Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324

• Pages Gas chamber and Talk:Gas chamber seem to have become edit war battlefields involving Holocaust deniers. Anthony Appleyard 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Mercury 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected it, Mercury, you seemed to unprotect it? In the log it said you had unprotected it due to edit warring?, but it had never had protection in the first place. (Also why would you unprotect it because of edit warring? :). It is my first protection, is it done correctly? Woodym555 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have some script bugs to work out of my js. Its done correctly, I've adjusted it to expire 7 days time. This is what I intended. Thank you for catching it. Mercury 19:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be one holocaust denier in particular -
  ELIMINATORJR
  19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say block him, for at least a month, if not indef, do we really want this kind of anti-semitic behaviour on the project, and i can't see how his edits have been anything other than negative, and i doubt he would be missed--Jac16888 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

i am not anti semetic. i am anti bullshit and that is what there is a lot of on wiki regarding the gas chambers. Keltik31 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I've indefinitely blocked the account - for evidence see the above linked RfC, in addition to more recent problems.

Addhoc

20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the RfC - if I'd seen that I'd have blocked him on the spot myself.

ELIMINATORJR

20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case somebody else uses this little factoid to re-ignite anti-semitic ravings; Menachem Begin was declared a terrorist by the British following an incident during the British Protectorate of Palestine, as it was then. The classification was rescinded just prior to a State visit by the them Premier of Israel - the same person - as memory serves. Beware the POV warrior attempting using this for their own ends. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As right as this block is, the view that Begin was a terrorist goes beyond the British. Jd2718 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck what "the view" is - Begin was the Prime Minister of a Nation who had also previously been declared a terrorist by a different State; these are verifiable facts and I make no judgement on the validity of the label (and I am aware of the incident that lead to it), but pointed it out simply to make people aware it might be used as an excuse to push a POV... such as we might have here. LessHeard vanU 10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring Begin in? To argue. Had nothing to do with the block (referred to a year-old edit). So of course you give a fuck, if you didn't you wouldn't have tried to introduce this where it didn't belong. Next time, stay on topic. Jd2718 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Following Keltic31's block, I've unprotected the

Addhoc

23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

80.200.227.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) linked a malware site from Erotica. One time address so I left a warning. I mention it here in case there is a procedure I should follow when this happens. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is in order here :)

talk

) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone's sure it's malware, the IP should probably be blocked: it just inserted the link into

History of erotic photography. I'm not going to block because I can't verify the linked file is malware: ClamAV says it doesn't contain any viruses, and there's no such thing as a spyware detector for Linux. --Carnildo

10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to libel. The user all Hallow's Wraith is intent on changing the pages in question no matter what, nor how many other users find the style and content perfectly acceptable. as I have pointed out to him, the first statement in the mosbio page is that one does NOT have to adhere to the guidelines, it is merely "recommended". His "revisions" aren's even accurate, or beneficial. Furthermore admin FCYTravis has recently seen the page, as written, and didn't ask, or insist that it be changed, nor did he change it himself. Our only dispute was over an image, which, I admit, he was right about. My contacting other interested parties, are those who run websites, and and are close the subjects. This was done merely to inform them what was happening. If they choose to add, change or delete content it is entirely their decision, not mine. Lost Girls Diary 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Lost, I'd suggest you be more careful about violating

civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for making another legal threat after a warning. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblocked declined until the user withdraws the threat. If anyone (other than Lost Girls Diary) disagrees with my assessment, feel free to initiate a discussion here about it (drop me a note on my talk as well so I don't miss it). Cheers, Daniel 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the attitude, I don't think we're losing a lot here. Natalie 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the userlinks above. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this earlier report for more information. IrishGuy ^talk 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the article

talk · contribs). 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Yeah, it looks like you need to read

WP:NPOV, Hoofhearted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Any part in particluar? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Also

WP:BLP. Putting this on BLP/N, if not already there. Clearly needs watchlisting. Relata refero

22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So because he's alive he can't possibly be anti Christian? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Because he's alive, we must take especial care that anything claimed about him in the article is verifiable to strong sources. Pro Christian, anti Christian, or anything else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like he's denying he's anti-Christian Flemming is pretty proud of it. 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Generally when given the choice between a neutral description of someone's acts and making conclusions about their motives, Wikipedia should do the former. Statements about someone's motives should generally be drawn from sources rather than being in the words of a Wikipedian. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia "Anti-Christian discrimination, (AKA) anti-Christian prejudice, Christianophobia or Christophobia is a negative categorical bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance and a form of religious discrimination. Anti-Christian prejudice can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of religious or antireligious fanaticism or bigotry. Anti-Christian discrimination is practiced by members of other religions, as well as antireligious adherents of secularism. As a mental and emotional attitude, anti-Christian discrimination leads to stereotyping, hate, and oppression. Anti-Christian prejudice results in the dissemination of hate speech, the commission of hate crimes, and the formation of hate groups, as well as other forms of discriminatory behaviour. Widespread Anti-Christian discrimination may attach social stigma to Christians or Christian beliefs, and may result in an experience of social inequality by Christians. In nations where freedom of religion is limited, the issue becomes persecution of Christians." He fits the bill 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Which is you wanting Wikipedia to draw a conclusion rather than state the facts of his actions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(indented) Indeed; what exactly do you want Wikipedia to do about Flemming's anti-religious beliefs? I don't see any admin action required here.

reviewing the edit history of the page, there seem to be three accounts editing to the same exact statement. they have somewhat similar other subjects, mostly about athetism and christianity. Is a checkuser warranted there? nevermind, that's what I get for reading this page from the bottom up. ThuranX 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In case people haven't seen it, the latest analytical 'break down' of Wikipedia's content is now complete. The statistical analysis is available here--

Thanks for this, I didn't realise we had so much useful content. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just mainspace, right? Jd2718 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the other namespaces are filled with never ending arguments, stupid questions, autograph books, spurious reports of admin abuse, spurious reports of sockpuppetry, spurious reports of conflict of interest, and lots of hue and cry about some particular thing being the end of Wikipedia. Natalie 03:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's 'Stephen Goddamn Fucking Colbert' now. He got a name extension. HalfShadow 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That analysis reeks of NPOV, censorship, liberal bias, anti-Western eurocentrism, ageism, atheism, vandalism, criticism, elitism, inclusionism, cabalism, bagism, imperialism, and a bunch of other stuff. (I'm stealing it for my user page.) Raymond Arritt 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

old so no the Colbert name was correct at the tme.Geni 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's nice to see productivity up 17% over last year, when the Family Guy/Robot Chicken pop culture reference wars were going on. Now... about them cabals? ThuranX 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhhh. Natalie 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both

