Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381

Resolved

Since the CSD tag I posted will probably be turned down, I'm posting about this here to get additional eyeballs. I don't have all the links in my brain at the moment, but this article was:

• Deleted in an AfD [1]
• Endorsed at DRV [2]
• Deleted in userspace
• Overturned at DRV
• Deleted in userspace, again, via MfD [3]
• Endorsed at DRV [4]

And, I'm sure I'm missing a few. The userspace MfD can be found here and the current version of the article can be found

I think that there should be some sort of community sanction for re-creating this in userspace after so many XfDs and DRVs. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to keep the material in user space under a different title? I am somewhat disappointed in the DRV being closed after less than the full period. I do not think it impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. I suggest that especially in the most contentious XfDs and DRs, there is good reason to allow to allow full time for discussion.DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since we already cover the subject in several articles. The original DRV closer advised editors to work on the existing articles rather than this highly contentious fork, and that is what they should do. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what's back? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (all) for notifying me of this ANI, as is (used to be) customary.

The page is significantly different from those shown above. Also left out was the original AfD that resulted in a keep.

The page is userfied in accordance with policy. I have made no attempt to hide its presence (in fact it is listed in the header template for every userspace page I have).

The page had most of the work done offline so that it would not be a "substantially identical" page. Care was taken to follow WikiPolicies in this matter so as to not be disruptive.

The goal is to take this term which has been used by the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and The Washington Post and create a truly neutral article.

I think that among all thus far, DGG has shown the most good faith in this and I agree with him that it is not impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. That's the entire purpose of this and the core of Wikipedia.

I am not being disruptive. If anything, the harassment that I and (to a far greater extent) others have endured because we seek to better Wikipedia through the use of sourced information is disruptive. That I have had to post about this and re-defend it over and over has been disruptive. That I am doing so civilly and in good faith is not disruptive.

Bottom line is that this is a potentially encyclopedic topic and the page is not substantially identical to a deleted page.

• VigilancePrime • • • 05:04 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Related XfD links for reference:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS (Jan. '08)
• User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox#ACS_00 (speedy deleted)
• User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (Feb. '08)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 9#User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed) (Feb. '08)

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks, Jack! That gives reference to the original keep AfD as well as the closed-by-

WP:IAR MfD. Anyway, as has been stated, the article in question (which can no longer be seen but by admins) was not "substantially identical" to the deleted pages. It contained much of the others, but also have a great deal (about half the "current page") new/never-deleted material. • VigilancePrime • • •

05:53 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

So, you missed all of the many suggestions made during those many, many discussions that you take the material off-Wiki and work on it there, rather than trying to do multiple end runs around consensus? Let me make it once again: Take it off Wiki and work on it there. Then bring it back for discussion and see if consensus that the topic is encyclopedic, acceptable and not a fork as so many people have said about it. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. It was off-Wiki. Now it is back on, very much improved.
2. The POV-fork allegation was summarily discounted over and over. It is and was nothing more than an irrational emotive argument, as demonstrated by the many references in the now-deleted text. The so-called consensus never existed, either.
3. You say to bring it back to Wiki... but I did and you haven't seen it because it was inappropriately speedied. I can't bring it back because it's been locked. The suggestions and the actions are diametrically opposed.

The constant references to non-existent "consensus" or the inaccurate portrayal of "POV fork" are nothing more than emotionally-charged pseudo-arguments. The recommendations were to take it off-Wiki (which is not what policy states) and then bring it back when it has been bettered. That has happened. Problem solved! • VigilancePrime • • • 06:35 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I have been asked to comment here, so I'll throw my 2 cents in--my own thoughts about the topic notwithstanding, we all have to abide by policy and guideline. I think that if the article is substantially different and has been worked on outside of wiki, than the new version may be placed in user space, temporarily, for final markup and editing work before it is brought back to article space. Once in article space, it should not be speedily deleted as a G10 until an admin can verify whether or not it is significantly different than the deleted version, Lastly, if it checks out that way, the article should be allowed to go through a normal AfD, with the twin caveats that on the one hand wikipedia is not censored, but on the other, not every incident or situation is ipso facto notable. Should the article be deleted under this last AfD, then the topic should be salted for a significant amount of time (six months to a year) unless consensus can be shown to have changed. -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We can already salt deleted pages on wiki by protecting the title, if that is what you mean. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Title Blacklist extension allows the block or creation, movement and upload of pages which title matches one or more Regular expressions, Its broader protection than salting a static deleted page.--Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I am asking here. Let the page be worked on. It is significantly different from the formerly deleted versions. It's one of many articles I have on the worklist, but the only one that is being thrown around. (Incidentally, the title is already protected, for undisclosed reasons, but that's a bridge to cross when there's an actual encyclopedic article with which to place.) I don't think I'm asking for too much here... just a little WikiPolicy and a little lattitude so that neutrality and the verifiability may be properly served. Thank you. • VigilancePrime • • • 06:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

