Cerebral Warrior.

It appears that there is an edit war of sorts on that page, where people come along and revert it, and others (myself included - twice at least lol) have reverted it back to the users version (as disagreeable as I find it), because there is a WP disclaimer at the top of the page, and it is for the editor to remove on request if required, not other editors. In my understanding, the only other people that should be taking direct action on an actual userpage are admins, pending refusal to comply with the rules or formal consensus requests (a formal request and apparent agreementof sorts being in evidence on this users talk).

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at the situation and take appropriate action to put an end to ths issue before it escalates further? thanks, --Crimsone 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user's talk page suggests there has been some kind of agreement and things are cooling off. If that is the case, I am reluctant to stir things up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that only admins should edit another person's userpage. All Wikipedia pages, including userpages, refeclect on Wikipedia's reputation IMO. We are here to write an encylopedia, not stir up hate or state our political opinions.If he wants to do that let him get a website - it's very easy nowdays. I believe that the userpage should go. I don't know if the consensus is with me on this, I will not act at the moment. However I urge those who are reverting the deleters to simply stop. No one has the right to say whatever they like on thier userpage, anything that inhibits conversation and compromise on articles is bad for wikipedia and hate speech does just that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. There are so many restictions on userpages already, we may as well do away with them. So let's phase them out. The next logical step in this process is to outlaw "Vanity pics". We are, indeed, here to write..not to advertise what a "cute kitty" or "bitchin car" I gotz duude. We have a firm concensus now against vanity articles, why not vanity images as well?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant - his userpage should go, not all of them. I think userpages can help bring a sense of community, but it's important to remember that they are given to wikipedians as a favor not a right. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpages only give the illusion of community and help create a false impression of what we're really here for. Policing them for inappropriate material is a drain on time and resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't

MySpace. But even if userpages stay, vanity pics need to go.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm intending to ask for views on the content that is (though undoubtedly a part of this situatition), but rather, on the disruption surrounding the issue--Crimsone 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think such issues can (or should) cleanly be seperated from the nature of the dispute and its solution. Commenting on the dispute itself, users do not own their userpage, and anything divisive enough, no matter what disclaimers are on it, tends to go. --Improv 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. While I strongly approve of users making their POV known, I think this goes beyond what is acceptable. Unfortunately,

Guinnog

14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:crazyeddie ahs created what amounts to a mini-rfc on each controversial element of the userpage on Cerebral Warriors talk page While a good idea in principle, I was wondering if a sysop might move the section to a subpage (or a different namespace) and run a history merge as appropriate before it all gets a little messy?

User:NuclearUmpf has decided to make this AfD an attack page on the nominator and myself. I attempted to remove these comments. [27] I then attempted to remove these comments to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard and stated that I was going to start an AfD on his behavior. User:NuclearUmpf has restored these comments. I don't want to get in a long edit war with this user. Travb (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Me and this user has a past history, please ask Thatcher131 for information regarding the past, including harassment, edit warring, bating, off wiki contacting of people I have disputes with, and now voting to delete a noticeboard I am involved with. The AfD in question accuses the participants of votestacking, Travb's example is actually an article that the nominator added himself. Anyway please see the MfD page and please direct questiosn to Thatcher131, as they are familiar with every aspect of this and can give you a run down of this users history. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on Thatcher131's page requesting assistance in the matter.