I had just warned them both about 3rr as they are new users and neither had edited after the warning but its only 24 hours and I think it is a good call. Thanks,

SqueakBox

02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A warning might have sufficed in this case. I won't complain, I just think it might be a way to consider going in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The person who is currently assigned IP address

Note the only reason for my restoration of the talkpage is to keep the long-term vandalism that this user has committed apparent. This is a shared IP, so this talk page is probably registered to several people, thus nullifying the user ownership clause, IMO. The Hybrid T/C 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While editors are usually free to blank notices (and doing so implies they read the warnings), with the case of shared IPs, my understanding is that it is not generally acceptable to remove shared IP headers and notices given, as the information is there for administrators and editors to understand the history of the shared IP, as well as for the IP it is registered to if need be. I think reverting in this case is perfectly acceptable, and I've seen many an administrator revert blankings of shared/educational IPs for this very reason. Ariel♥Gold 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Combined with the vandalism (mostly blanking) in their recent contribs there's enough here to warrant a block. 48 hours, which may be enough time for the IP to roll over to someone new. If anyone thinks this is excessive you can dial it back. Raymond Arritt 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.x2) Aside from the keeping-warnings-visible issue, 3RR specifically does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." Regarding the removal of warnings by a user, see

WP:UP#CMT. The IP doesn't seem to be violating any sort of policy, as the removal of warnings should simply be taken as proof the user has received them. --Dynaflow babble

06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". It isn't their talk page; it is Comcast's, and whoever has used it previously in addition to what stake they have it it. The warnings, and the IP notice needs to remain for the benefit of any future blocking admins, and any users who need to warn the user in the future. It should not be allowed to be blanked. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A look through the IP user's contribs seems to indicate that the same user has been on that same IP for quite a while, and it should probably be treated as we'd treat any other account. The warnings are in the history, and assuming CVU and other patrollers leave summaries when they leave the warnings, seeing what "level" this user on is a simple matter. [EDIT:] As for Comcast IPs' "dynamicness," see

SharedIPEDU}} template should be kept, but we're likely dealing with just one person here. --Dynaflow babble

06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) I'm sure we can all agree this is no big deal. If good faith is applied to this IP's recent summaries, then we can assume that the IP has just changed hands, but all in all I'm tired, and want to go to bed. Do whatever you feel, as my intense apathy has just kicked in :P. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 06:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite the apparent differences we may have in editorial issues, I have repeatedly tried to help this user edit within the spirit of

Below is a list of their most recent pattern of language, and I am afraid I cannot tolerate it any longer, so I present the diffs here for your input:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Your insight is valuable. NikoSilver 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wish one single user, administrator or not, to see how blatantly, and in a ugly fashion, this user has been pushing his POV in this or several other articles..Instead of presenting here bits and pieces of the dispute, i invite anyone to see the discussion..

He changes non-pro Turkish historians` citations to things that they dont say, fanatically revert the article without entering into any discussion, or say completely unrelated things just to seem like he is actually discussing something when in fact he doesnt..

I dont have any problem with any particular nationality, and if somebody would check my edits it will be obvious that i do not promote any nationalistic pov pushing, i myself several times added definitely non-pro Turkish citations and quotations to wikipedia, but i cant stand to see such an ugly POV pushing to be continued for such a long time..--laertes d 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Laertes we are not discussing any dispute here, this is not

i just wish you could simply stick to the point instead of making ad hominem attacks to show yourself on the right side, bring your issues with that particular `dispute`..--laertes d 13:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you are altering my comment. NikoSilver 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the third. NikoSilver 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the tenth time youre employing ad hominem stretegy, as i said just use things that is directly related with the current discussion, if anybody is interested that much about these things they can see it with a little research..Im taking them as an another attempt in your part to change the topic and thats why im moving them..I do not list here countless links of how blatantly nationalistic pov pushing edits you have made in wikipedia and have been criticized by doing so by several other editors..--laertes d 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the

fourth time. For those interested in my initial comment, this is the diff. NikoSilver

14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked laertes d (talk · contribs · count) indefinetly. His block log clearly shows that this is not the first time he is behaving like this, and that he hasn't changed from previous blocks. He is causing too much disruption to continue here. Maxim 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. The fewer nationalistic edit-warring SPAs we have around here, the better. Top-hole block. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I restore my original comment here in ANI (since I doubt anybody can figure it out in the history's mess), or will it be deemed as a 3RR vio from my part? I know people are not supposed to interfere with one's comments, but you can never be too safe... NikoSilver 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

if their sole purpose is to disrupt an article and they haven't contributed anything of value I don't see any reason to permit them to keep editing. If they have contributed material of value to the article though an attempt should be made to reach out to them.--

Crossmr

01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are real problems with article Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. No reliable sources provided to establish
   notability
   .
2. Major
   WP:BLP
   issues where negative statements are attributed to a living person without proper sourcing.
3. The two sources are YouTube videos. Who uploaded them? Were they doctored? Those aren't reliable sources.
4. Watching a video and writing an article about that video is quite possibly
   synthesis
   .

To me, the article looks it should be stubbed immediately, and then either speedied, sent to

I deleted the article, there's absolutely no version that doesn't violate BLP. Maxim 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was discussed in

Deletion review is this way. east.718 at 22:17, 11/12/2007

So, my most favoritest editor evar, User:American Brit, is apparently back, in the form of User:American Brit the second. As AB was community banned, not just blocked, I've blocked the current account and want the community's feedback on whether to lift the ban or not. He left a message on The Haunted Angel's talk page, apparently wanting to put the whole thing behind him.[24]

For those that don't know who AB is, he was community banned for making outrageous threats and insults. (How outrageous? See User:EVula#Collection of threats; that section wouldn't exist without him). You can find a listing of some of his socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/American Brit, read about the initial stages of this situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Crazy wacky funtime, and the actual ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Proposed community ban of American Brit.

As his favorite targets were myself himself (his socks would make death threats against the puppetmaster account), and The Haunted Angel, his statement "I am as fond of you as I always was" to THA doesn't fill me with much confidence...