The page was salted (by another admin) following the DRV close by Mackensen who wrote in concluding the rationale paragraph after noting consensus found the article to be a POV fork (emphasis in original): "... deletion endorsed, editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. No amount of rewriting is goign to get around the fundamental problem that this is a POV-fork of existing articles whose major problem, in the eyes of the advocates of the fork, appears to be that they follow the dominant mainstream view that adults having sex with children is abusive. Sorry, we can't fix that, and
  WP:NPOV rather indicates that we shouldn't even try. Sure, pro-paedophile activists don't like the term paedophilia, don't like the term child sexual abuse, and don't like the fact that close to 100% of reliable sources agree that adults having sex with children is a Bad Thing. Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. Has consensus changed in the last month to allow recreation of this fork? Not likely. Should Wikipedia allow people an indefinite number of kicks at the can? No, thanks all the same. Just as with other serially-recreated content on subjects which repeatedly fail to achieve consensus for inclusion, the best solution if advocates really want an article is to go away for a good long time. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think anyone is arguing that adults having sex with young children is a bad thing. Has it happened in the past? Yes. Is a young adult having sex with an old child a bad thing? On that there is debate. But you seem to be intent on labeling any attempt to discuss this as pro-pedophile activism and barely stop short of name-calling anyone who would seek to work on something like this. You sound as though you are just full of bile toward anyone who would not blindly agree with you. From what I've seen and read, you are just as much a POV-pusher as those you attack. • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

• • Endorse deletion of this POV fork yet again; I'd recommend a block for a user who recreates it again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG and Morven are spot on. VP is being disruptive and needs to heed the consensus of the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is just going too far. VP's being trolling for this article for weeks. Will ^(talk) 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling for weeks? Care to explain what you mean by that, cause I have no idea what I've been doing regarding this article "for weeks". And personal attacks? Were I to accuse you of trolling (such as with that comment), I'd be blocked for sure. Are you blocked for the personal attacks? Of course not. Why is that? • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I endorse the deletion as well and recommend that any recreation should garner some form of disciplinary/preventative action. I am against the contention, though, that bringing up the subject or "not letting it go" necessarily constitutes a disruption. To prevent a disruption one need only ignore it. Don't answer the would-be disruptor, and chances are, you'll have taken away his power to disrupt. Of course, if he starts multiple discussions in multiple places continually, that could then be cause for action, but that hasn't really happened yet. So here's my solution: VP, the answer/consensus appears to be a resounding "No". You can reply again but you've already been given the answer, so there's really no need, and hopefully, no one will bother to answer you again. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)

enough, I've followed (but not commented on) this matter over a period of time. VP knows the community position on this, continued defiance of the community and those bits of wikilawyering we are seeing here should result in swift removal of material and progressive longer blocks. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article on Child sexual abuse, which one would think would cover this subject sufficiently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing Viridae's and John Reaves' deletion as well as John's deletion summary and the subsequent page salting. My views on this topic's cotninued recreation are well enough known. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject" - there is no existing article as it was deleted. Guy and Jack are always going to side with the

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

. If you look at the other pages I have userfied, can you tell me what the difference is between this one and those? They all need work or are unencyclopedic or have other articlespace problems. In point of fact, this one that is so hated because people make incorrect assumptions about it is the most article-worthy, the best sourced, and the most likely to become, one day, a good article. What is it about the other userfieds that is any different that singles ACS out as forbidden thought?

Lastly, if everyone agrees that the CSA article "would cover this subject sufficiently", as Bugs has stated (is that what everyone agrees to?), then it should be safe to assume that the vast maority of this content can be placed into that article (obviously the sourced material, which is almost every word), eh?

I'm all up for a legitimate compromising solution, but would prefer one backed up by policy and precedent. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:37 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

well head over to the CSA page and make your suggestions about what should be incorporated from the RS's that you have - that requires no administrator input or action. Isn't that the simple solution? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I could do that. Or

Drive off anyone we hate from this article hrough personal attacks, harassment, and threats from a limited number of "established" editors to that article. Having been through that already once (and of course some admins fully support and even participate in this sort of behaviours), I'm not exactly highly motivated to contribute. • VigilancePrime • • •