User_talk:Thatcher131#Travb_again --NuclearZer0

12:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I am now logging off now for several hours. I would appreciate an admin who has not been involved with either of us before, looking over the AfD. I would like these attack comments removed please. Travb (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but tell you that you are violating WP:AGF by calling a large group of editors to be votestackers, then to remove proof that you indeed do vote in the same manor, in an article you complained about the votestacking at, is far from a personal attack. Further pointing out the nominator's block 3 days before for vandalizing that page and disruption as well as WP:POINT violation, is certaintly relevant to the discussion. Your arguement that people who follow that noticeboard are votetacking is quite obsurd when faced with the fact that you have voted in a similar fashion. I would like to point out that he removed also a listing of who voted how on the article he was complaining about, showing his voting in step with the majority of editors on that noticeboard, however also showing that they did not all vote alike. The truth hurts I guess. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to catch the message above, I'll reiterate: you're both in the wrong here, and you both need to start avoiding each other for a while before you both get yourselves blocked. --InShaneee 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, they posted on an MfD for a noticeboard I participate on. I cannot avoid this user if they are seeking me out. To threaten both of us makes little sense in this case. Should I not participate in MfD's for things I am a part of, that this user is aware I am a part of? Please do not make blanket comments, perhaps there needs to be a resolution here instead of admins saying simply play nice, its apparently that won't happen with them shadowing me. --NuclearZer0 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider this your last warning; language like that you just used is not acceptable. You two are antagonizing each other, and it needs to stop. --InShaneee 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking briefly at this current dispute, we have Travb refactoring comments on the MfD (not just Nuclear's) and deleting Nuclear's explanation of his !vote and replacing it with a simple signature. We also have NuclearUmpf personalizing his response to Travb rather than just focusing on the matter at hand. I would advise Travb not to refactor comments on XfDs (admins are generally not dummies about double votes) and especially not to refactor or edit comments made by someone with whom he is in frequent dispute. Nuclear should stick to the matter at hand and not discuss motivations or behaviors of other editors. (Fair to point out the nominator's history regarding the page; unhelpful to accuse Travb of violating AGF.)

Since you guys seem to generate the most friction over XfDs, I think the next step would be

Thatcher131

15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again Thatcher131, I appreciate you actually looking into the disputes to see what the issue is. I apologize for my accusation of AGF to Travb. But the truth is this constant bumping heads with him is starting to annoy me, and worse that fact that admins simply do not want to deal with it. I am tired of being poked and prodded and would prefer not to edit Wikipedia anonymously, but it seems this issue will keep coming up as long as Travb has a name to attach me to. I will start logging my interactions with him now on as I do not see an a RFAr too far off in the future and I feel I am being constantly baited and threatened by this user. --NuclearZer0 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats an xfD? I would be happy to abide by anything Thatcher wants, voluntarily.

User:NuclearUmpf makes a lot of accusations, which I will not waste anyone's time with responding here.

My only comment is that I find it ironic of User:NuclearUmpf reaccuring talking point, he always yells, "I am a victim" when a quick, casual look at his talk page and edit behavior shows that their are dozens of editors which he has or is currently butting heads with, not just me.

Again, I will volutnarily abide by anything that Thatcher says, with or without Nuclears cooperation.

But before I can, it would help if someone could explain what an Xfd is, because the XFD wikiarticle seems wildly off topic.

{5 minutes later} Found my answer: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes "Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes." I won't edit any XfDs until November 30, 2006, one month from today, as Thatcher131 suggests.

I would appreciate an editor deleting Nuclear's irrelevant attacks on me and the nominator on the AfD. I ask Nuclear too do this as a courteousy, but he removed my message again from his talk page.[28] Travb (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We were asked not to post on eachothers talk pages, please abide by that. --NuclearZer0 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

X is a common denominator for a variable, in this case X means any of the deletion type pages, MfD, AfD, CfD etc. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to complain about the actions and behavior of NuclearZer0 and also GabrielF in this MfD. I have brought forth what I consider VERY serious charges, that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda. I complied a list of editors, and how they voted in a particular AfD. 2 editors listed, including Nuclear, inserted comments which many might consider not only trolling, but as vandalism, as the comments destroyed the formatting of the list.

Please see Example One (note that NU made two edits to his unhelpful comments) Example Two. Their actions and tone indicate that they're not taking this seriousely. What is the next step in the escalation process? I would like to have several POLITICALLY NEUTRAL Admins look into these serious charges. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF please, the following are innappropriate:

• "that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda."

Also MfD is not the place to wage your charges. I will not this in the MfD. I objected to being classified into a list and labeled, this user ignored that even though its against the spirit of Wikipedia and so I added a joke, I would like to be removed from the list as I am not a member of any board, not even at the company at which I work, and labeling people is disruptive and hurtful to everything Wikipedia stands for. --NuclearZer0 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Could a kindly admin put this article on their watchlist. I have been an editor on the article but came across it by hitting the random button. It appears the last few days have seen numerous attempts by interested parties (indeed Fiona Mount appears to be editing the article herself) to edit the article to provide a more "favourable" view of events. I am particularly concerned with edits such as this, which wouls appear to me to be libelious.