So, what does the community decree? Shall we do the right thing, or should we lift the ban? (gee, I hope I didn't load that sentence too much... :D) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do pigeons eat human flesh? I thought they were herbivores. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Only when hung from oak trees, apparently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, immediate unblock. Look how remorseful he is! He regrets his "creaul and heartless banning," and is eager to "get things back the way they were." How can we resist the opportunity to get him back, just as he was? Er, wait a minute. Let me think about that. Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm changing my vote to No, I don't think so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a non-admin, I find something like this alone (sockpuppet of AB) reprehensible, and in no way deserving an unban. The Checkuser case is so long, and so disturbing in demonstrating the non-constructive nature of the editor, that I feel this is further proof this editor is not deserving of an unban at this time. Ariel♥Gold 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I fairly surprised that this isn't a request for review of a "No, thank you very much, but it was kind of you to ask all the same." response... LessHeard vanU 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I decided to be even nicer than the situation actually warranted. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

COmmunity bans of some users could/should be removed because their net effect on the project will probably be positive. This isn't one of those cases. Daniel 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The instigator of the community ban votes no. Banned. Let ArbCom review it, but that was nothing more than trolling. Keegan^talk 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think bringing ArbCom into it is overkill, especially with the overwhelming support for leaving the ban. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago

Could an admin please change the name back to its previous correct name? Thanks. Magnetic hill 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment - I have tried to assume good faith of this editor, but now
  List of magnetic hills. Once again, no consensus for this drastic change, and naming it "List of magnetic hills" instead of "List of gravity hills" (to match the article) appears to be just to make a point. Can an admin look at his editing and take the appropriate action please? Magnetic hill
  01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, it's a straightfoward case of an editor making drastic changes without consensus. I was under the impression that responsible editors should seek consensus before renaming pages, removing content, etc. Magnetic hill 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but IMO that list of hills shouldn't be in the Gravity hill article or in a separate list. I had a look at the history of
  Magnetic Hill though. Crazysuit
  04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (I'm the "other user" who reverted some of
  pointy, given that the article's called Gravity hill and the category's called Category:Gravity hills, so the list should be called List of gravity hills
  .

Regarding your constant revertions to

WP:BOLD isn't an excuse here for not discussing first, because your changes were clearly going to be controversial considering your other recent edits). Masaruemoto

06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's migrate this to the relevant talk page without further aspersion, for the sake of step three. Perhaps in the process you could read

WP:BRD-- bold edits are acceptable without prior discussion. Maybe next time step three can be mutually followed to prevent the needless elevation exhibited here. 高

22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am camping on DreamGuy's talk page because he's been subjected to near constant trolling. One of his trolls, User:Ideogram, was site banned based on a report I prepared. Ideogram claims to have undiscovered socks, so I keep watch.

Earlier today I semi-protected DG's user page when an IP vandal redirected it to asshole. [26] Yes, there are nasty folks who get their jollies bothering DG.

For whatever reason Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job. I don't see any connection to Ideogram, but I am concerned about the situation. Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page [27] [28] after being politely asked not to post there, twice.[29] [30]

Around October 25 DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of pestering. [31] Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread. [32]

Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at

Does anybody have suggestions how to handle this matter? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i would imagine that the first way to address the matter would be to actually get your facts a bit straighter. Let's address them singly, shall we?

• Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job - prior to today, i didn't even know what a "JoeJob" was; I can fairly assure anyone who is interested that I am in fact real, and have never engaged in any net or email spoofing. Of course, if Jehochman has anything approximating proof of this, I welcome him to submit such. As it is, I have never acted in a trollish manner to or about GreamGuy, and have in fact defended his edits and ability to edit until i discovered that he was likely sockpuppeting and breaking his ArbCom restrictions.
• Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page after being politely asked not to post there, twice - this is in fact incorrect. My first post after being told that I was in fact one of these apparent "trolls" was to inquire as to why I was included in this bunch as well as to point out that my posting was was required to inform him of the ArbCom complaint. The second instance was to inform him - as required of the SSP report that was filed. Again, my notifications were required by Wikipedia policy.
• DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of "pestering". Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread - while I may have erred in reinstating his talk page comments, i thought it important that anyone wanting to comment on DG's uncivility and/or personal attacks shouldn't feel like they were the only ones doing so. I didn't evaluate the comments, but none of them seemed to be uncivil, attack-y, pestering or trolling.
• Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 - actually, I did this at your suggestion, Jehochman. While you are of course able to form an opinion of the accusation of your friend, you, I am following the steps you suggested I take.
• and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement] with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening
  diffs
  - again, apparently, you haven;t read the scope of the issues i have with your friend DG. As its rather clear that you aren't very neutral in this matter, perhaps a really good idea is to avoid acting int he capacity as an admin?

My suyggestion is to await the results of the Checkuser and Sockpuppet reports. When they return results, those will be applied as evidence to the ArbCom complaint (which someone else filed, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection to nor friendship with DreamGuy. He's had his own problems, but that doesn't mean he should be subjected to abuse. He deserves the same protection as any other user. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, calm down, and present a few diffs showing DreamGuy doing something wrong. Within your SSP report, there's one IP that is quite likely DG. The others most likely are not. Can you show evidence, in the form of diffs, of incivility by that IP? If so, I will block DG myself. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you with the research:

• These are potentially rude: [33] [34] [35]

I'd like a second opinion as to whether these are sufficiently uncivil, per the terms at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#DreamGuy restricted, and also to determine whether this IP is a sock per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 to warrant a block on DG. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that those diffs are at least borderline uncivil, the first one probably going into inivility. I'd like to see the IPs checked at SSP before any further action is taken. Wizardman 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a lot to work through, but I am fairly sure that the two anon IPs are going to show as being from the same user, as User:71.203.223.65 created the account for user:82.38.177.222 here (it's worth noting that the first edit under that ID was blatant vandalism). the telling connection is going to be that between DG and user:71. Proving the connection between those two essentially proves the connection between all three - and all three edited in the same article.

Jehochman, if I have misinterpreted your zeal in protecting DG, then an apology is in order. I do not feel like I have subjected him to abuse whatsoever; I too have in fact defended his edits and his right to overcome the hurdles set before him as well.. It was only after this IP stuff came up that I was less inclined to defend him - I have zero tolerance when it comes to socks. Even when the behavior set off alarms, not once did I post a personal attack or was uncivil.