15:45 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Oh-by-the-way, the article where all the information was has been forcibly removed, destroying all that research and information... can someone undelete it for me so I can extract the information (gradually) into the CSA and other relevant articles? • VigilancePrime • • • 15:47 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Hang on a minute, what you appear to be saying here is that you went to the articles on child sexual abuse and/or pederasty and/or pedophilia, attempted to insert content that fitted your POV, failed to achieve consensus, and so you created a new article to better reflect your POV. Is that what happened? It would certainly explain why so many otherwise uninvolved parties identified it as a POV-fork, because that is pretty much the canonical definition of one. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what is it you want from this conversation? nobody is going to give license to create your POV folk - that conversation is done (and yes we know you don't consider it a POV folk), so you can either move past that or well you can just move on past wikipedia. I don't see what more needs to said. The "issue" here has been dealt with - I suggest this is marked as resolved (because the central issue has been resolved - it's deleted, it's staying deleted) and VP gets on with editing and we all see where that goes. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the alleged "this article is covered in" argument in invalid as they clearly are not the same topic. And ANY changes to those articles that are not in line with the SPOV grouping is immediately reverted and the contributor harassed until they leave. No, I have not gone to those articles with this content because it is beyond their scope. The above has instructed to add this content to expand, significantly, their scope. Nice attempt at an argument, Fredrick, but the problem is that you have your conclusion that you want and then go about finding a way to "prove" it. Try it the other way around sometime... • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I don't know, maybe something based in logic. But that not possible, I'd be thrilled to see someone that says, "Personal attacks for editing neutrally? THat shouldn't happen! Look, don't edit in fear... if someone is personally attacking you or name caling and the like, let me know and I'll take care of that." You know, equality on Wikipedia? I know it's a long-shot hope. You see, there's this rock and hard place. Rock: No ACS article. Hard Place: Harassment for editing an article someone else

owns

. All I seek is someone to reassure me that, since "we" don't allow one article, that the legitimate content really can be added elsewhere. You've all said as much, but nobody has promised it. The natural outcome right now is the end of the ACS page (I accept that) and then a sweeping under the rug of any negative actions that happen as a result of following the instructions in this discussion.

And a policy-based reason would be neat, but I'm not holding my breath.

WP:IAR seems to be sufficient. Long as we all admit that, okay. • VigilancePrime • • •

15:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I would like to ask for an XML export of the deleted article (all versions, generated from this url) or a list of contributors from the history page (cut and paste), for GFDL reasons for use of this content off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whay would that be? Interested in adding a list of contributors to another hate site such as Wikisposure? Just curious why you're interested in the contributors (rather than the actual content). • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

He already explained. In accordance with the

GFDL

, a list of contributers must be included with any reproduction of the article.

And for the record, I strongly support the eventual recreation of Adult-child sex on Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but he said the article or a list of contributors of contributors. What would one be able to do with a list of contributors without the article itself? Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but if so that's based on experience, both direct and vicarious. • VigilancePrime • • • 21:15 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

To

assume: perhaps he already has the article and only needs the contributors' list? --SSBohio

22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have a copy of the article, but not of the history page or any past versions. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Please excuse the somewhat paranoid pessimism... having been a victim of a hate site once already, I'm on-guard for possible repeat instances. As for the revision history of the userfied version, it only had me and the Speedy deleters. The original article was in Wikispace and had man, many editors. That was deleted LONG ago. Check the above links from Jack-A-Roe for that page's original location and thus history placement. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:05 (UTC) 6 Mar '08

No problem, and I can relate to the concern. Since you are the main author of the newer and better version then I have no need for the history of the old one. I figured it might have been possible to help you (or anyone else who wanted to work on the content) to be able to satisfy the GFDL without more DRV commotion. I was unaware that you had restarted from scratch. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that this matter was closed hours ago. I have no desire to fight the good fight or truth and neutrality on this issue. I was hoping for some sort of rational, policy-based explanation, reasoning, or comparison, but to find none. I accept that.

If anyone is in need of a dead horse to beat, though, there's more room in this thread...

• VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I've asked this question before, but I've never had an understandable explanation: How is the article a POV fork? If it's been explained previously, just point me to the diff. I've seen plenty of people say it's a POV fork, but what I see is a value-neutral

etic approach to a topic that's as old as humanity itself. Even if the title is POV, the content can be used in other articles, so why delete it? --SSBohio

22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Adult-child sex" is a euphemism (for child sexual abuse), and any article titled "Adult-child sex" is prima facie assumed to be apologistic for child sexual abuse. Exactly as if someone took an article "Nazi genocide" and retitled (or made a fork) entitled "Nazi demographic adjustments". We understand that you don't agree with this but if you still don't understand it then you had better look to yourself. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Hero said. As a contemporary example,

Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide. One is just a fancy name for the other. • VigilancePrime • • •