--

Someone claiming to be Graham Hesketh (Mont's husband) is involved as well. See

Guinnog

22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Persists in removing the 'criticism' section of The Wedge (TV show), requiring users to revert the article on at least a daily basis. Has never given a valid reason for doing so, and is aware that nobody agrees with their actions. Also fraudulently posed as a Wikipedia authority early on, threatening "Please do not move/edit. By order of Wikipedia. YOU WILL BE CAUGHT".

58.166.6.17 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on their Talk page, and will keep an eye out. Remember, you can always try to discuss with the editor or on the article Talk page before taking something here. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. I know this isn't normally the proper place to report vandalism, but

That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Discuss it with the editor or on the article Talk page. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If this and this represent a content dispute, I'm Ann Widdecombe. Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the future, accounts that have vandalised over a period of time can generally be reported at AIV - basically, anything that merits an obvious block after cursory investigation can be reported there. There's no 'statute of limitations' on accounts in the same way that there is on IPs - we ask for recent warnings/vandalism on IPs as otherwise we might block unrelated people, but with accounts we know for certain it's the same guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have posted some diffs as evidence, but it would basically have been a copy-and-paste of his contributions log. Powers ^T 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They're back

They're back. [29] 24.155.148.144 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, if some people want to watchlist Devon Werkheiser, it's been the target of a really strange vandalism campaign the last few days where the vandals add information on his "death" (the guy is most certainly not dead) from a variety of causes. The anti-vandal bots and a few other users have been getting them so far, but I just thought I'd add it here. Thanks! -- Chabuk 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

An IP user

These articles need to be looked at for copyright violation - the source material is clearly cited within the copyvio tag. In all cases, the content of the text is identical with minor rewording. This has been discussed at great length at Lord Ameth's Talk page. The end result was a call to "take whatever actions we deem necessary", so I have gone through and looked at the original source material on the Samurai archives, and have included the direct links in the copyvio tag. The tags I put in should not be removed without first taking a look at the source - the only source - used for these areticles. The definition of copyright violation needs to be discussed, then, however taking a paragraph and changing a few words around but keeping the meaning and idea the same probably should constitute copyright infringement. If someone had noticed this issue 10 months ago, it would not have become such a large job. I was trying to help out all of us contributors by taking care of this. There are well over 100 articles copied from the source website with minor rewording. As has been brought up on the lordameth page, a simply reworded copy of an article probably constitutes copyright violation. Furthermore, that aside, it shows poor scholarship, as these articles can not be verified. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

I'm in the process of removing all these speedy tags. May I suggest to User:66.91.213.98 (and I will do so on his/her talk page) that he/she do a global AFD nomination for these. I understand the copyright concerns, but I'm not going to unilaterally speedy-delete several dozen articles when the copyright violation is not perfectly clear. NawlinWiki 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A mass AfD has been started up now on the issue, in case anyone was curious. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Katsuyoshi. Mangojuice^talk 06:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of links to what may have been attack pages against John Pugh, a Member of Parliament for Southport in the UK. (diff 1, diff 2) It's a contentious situation (from a user whom I know from other contexts), so I wanted to have an admin "check over my shoulder" to make sure I didn't jump too fast. Justin Eiler 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're well within the recommendations of

WP:LIVING. Jkelly

22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of things, he hasn't done much, or am I missing something? He only moved that page in question once, and has not done so since these warnings.

Cowman109^Talk

22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read this discussion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, If you dig a little you'll see that none of his pagemoves have had consensus. His attitude and personal attacks on people make it particularly difficult for anyone to work with this editor. Someone should be keeping an eye on his behaviour for sure, but it hasn't gotten to the point of needing a block yet. pschemp | talk 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keitei don't you think you react to harsh? You don't assume good faith I suppose. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mycroft.Holmz (talk · contribs), already blocked due to username, is in a content dispute with established account Mycroft.Holmes (talk · contribs). [32] [33] "Holmz" has another imposter sock Hemto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), obviously of me, Femto 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a user (

I would like an admin to drop a note on his Talk Page explaining the issue and warning him that he can be blocked for continuing such behavior (if I am correct that this is blockable behavior).