I too will wait until this all becomes clear with the SSP check. As I had not filed one before, could someone please check to make sure I filed it correctly? I'll do all the heavy lifting, just tell me what needs fixing if it needs such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. There's enough trolling aimed at DG that it's sometimes hard to identify friend or foe. The diff you cited between the two IPs just shows one IP giving the other a vandalism warning. I don't think the IPs are related to each other, but I do think one IP is related to DG. This happened three weeks ago, so we can wait to see what DG has to say about this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, I did ask him on at least five different occasions if he was in fact any of the anon users, and each time he either said it wasn't important or avoided addressing it. it begs the question, if you are innocent, why avoid saying so? I think its fairly likely that the IP was used to side-step the rstrictions and edit freely, or in this specific case, edit-war - something DG isn't supposed to be doing, as its inherently uncivil; the edit summaries don't help, either. Had DG addressed this and taken whatever lumps ArbCom Enforcemetn felt were necessary when it first came up, it wouldn't have become as involved as it has. I do see that it might very well be that the 83 user's talk page was "created" by 71 posting a comment there; on closer inspection,it seems likely to be the case. Again, had DG said anything about this before, it wouldn't have become a Thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus. Can you present a sequence of three or four diffs that show edit warring by User:71.203.223.65 and User:DreamGuy? If you can present a sequence that shows them acting in concert, or separately, that will be helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I kinda did that in the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, but perhaps I showed too many diffs.

As user 71.203.223.65:

1 - 12:33, October 18, 2007

2 - 09:59, October 20, 2007

3 - 16:19, October 21, 2007

As User DreamGuy:

4 - 13:50, October 22, 2007

5 - 13:52, October 22, 2007

6 - 13:54, October 22, 2007

7 - 13:56, October 22, 2007

8 - 13:58, October 22, 2007

9 - 13:59, October 22, 2007

10 - 14:00, October 22, 2007

11 - 14:03, October 22, 2007

12 - 14:12, October 22, 2007

Edits #1-3 were made by the anonymous user. Edit #3 was a revert of the article version.

Successive edits #4-9 by DG show successive edits to restore to the prior version previously reverted to by the anonymous user (I'm willing to be charitable and consider them all a collective revert, though an admin weighing 3RR or civility might see it differently), so we'll call them a single revert as well (revert number two).

Edit #10 is revert number three.

Edit #11 is revert number four.

Edit #12 is revert number five.

There are three more edits after that, all serving to reinforce the edit DG (and user 71 beforehand) continually reverted to, all within a 24-hour period. Even were the issue not of multple accounts serving the same purpose (reinforcing a previous version), DG still violated 3RR. When we count in the reinforced edit of the anonymous user, the violation becomes that much more egregious. As edit-warring is specifically considered hostile (and therefore uncivil), an editor under civility restrictions would normally be avoiding reverting more than once, preferring to discuss their edits instead. In point of fact, both the anonymous editor and DG were asked repeatedly to discuss their edits instead of edit-warring, without success. It bears meantioning that similar activity took place in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article between 10/18/07 and 10/22/07, again involving three reverts by the anon user 71 and DG. As 3RR is not confined to simply three reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive behavior (in this case by a registered user and his anon), I think it should be considered as well.

Was that what you were looking for, Jehochman? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy blocked

We have strong evidence that

Having looked at the situation the IP 71.203.223.65 first edit was on 29th August and the bulk of the edits relate to Jack the Ripper most telling I find in this is that at 20:08, 23 October 2007 -- was the IP's last edit and that 20:18, 23 October 2007 -- Dream guy account made its first edit of the day. While the issue is under consideration by Arbcom theres enough apparent commonality for the block of DreamGuy and this IP. Gnangarra 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Snuh?(!) This is all far too convoluted and longwinded. I click on the second link in the passage reading while his ArbCom case we [sic.] being discussed. [40] [41] [42] and it is simple vandalism reversion (The Mammoth cock of Jack the Ripper → The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper). What on earth is going on here? El_C 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs) for the same period Gnangarra 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jack the Ripper#The The 'Canonical Five' gives a brief insight to the commonality of these two accounts. additionally this edit isnt vandalism its removing "Ripperologists" link something I saw frequently in DreamGuys edits. There also this by the IP and this by DreamGuy notice the similarities in edit summaries. Gnangarra 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed this in ArbCom's competent hands.[43][44][45] Let's see what they say. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly impressed with your conduct here, Jehochman. I expect more efforts geared toward clarity, next time. El_C 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you seriously just block an editor for month-old edits, or are am I just missing something? I don't understand quite what the point of this in-depth investigation of old edits in order to find something blockworthy is.

t

21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for having undergone through the labyrinthine collections of diffs, Dmcdevit. I don't think it was fair to subject us to this (which to say, a more concise, organized approach was to be expected, on the part of the blocking admin, if not the original individual who levied these charges). As concerning is Jehochman seeming unwillingness to spell out what he found abusive (instead of sending us all over for the non/answers). El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we have another individual appearing on AE, who, immediately after I ask for (any) evidence of abuse, tells me that DG "violated 3RR pretty badly," yet provides zero evidence to that effect(!). Am I the only one finding this conduct suspicious? El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting by that? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it not obvious? I am suggesting that when someone says "reference your claims" and then the immediate response to that is another, wholly unreferenced claim, that is suspicious. El_C 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I get that, but you obviously have something in mind to explain the suspician. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It's just odd. My last sentence was literally "please reference your claims" (quote not paraphrase). El_C 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems not in the least odd to the individual in question. (Me.) I prefaced my remarks with "I have no comment to make about that', which I would have thought would indicate that I was not responding specifically to your complaints about lack of organisation, especially since I was not the individual addressed. However, in case you felt that running through all the links would be too much work, I merely pointed out the most salient fact, which was that if the IP was DG logged out, then it appeared to me - on the basis of the diffs provided in a location which you had already been made aware - violated 3RR. My concern was to simplify the accusation sufficiently for you to plow through the diffs yourself. I have read it again, and i see nothing in the least odd about that. Nor suspicious. I can't understand what you're driving at, frankly.

I do gather that you are displeased with Jehochman's pattern of blocks - I believe he blocked Dbachmann punitively? (In which case I seem to recall I was among the first to comment about it, expressing a certain degree of support for Dbachmann in that case.) Whatever the reason may be, I think you should either spell out what you think is suspicious about my attempts to clarify things for you, or withdraw it. I oppose, as much as I imagine you do, arbitrary blocks. As the rest of the comment on the AE board made clear, I would have waited for CU to come in. It certainly is the last time I try to make anything clearer for you; I tried it once before recently, and got snapped at that time as well. Relata refero 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand less and less the more clarification I get. Dbachmann has been blocked once in his entire wikicareer.[46] The block happened recently, it wasn't imposed by Jehochman, and, before further mystery claims get put on the table, I undid the block. (With something of an accompaniment of punitive nagging by Jehochman, admittedly... but I think you were probably talking about someone else, RR? Different blocker, different blockee, relevance..? [/me starts to cry. I have flu! I can't do this! ] Bishonen | talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I probably was. I do remember, however that seeing El_C popping up asking for clarification almost every time Jehochman's been involved, which is why I was seriously angered that he was taking his irritation out on me. I apologise for exacerbating your flu. Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm expected to "plow through the diffs [myself]", then, for evidence of a 3RR breach you claim? El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim it! I have nothing whatsoever to do with it! I merely summarized the accusation for you, as I have said several times. And whether here or at AN3, I do suspect you have to plow through the diffs yourself. There aren't any shortcuts to checking whether 3RR occurred. Since you want to do it, and demand evidence, and then refuse to check the evidence, I can't see what on earth you want. And I still haven't seen an explanation of your remarks above ladling "suspicion" on me. What the hell? Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence, no consideration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the list of diffs above (in Arcayne's post) the evidence you're asking for? Arcayne claims those diffs show that DreamGuy used his named account and the IP to edit war and violate 3RR. Assuming that Arcayne's interpretation of the diffs is correct, that's abusive sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just reference claims that 3RR was violated (if we invoke it) in our own sentences, shall we? El_C 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...I'm not sure how to read your tone, El_C, but I'm not claiming that DG violated the 3RR; I don't have an opinion at the moment. But I am noting that Arcayne's post, just one section above, seems to have the diffs you're looking for. But maybe I'm wrong...your comments are quite terse, and I'm not even sure what evidence you're looking for. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has diffs they wish to submit, here, in this section, that would be helpful. El_C 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two summaries for those who don't like wading through ANI threads and chasing links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dreamguy
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2

I hope these help. I am waiting for the checkuser evidence to come back, for DreamGuy to respond, and for ArbCom to respond before taking further steps. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I told Arcayne, that should be moved to the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy. Relata refero 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep sending us to subpages, Jehochman. I'm asking for diffs where you show abuse. Cite one or two for us, please. El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity can someone please cite a single edit from this month that justifies a week-long block?

Thank you! El_C 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Jehochman playing games? I keep asking for one or two diffs and he keeps linking those subpages. I'm beginning to feel that he may simply not be suited for the sysop bit and that supporting him in his RfA was a mistake on my part. El_C 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, the edit war at Jack the Ripper involving DreamGuy and his IP sock puppet has caused the page to be protected indefinitely since October 26.[47] That's why there hasn't been any more edit warring since then. Discussions at the talk page have deadlocked because of DreamGuy's refusal to cooperate. Here are a few diffs from November that show the sort of uncooperative approach and hostile tone DreamGuy takes with editors who disagree with him: [48] [49] [50] [51] I don't think this behavior complies with the restrictions that ArbCom has placed on DreamGuy. If we agree to keep DreamGuy blocked this article can be unprotected. I don't think it makes sense to punish the innocent by forcing them to deal with an uncooperative, uncivil editor. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding any one of those diffs too problematic; can you focus on the worse one? El_C 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, I trust you to do the right thing. If you think DreamGuy should be unblocked, then you have my permission to do so. Of course, I may still bring this sockpuppetry to the attention of ArbCom, and any administrator may reblock DreamGuy if he resumes edit warring. Would you also unprotect Jack the Ripper and be sure to warn DreamGuy so he doesn't get into further trouble? Does that arrangement sound fair? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, to all concerned, if there are disagreements about

WP:RFC instead of edit warring. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk

23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that since his ArbCom sanctions, DreamGuy has gotten better at keeping his comments just short of incivil. But he has not gotten any better at being able to work with other editors toward consensus. I don't know if this justified a block, or whether his use of an IP sockpuppet for a month to avoid ArbCom scrutiny while his case was open deserves a block, but I just want to caution people from blaming others for his problems. The idea that there are groups of editors who get their jollies harassing DreamGuy is one that he and some of his admin friends have proposed, and I say that's just absurd; he behavior brings on these reactions. And when he characterizes himself this way: "I do consider the opinions of others, but what I do not do is suddenly decide to follow the opinions of editors who show up out of the blue demanding changes against the way other editors have agreed to do it in the past when it's clear that they have no real consensus to do so, have not read prior discussions, and do not understand how Wikipedia policies apply" he is just rationalizing why he always has to have things his way; his too-common tactic of citing a prior consensus, when nobody is willing to support his position, makes him impossible to edit with. I'm just glad he hasn't come back to any articles that I'm watching. Dicklyon 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's called

gaming the system. When an editor causes an article to be protected for two weeks and refuses to cooperate with other editors, do we let them carry on until they drive away the other contributors? When an editor uses a sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and to edit war, do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month? Excuse me for using common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk

00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, instead we drive them away with spurious blocks based on stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary, I see. This is a bit ludicrous. I note that there was no evidence of any edits this month warranting a week-long block, and you explain that it was because the article was protected... so you blocked him out of the blue because he wanted to edit war, or what? This attitude that "do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month" is a license for witch hunts by editors' opponents and branding people without regard to their actual value for the project. I guess the whole "blocks are preventative" concept is quaint now. This what I think you should have done if you thought the continued protection was harmful (which of course is true): unprotect the article with the clear directive to all involved editors that any edit warring will result in an immediate block. But block for real misconduct; don't block willy-nilly for old or presumed misconduct. I also notice that you weren't, apparently, so concerned about the article's long protection to, say, unprotect it after blocking the editor that you blocked so that the article could be unprotected. Bizarre.

t

04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't unprotect articles without first consulting with the administrator who placed the protection. Seeing how El C has unblocked DreamGuy, and there's still no agreement about how to resolve the edit war, the protection should probably stay in place. Don't you agree? - Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcdevit. Jehochman uncommunicable conduct here has been truly bizarre, likely abusive. El_C 06:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really quite shocked over Jehochman's conduct in this case, so I am taking this to arbitration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wer'e discussing the matter on Jehochman's talk page, so maybe this can be resolved informally. El_C 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

unresolved?