--Richard 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The username is disallowed as it is the name of a company that he has been active in promoting on wikipedia. As such that is advertising. Userblocked per username policy. pschemp | talk 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried very hard to communicate with him, however he refuses to reply to any message. On the

Hmm. Deathrocker has violated his revert parole imposed at

Thatcher131

00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why posting on the articles talk would make a difference, sure it could get wider input, but the user has tried to bring this up directly and (without checking) he apparently has chosen to ignore it. As far as I am aware there is no rule which says "thou shalt use the article talk page rather than approaching an editor directly to resolve an issue", and if there were such a rule, I'd certainly ignore it as being ridiculous. --pgk 07:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring without discussion is bad whether the reverts are rapid or slow. Over the period of time where this citation has been inserted and removed there was no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. Still, you have the same block button I do, and if you see it differently then drop a block on Deathrocker per his arbitration.

Thatcher131

12:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point (or I miss the point). I read the above comment as being I'm not going to act because you didn't follow some "correct form" of posting on the articles discussion page. Indeed on Deathrockers talk your comment comes across (to me) as suggesting that EndlessVince is in part to blame for Deathrockers actions, by putting him in a situation where he could easily archive the comments without responding. If EndlessVince has made a good faith effort to resolve the situation that should be recognised, and there should be no excuse for Deathrocker ignoring that (regardless of Arbcom sanctions or not). Elsewhere anyone saying you didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's would be pointed towards wikilawyering or not a bureacracy. In this case by the word of the arbcom ruling Deathrocker is in the wrong without any discussion on any page being required. Now I haven't looked into the situation and I'm quite prepared to accept that this situation may be resolvable without resorting to a block, but that is different from saying I'm not going to do it because you didn't follow the correct form. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but that's how it came across to me. --pgk 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source if you wish to be afforded encyclopedic consideration. El_C 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If he insists on a citation, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the edit, and it can be removed until you do. Plus you still violated your revert parole. Please be more careful.

Thatcher131

06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not really important but I've stated 3+ times that I've never even listened to the band. --EndlessVince 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this admin based his decision on his PERSONAL opinion of the article rather than the consensus of the editors involved in the AfD for

That's what the deletion review endorsing the deletion was supposed to deal with. In other words, there are many editors who don't agree with you. (As I believe I was one of them, I won't comment on the issue itself.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to his closing comment at

WP:DRV is for. -GTBacchus^(talk

) 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought admins weren't better than regular users? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, admins aren't "better". They are, however, trusted to do things like closing controversial AfDs with an understanding of the complementary roles of policy and consensus at Wikipedia. Naconkantari seems to me to be doing good work in that department. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't have any more rights, if that's what you mean? They have extra responsibilities, one of which is to exercise judgement and discretion when closing AFDs. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an extra responsibility. An admin could easily have a no consensus result go in that admin's favor - technically, their input can be enough to cancel out enough keep or delete votes to make it a consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That AFD was a pretty clear delete. The majority of the keep votes were done by blatant sockpuppets anyway. This really isn't the place to discuss this, though. Take this to RFC, not here. ANI is filled with enough improper stuff as it is.

Cowman109^Talk

02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted all votes not from sockpuppets or those spammed - 24 delete, 21 keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of votes isn't really supossed to matter, the points made are, right? If the people voting Delete were making more logical sense than the Keeps, then the result was Delete (or vice versa).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Deletion Review is

This just came off of DRV. Aiee. —Cryptic 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been deleted, been through deletion review and through a speedy delete of recreated material. Three different admins closed these three items. Move on. It's gone as it should be. --Tbeatty 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, take it to RFC if you want to complain about the administrators. Please, don't reply to this thread any further as this is not the place.