Actually, I certainly don't consider it resolved, though you may have resolved your discussions with your fellow admins. I am a bit insulted at being characterized by Dmcdevit as "an edit warring adversary". If it isn't too much trouble, perhaps that fine gentleman could point out where I have acted at all uncivilly or edit-warred in this matter? I see someone who did something wrong - a person with a considerable history of doing the same thing wrong and being told not to do so. When I ask the user in question about it, I receive disturbingly evasive responses, as Dicklyon discovered recently at DG's own user talk page. I wasn't keen on bringing Dreamguy's background into this, of for no other reason than its far more complex a venture than I am willing to spend my time on. Being characterized as an edit-warring adversary for pointing out the obvious seems more than a little tendentious and, of course, pretty damned inaccurate.

Granted, I didn't really know how to handle a fairly complex administrative procedure as ArbCom Enforcement coupled with RfCU and SSP and AN/I, and my resulting post was too long. However, I have responded with DIffs when asked - even when those requests weren't necessarily directed at me. Jhochman requested further clarification as to wrongdoing, and I provided it - not my opinion, but the Diffs. El C requested the DiffTimes for the 3RR, and I provided it. Decrying those results as being 'old' is somewhat disingenuine - had we discovered that DG had violated 3RR and his ArbCom restrictions through his use of his anonymous IP earlier, we would have filed it earlier. It wasn't dredged up as has been disparagingly described.

Granted, there are editors who have worse track records than DG, and editors who have less respect for ArbCom restrictions, too. However, most of those folk have already been shown the door. If he cannot be persuaded to follow the rules when they are specifically pointed out by ArbCom, what voice are you thinking he is more likely to heed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, ArbCom restricted DG from incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. The diffs here don't show that DG was uncivil, nor I do see that he made personal attacks or assumed bad faith; so I would refrain from saying he violated the ArbCom decision.

You're trying to claim that DG edit warred, that edit warring is uncivil, so therefore DG violated his ArbCom restriction. This is an inventive argument. If ArbCom had thought that DG had a problem w/edit warring, they would have restricted him from doing so. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this incident has played out and that complaining about three week old edit warring after the editor has been blocked and unblocked isn't a good use of effort. I recommend dropping this. If the edit warring resumes, post diffs promptly and ask for help. You don't need to question the other editor first and wait for response. Simply post the diffs and say, "This looks like edit warring. Could somebody please investigate." It's not a violation of

call a duck a duck. - Jehochman ^Talk

16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, somebody needs to start an RfC, mediation, or some other form of dispute resolution at Jack the Ripper, because it doesn't look like the article's regular editors are able to solve the dispute on their own. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, an uninvolved administrator, is well qualified to perform this task. Have at it! - Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait! I wasn't volunteering! I was suggesting that the involved parties take steps to get outside input. I'll be happy to look at the article's talk page, etc., but I'm a really bad choice for a mediator, because I develop strong opinions about article content almost immediately. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Then this will be a learning and growing opportunity for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, i guess I have to say that I am really disappointed at how this is matter seems to be ending without resolution. I acted on someone else's ArbCom complaint to provide information (granted, not concise enough information, but it was my first time doing so), and instead I have at least two admins mis-characterize my involvement; "trollish" and "edit-warring" by Dmcdevit and being hauled in front of AN/I on a litany of accusations by Jehochman, none of which ended up being accurate. It's certainly been an education.
If this is the way that one can expect to have their good faith efforts in helping to identify bad behavior, then perhaps it isn't worth the effort. I would have preferred to spend these last few days editing, instead of trying to learn somewhat unclear protocols and file numerous complaints as the request of different admins. I guess I don't mind the learning part; I just object to admins considering me the enemy for failing to follow these protocols flawlessly. It doesn't engender a lot of faith in admins.
I think Dreamguy broke the rules that all of us have to follow, rules that would have resulted in anyone else being blocked. That he is someone who has repeatedly made the same mistakes before and has walked with nary a hand-slap begs the question: when will enough be enough? At what point will an admin up and say, 'hey, if anyone else were doing this, they would get blocked, and if anyone with a history of doing this were doing this again, they would be blocked indefinitely.'? That anyone who seems to be saying this is disappointing, to say the least. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the result here, your final recourse is to file a complaint at

requests for arbitration. Otherwise, you can let bygones be bygones. If any editor causes problems for you in the future, you now have a much better idea how to file an actionable complaint. - Jehochman ^Talk

20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

file an arbitration request? Yes, as that has worked so well. And yes, while I do know how to file a complaint better, what's the point of doing so when people - admins - instead attack the one filing? No thanks. Of course,an apology would have been nice, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been an ongoing struggle over the past several months to maintain the effectiveness of the indefinite block levied against banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. This user has repeatedly resorted to sock-puppetry to subvert the block, resulting in a string of cases against him (the latest being Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (6th)). His latest incarnation as 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has not been resolved, as his activity continues virtually unabated. For the short term, I'd like this IP blocked. For the long-term, I'm open to other approaches -- whether it involves page-protection or some more creative solution. Myasuda 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given a reasonable length block to this dynamic IP address from AT&T. It was clearly stalking you and reverting your contributions for no reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I appreciate the effort, now that the block has expired 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back to his old tricks. Either a longer block or page protection might help. Myasuda 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which pages need protection, and why? - Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a block is the more ideal solution at this time since this sock-puppet is a front for a banned user (by community consensus -- for example, see

List of National Basketball Association teams by single season win pct‎ for protection since this user is constantly reverting sourced information. In other words, repeated long-term vandalism. Myasuda

20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Time (radio show) seems to have been closed early by a Non admin, Shalom (talk · contribs), after only a day, marked with a misleading result. Since I nominated Pacific Time (radio show), I feel it better for another admin to have alook at this situation.--Hu12 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears Shalom (talk · contribs) is closing other Afd's early and inapropriatly--Hu12 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at his/her most recent closes and I don't think they are obviously improper. Are there specific other AfDs you thought were closed early? Natalie 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On the example above, 5 "keeps' on an afd which has 4 more days to go hardly equals a "Speedy keep". I've reverted the AfD above (changed the link to oldid) so it can run their course and gain full consensus as intended by the process. Several others include;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heller center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle MLS
• A few Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

I see this user is up for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shalom, while I grately respect the co-nom's, I'd hope better judgement is used by Shalom in the future. The process are in place for the pupose of consensus, understandibly if all opinions/votes are "speedy keep (or delete)". Then this type of closure would be appropriate, however they were not.--Hu12 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In case the question is about non-admins closing xFDs, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several non-admin closures in which they were done appropriately in the proper manor, however I have not seen this done with AFD's that just begun. --Hu12 03:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The first one wasn't not a candidate for speedy keep on those grounds, and had not yet reached snow proportions. The other closes were valid. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The closures may have been a bit brusk, especially the first one, but they appear to have been done

WP:SNOW keep. Even the first one, which appears to be the fastest closure, looked unlikely to generate ANY result better than "no consensus" given the number of keep votes already cited, with reasonable keep rationale. It would be nice to see most of these stay active for a day or two, but I see no evidence of malice here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs

06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LI agree with the lack of malice. More a case of jumping the gun/mistaken use of speedy keep. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps here he should have ideally waited to let the snow get rolling, but I really don't agree that this is a persistent problem. This is a perfectly acceptable, I would venture to say nearly unobjectionable, withdrawal in which no one wanted the article deleted. If someone comes across and does want the article deleted, they can start their own AfD. This was an extremely clear

In my view, there really is no such thing as a valid

WP:IAR is also hardly ever a good reason to speedy close an AFD, because a running AFD doesn't "prevent people from improving Wikipedia"; proper process shouldn't be broken unless there is a problem to be fixed, and there very rarely is a problem in simply letting an AFD run its course. Speedy keep is only for dealing with irregularities of process, such as bad-faith nominations, and for retracted nominations. So-called SNOW speedy keeps should almost never be done, and certainly not by non-administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼

08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I think such practices are generally viewed as permissible by most. Quite a lot of AfDs are closed early for snow-like reasons, in my experience at least. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe those practices are generally Not viewed as permissible by most.--Hu12 11:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with FutPerf. Several of these were closed after only a day or so, which I think should only be done for bad faith noms. People need time to respond. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we have about three discussions in one here. Should these articles be kept, was the speedy keep appropriate, and was the candidate-for-administrator's action appropriate. On the first front it's obvious to me that all the articles should not be deleted, and that will be the outcome of the process. User:Hu seems to think otherwise in some cases, based on a position that notability has to actually be cited to multiple extra reliable sources offering substantial coverage in a non-spammy, non-COI article, and have commented and voted as such in the articles. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it still does not mean that the articles are likely to be deleted. Regarding speedy keeping, I can't say but this may well be within the permitted bounds. Discussion is nice but it's extremely unlikely that any of these articles can be properly deleted based on the discussion so far (unanimous or nearly unanimous strong keep votes with cogent arguments by quite a number of editors), so there does not seem to be any urgent need to continue. The final question is more problematic. Although it may or may not be permitted to close them early, it's really not necessary and the closure is controversial. An administrative candidate ought to demonstrate that he or she will not just act within the bare minimum of allowable edits, but is actually thoughtful and good with their administrative actions. I don't think this one incident will make them a bad administrator but it would be helpful if someone counseled them. Even if their actions are technically allowable, to be a good administrator they should inspire confidence, take actions that serious editors consider fair and rational, etc. In this case better to let people beat a dead horse four more days than to leave anybody questioning whether the horse was alive.Wikidemo 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some poor articles - unsourced and not notable in many cases. No admin actions used so this isn't an admin noticeboard incident. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

13:29, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Emma Carroll‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 
13:28, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) William Seegers‎ (cleanup) (top) 
13:26, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilhelmina Kott‎ (refimprove, notability) (top) 
13:25, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Elsa Tauser‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
13:23, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Ellen Dart‎ (botability, cleanup, refimprove) (top) 
13:23, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Ellen Dart‎ (notability, refimprove) 
13:21, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Alonzo Herndon‎ (refimprove) (top) 
13:17, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ryoung122‎ (Stephen Coles AfD) (top) 
13:15, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 11‎ ({subst:afd3|pg=Stephen Coles}}) 
13:14, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles‎ (nomination) (top) 
13:05, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Stephen Coles‎ (afd) (top) 
13:04, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Raymond Cambefort‎ (PROD) (top) 
13:02, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth Kensley‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
13:01, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florrie Baldwin‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
13:00, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Alberta Davis‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 
12:59, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Birren‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:58, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paul Baltes‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Charles Brunier‎ (notabilit) (top) 
12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Hard‎ (notability, refs; PROD) (top) 
12:53, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Gerontology Research Group‎ (peacock terms, fact tags) (top) 
12:50, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Anne Primout‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 
12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Denzo Ishisaki‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 
12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Flossie Page‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:44, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florence Homan‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 
12:43, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Giulia Sani-Casagli‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Grace Nelsen Jones‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Lucie Péré-Pucheu‎ (notability, refs) (top) 
12:40, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ ({{refimprove}}) (top) 
12:39, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ ({{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}}) 
12:37, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marion Higgins‎ ({{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}}) (top) 
12:33, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Maggie Barnes‎ ({{subst:prod|no evidence of notability per WP:BIO}})
12:31, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Mary Bidwell‎ (Marked as unreferenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RS). Please don't remove the {{unreferenced}} tag until references have been added.) (top) 
12:28, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) E. Beatrice Riley‎ (prod) (top)