Cowman109^Talk

02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• FAAFA, I don't believe you're familiar with the way things work on Wikipedia. I would suggest you hang around for a few months and learn the ropes before accusing people of impropriety. What Naconkantari did was appropriate. Take care. --Improv 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Looking at the page in question, arguing consensus seems hard. If the AfD was closed for any other reasons, that needs a clear and conspicious explanation. I see nothing in

User:Naconkantari had good reasons for his decision and acted in good faith. But then it is his duty to commincate these reasons. Wikipedia is run by the community of editors, not by admins. See the Simon Pulsifer case.--Stephan Schulz

09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a common problem when 'consensus judging' becomes 'process judging'. Naconkantari closed it as a delete not due to consensus, but for 'failure to meet

WP:BIO'... but many respondents to the AFD argued that it did meet WP:BIO - and many argued that it did not. At which point Naconkantari decided whether or not HE thought it met the WP:BIO standards and that's the way the AFD went. Essentially, his opinion alone. I tend to think in situations where there is a disagreement about how policy applies to something that's where we need to look to consensus... rather than saying 'this view of policy is correct and therefor consensus is irrelevant'. The latter seems to get used for alot of controversial closes. It makes me nervous when we start doing things that don't have consensus because 'this is the right decision'. That essentially makes consensus subservient to the personal opinions of admins. We trust admins to interpret consensus, but does that extend to saying that 'we trust admins to interpret policy regardless of consensus'? Obviously, I've got a 'dog in this hunt' as I created the page. At the time, an ArbCom member said we needed to have it. Now it is described (by some) in rather less positive terms. :] Opinions shift over time and vary by individual... which is why I thought we had consensus as the standard for decision making. --CBD

12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't consensus the main body behind the AFD?? --SunStar Net 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not voting - it's discussion based on arguments, and it is judged by the closing admin. Judging it as if it were a vote is a far greater wrong than using individual judgement -- the latter is what is supposed to happen. --Improv 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a process, it's a state, and, in my understanding, a state where a large majority agrees on something, and few if any substantial counterarguments are still upheld. If you see this state in this case, you have very different eyesight from me. --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, if an article fails Wikipedia

notability standards, it will be deleted, even if every single member of Wikipedia advises "Keep" on the AfD. AfD is not a vote, and consensus does not over-ride policy standards. Justin Eiler

18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That determination is part of the AfD, not a task for the closing admin. In fact, I would say that determining notability is the main purpose of AfD. Copyvios or violation of

WP:BLP are something that usually can reasonably be decided by an admin. It's much less a matter of opinion. Notability cannot so easily be decided by one person alone, and luckily it does not have to be decided by one person alone. There is no urgency in that case. To quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: " the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus" (emphasis by me). What do you think is the purpose of having AfD as a consensus process?--Stephan Schulz

18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. To make my position clear: I do not argue that the article should be recreated. In fact, I have not heard about Andy Stephenson outside this discussion - if he is notable, the notability has not reached my side of the pond. As you can probably deduce from that, I don't forward the argument that he was (or is) notable myself. What I do complain about is an admin disregarding (my interpretation of) reasonable policy. It's not the result I'm concerned about, it's the process (or lack of the same). If we follow your argument, we don't need AfD at all. Just delete, and shoot it to

WP:DRV. But of course, as "no consensus" means "maintain the status quo", a controversial delete will not be undone at DRV. Our policy up to now has been "if in doubt, let's keep it" and I think that's reasonable. Having a non-notable article is not a serious problem. In fact, add a million of them, and Wikipedia will still be nearly as useful and as valuable resource as it is now. Deleting a notable article lowers the value of Wikipedia (deleting a millon will do so in a very noticable way). --Stephan Schulz

19:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree that the AfD process is an absolute mess. The only reason this particular process is used is it's less of a mess than the other alternatives. Justin Eiler 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Justin -- judgement calls have to be made, and a simple vote is far worse than admins, who understand and respect project goals, reading the AfD comments and judge based on that. If anything, we've seen far too little of what Naconkantari has done. Our policies mean nothing if we ignore them whenever enough people show up, without even giving much reason, and "vote" against them in the specific case. Good judgement and discussion is what we need, not simple voting. --Improv 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that judgement calls have to me made does not imply that they are beyond criticism. It's the only way we can hope to improve the judgement of people who have bad judgement. And at least in this case, I'd say the closing admin displayed very bad judgement. Contrary to your claim, I don't see this as appropriate, and as far as I can tell, this is not " the way things work on Wikipedia".--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's beyond criticism - it's a matter for Deletion review. --Improv 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Using the Administrators' Noticeboard as a means to do an end-run on a completed AfD and DR as well as an ongoing DR strikes me as inappropriate. This is a matter for dispute resolution, in my mind. Process has been followed here, and the incidents noticeboard is not for making appeals on policy or process.--Rosicrucian 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good suggestion, yes.--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There did not appear to be a consensus in either direction at the close of the deletion debate. What would be most helpful is if the closing administrator would explain why this fails

It is regretful Centrx did not link to the pertinent discussion in his deletion edit summary. El_C 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Which pertinent discussion would that be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the same thing. CharonX/talk 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why this has been basically ignored by admins (save a few) in general. When did we become leapers? -

Desk

) 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess most of them don't care. Oh, Userbox Wars 2 will be an interesting wake-up call if this situation starts to detoriate. CharonX/talk 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone look into the page moves of Zarbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He moved several pages that used "Australian Aborigine" (or some variation) to "Indigenous Australian" and has no other contributions other than that. This was brought to my attention by an anon who has been copy-paste moving the pages back. I have requested that he stop so we can figure all of this out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(I have reverted some, but now I actually question some of my own actions that I cannot now revert.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

The moves should be explained. The terms seem to be rather interchangeble ^{(e.g. aihw.gov.au/indigenous workplace.gov.au/IndigenousAustralians)} El_C 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're not. There are two groups of indigenous Australians - Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The term "indigenous Australian" is a more all-encompassing term - as Zarbat notes in his edit summaries. I suspect that this is the reason for the moves, which seem quite reasonable ones when viewed from that viewpoint. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are three groups, to be pedantic. The third are the Tasmanians, but IIRC all of them are dead. --llywrch 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. El_C 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a reply on the IP's user page. If I've done something terribly wrong feel free to revert my moves. In any case I'll try to reach an agreement with our friend - the IP. If things don't work out I'll try to put it to vote. In any case I don't intend to drag this out into a full-blown debate. Enough drama already. Zarbat 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An instance: [35]

I don't get User:Str1977's logic. He is removing sourced material because he thinks that he understand Islam better the Cambridge History of Islam. His arguments are as follows:

• He says: "The Quran (and note, it is the' Quran) as a book did not exist at that time. If Muhammad used an argument, attribute it to him.", "If we say The Quran we immediately associate the book of that name or the Islamic revelation in its entirety. If individual revelations are referred to, then use a different wording, to avoid confusion to the reader."

My answer as posted on the talk page of Muhammad: 1. The source puts it exactly in this way 2. For the record, his understanding of the Qur'an is inaccurate. The Qur'an refers to itself as Qur'an. In fact, the word has no precedant in Arabic language before Islam.

• He says: "If you read carefully I did not say that "Abraham was not a Jew" was wrong but problematic as it is misleading. What the Quran says is completely irrelevant in this matter. Abraham is not a Jew, since that means either a descendant of his great-grandson Judah, or an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judah, or descendant of his grandson Israel, or a adherent to the religion of Judaism. But nonetheless, Abaraham is the patriarch of all Jews. He was not an Arab and he was not a Muslim in the sense that he adhered to the religion historically founded by Muhammad. We should not use this as cheap trick insinuations. That was all my remark was about."

My answer: I am saying what the source says. He doesn't agree with the source. That doesn't mean he has the right to censor the source. All I am saying is that he should back up his thought based on academic sources. But of no avail. I am fed up.

• He says: "And judging from what the WP article and what I could google says about Abdallah ibn Ubbay, this passage involving him here is highly inaccurate. It is also clearly speculation what would have happend "if" Muhammad had not come to Jathrib."

My answer: He is more than welcome to contact the Cambridge university and explain their errors to them.

All in all, I believe every neutral observer can see that he is using these pretexts to censor information.

Can somebody please help me here. Should I engage in revert war? --Aminz 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)