Line 1: Line 1: 
  + {{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}} 
  + {{refimprove|date=November 2007}} 
 '''Emma Vironia Lanman Carroll''' ([[May 18]], [[1895]] - [[July 10]], [[2007]]) was, at age 112, the [[U.S. state]] of [[Iowa]]'s oldest person<ref>[http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2007/07/10/ap-state-ia/d8q9rt301.txt ''Muscatine Journal'', "Iowa's oldest person dies", [[July 10]], [[2007]]]</ref>  '''Emma Vironia Lanman Carroll''' ([[May 18]], [[1895]] - [[July 10]], [[2007]]) was, at age 112, the [[U.S. state]] of [[Iowa]]'s oldest person<ref>[http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2007/07/10/ap-state-ia/d8q9rt301.txt ''Muscatine Journal'', "Iowa's oldest person dies", [[July 10]], [[2007]]]</ref> 
 since the [[October 29]], [[2006]] passing of 111-year-old Hazel Blecha, and also the [[Guinness World Records|Guinness]] recordholder for the oldest person to ride in a hot-air balloon at 109 years and 70 days old in 2004. Since her husband Clair lived to be [[centenarian|100]], their combined age of more than 212 years also ranks as the [[List of people with the longest marriages#Highest combined age of married couples|second-highest aggregate age of a married couple]] (total combined age), only behind a [[Netherlands|Dutch]] couple.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}  since the [[October 29]], [[2006]] passing of 111-year-old Hazel Blecha, and also the [[Guinness World Records|Guinness]] recordholder for the oldest person to ride in a hot-air balloon at 109 years and 70 days old in 2004. Since her husband Clair lived to be [[centenarian|100]], their combined age of more than 212 years also ranks as the [[List of people with the longest marriages#Highest combined age of married couples|second-highest aggregate age of a married couple]] (total combined age), only behind a [[Netherlands|Dutch]] couple.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} 
Line 13: Line 15: 
    
 * http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_191233045.html  * http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_191233045.html 
- * http://www.grg.org   
 * http://www.geocities.com/k_gene_carroll/emmacarroll.html  * http://www.geocities.com/k_gene_carroll/emmacarroll.html 
 * http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Magazine/Articles/May-June_2007/SaltShakers_Carroll.htm  * http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Magazine/Articles/May-June_2007/SaltShakers_Carroll.htm 

Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs) created JAMAA which I speedy deleted as a non-notable organization. The user then opened a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_10#JAMAA. The discussion so far has been to support the original deletion as the club was not a notable organization. Rhythmnation2004 has now recreated the article at JAMAA stating that he feels he now has enough evidence to prove it's notable. He created it at his sandbox first, but now has moved that to the main article stating that he was restoring because "due to lack of admin participation. Since my current revision cites credible sources, I'm going to restore this page since there has been no administrative comments in the last several hours."

Is this appropriate to recreate an article because a DRV hasn't been active within a few hours? Shouldn't we let the DRV run its full course before we restore? Thanks, Metros 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A brief review of the last example of the deleted article and the current one does indicate the provision of (unchecked) third party sources, and to my eyes it seems the article does establish notability. However, this is not an answer to the question you raised.

The reason for recreation is inappropriate, the consensus that was developing was that the speedy delete was correct and a lack of response to the availability of sources establishing notability was no reason to ignore the existing consensus. If further content was found that could be added then it should have been noted at the DRV and the consensus allowed to change. There is no requirement or pressing reason for the article to be recreated prior to that happening, and the DRV should have been allowed to be completed. I think Rhythmnation2004's actions to be very

pointy, and suggest that they be admonished for them - lest this establishes a methodology by this editor which may well cause disruption in the future. LessHeard vanU

14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with everything you say. However, I'd like someone else (like you or any other admin) to say this to Rhythmnation2004 because he believes I have a vendetta against him. Basically anything I'd say to him would be blown off or taken as a personal attack. Ceyockey (talk · contribs) has already tried talking to him about this issue but as you can see the comments don't seem to fall under much consideration. Metros 15:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I've userfied the article to
  ELIMINATORJR
  15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read

We can end-run round procedure. Chaos is SOP around these here parts, so long as it make the encyclopedia better - and adding sourced articles is the very essence of creating this encyclopedia. Give people who are trying to add sourced content the benefit of the doubt. Don't handicap them. Don't drive them away. Help them. WAS 4.250

21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to help them in a way that satisfied everyone. Obviously that wasn't successful.

ELIMINATORJR

22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What policy permits an administrator to speedily delete an article based on a "consensus" that an earlier speedy deletion is proper? My understanding is that CSD specifically permits people to recreate articles that had been speedily deleted, and says that a prior speedy deletion is no reason for an A7 deletion. In fact, a prior consensus deletion is not a valid reason for speedy deletion if the article is recreated in different form or in a way that overcomes the prior reason. The user says he can establish notability, and now has an article with sources. That doesn't sound like circumventing policy. On the face of things, it sounds like doing exactly what one is supposed to do. If the deletion is at all controversial it should go through AfD, not speedy deletion, right? 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Wikidemo 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The repost was all but identical, pretty much word-for-word. But if he feels that strongly an AfD won't hurt. That said, I'd advocate delete at AfD based on the article as written in the sandbox - the sources are not primarily about this group, and one of the two calls it a "small organisation". I suspect it's a bit too soon in its life for a properly compliant article. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I count five separate images, which although they are unsourced, is hardly "hundreds". Reports of violations of the
  new user who does not understand the importance of copyrights. Have you tried to talk to him first, before calling the cops? Sam Blacketer
  17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A few messages have been posted on his talkpage about the images, (from humans) but the user hasn't seemed to have listened. The sunder king 17:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images have already been deleted, the rest will be deleted later if no license or source is provided and if the user keeps reverting please inform them about 3RR.

guitarist

20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Bindeez (a toy) is linked from the front page of Wikipedia, since it's the subject of a newsworthy product recall. Of the last 50 or so edits, most have been vandalism or reversions of vandalism, mostly from random anons. Request a day or two of semi-protection until the issue cools off. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Article semi-protected for 24 hours. Shadow1 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for future reference, you can use

talk

) 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since Riana blocked him. I've reblocked for a month. Maxim 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I suggested on Scott's page that he look into one of the many personal wiki programs so that he can set up his own site as he pleases. --Kyoko 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This section has been moved. Please see

• Republicanpower07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LtWinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not much else to say. (Sorry if this is better reported somewhere else.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. east.718 at 00:42, 11/12/2007

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Section_230_Expert

Wikipedia contributors publish using servers and bandwidth provided by WikiMedia which acts as a service provider. This clown from WR is deliberately trolling. WAS 4.250 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Got him. east.718 at 01:57, 11/12/2007

This MyWikiBiz vendetta may never end. -- Satori Son 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this has turned into the latest WR/WP flamefest, so I don't think any more "Discussion" is needed. SirFozzie 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)