03:41 (UTC) 6 Mar '08

I don't see the logic of that. Adult-child sex (the term) goes no further than plain description. I can see where some editors were trying to insert POV material about child sexual abuse into the article, but I don't see how it logically follows that the term itself becomes a euphemism for child sexual abuse. The term itself can advance no agenda. It is materially different from the genocide = demographic adjustments example, which may invoke Godwin's law. As for VP's example, ethnic cleansing means something different from (but related to) genocide, just as adult-child sex does with child sexual abuse. The repeated assertion has been made that the term itself is POV. Where is the POV in it? Since this seems not to be much of an AN/I question anymore, I invite replies at my talk page. --SSBohio 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Unknown User:134.88.190.217 vandalized my userpage. How do we go about locating the computer and blocking this address if it is a private computer? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

whois says the IP originates from the Physics Department at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The IP only has 2 edits, but I'd say that last one was fairly disturbing. It might be enough to go with a school block. --Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 year. I've allowed account creation, but I don't believe we need the individual who posted that to be able to hide behind an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tis a shame that was on your user page for 4 hours, DRosenbach. That aggregiousness should have been caught sooner and dealt with by someone other than you. I've watchlisted your userpage, FWIW, in case he/she returns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that comment should be reported to the university, its disgusting, and since a school block isn't going to affect whoever they are too badly, let Massachusetts Uni discipline them--Jac16888 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This sort of vandalism is absolutely horrifying and is one of the few cases where a report to authorities (school authorities) can actually exact and effect punishment. Such a report should proceed without delay. BTW, I worked in University IT (doing lots and lots of networking and sysadmin) for several years and I can attest that whois records are often incorrect. Internal records are likely to be much more correct. A quick host on the IP resolves it as h018f86e4681.res.umassd.edu, which seems to imply residential. There is a *lot* of IP squatting happening in universities. As such, I don't completely think it came from the physics dept. FYI:

   Administrative Contact: 
   Joyce Rosinha 
   System Access & Security Manager 
   University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 
   Computing & Information Technology Services 
   285 Old Westport Road 
   North Dartmouth  MA 02747-2300 
   UNITED STATES 
   (508) 999-8528 
   [email protected]

Bstone (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, I decided to

ignore protection policy and protect the userpage and usertalk page for a month. See the talkpage for context. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent use of IAR. Bstone (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the abuse department a line. John Reaves 06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I'm impressed. I thank everyone for their contribution to the resolution of this situation. As an aside, I didn't even notice it. It way my parents who like to check out my additions to Wikipedia (especially my dental photos) and they noticed it and called. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A thread on this cropped up a while back - I don't know if anyone recalls the spate of star-crossed lovers using Wikipedia as a method of communication? Well, guess what...two of them are back, at User talk:MCD26 and User talk:Shp26 (despite, and I quote, the best attempts of the "Wiki overlords" to stop them). The thing is, however, that User:MCD26 was indefinitely blocked on 25th February, yet appears to be happily editing away...on their user talk page, of course...without even noticing. I have protected the page accordingly, and have blocked User:Shp26 and protected her talk page. Just thought I'd let you know. _GB^T/C 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, the original ANI thread is here. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose lovers using wikipedia to correspond is far better than them using it for messy break-ups ;) --

Doc

^g 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. What's wrong with people using their User Page to chat? I thought the user pages were allowed to be used for whatever We felt like using them for. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, we already deleted some pages that were exclusively used by friends or lovers. Every page in Wikipedia should be aimed at working towards our main goal (to be a free encyclopedia), including user and talk pages. Using a talk page just to chat between stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia will not help us become a free encyclopedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff you can do on your user page that'll get you blocked, so while you have some latitude you can't use them for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 March 2008

"

SOW/REAP. --Coppertwig (talk

) 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that there are many better alternatives to carrying on conversations other than WP talk pages, most of which don't piss away our server load and bandwidth. My guess is that sites & tools like IM/Myspace/Facebook/etc... are blocked by school network admins, but Wikipedia is accessible -- as it should be -- for research projects. So kids use WP to chat and pass the time at school under the guise of using WP for projects. Caknuck (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At least they have not figured out the ways to use Wikipedia as an IM service that are really really hard to stop.

_(1 == 2)^Until

17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Caknuck - that's true to an extent, and some of the activity I've seen has clearly been bored schoolkids, but a fair bit of it is where one party is travelling, and the other isn't. We've got the star-crossed lovers that started this thread, I've seen a mother and daughter where one's on a boat cruising around the coast of Africa, and any number of others. The thing that surprises me is not just that they choose Wikipedia when there are so many sites out there they could use instead, which wouldn't be blocked to non-school users - I mean, what do they do - sit hitting refresh all the time? When Skype is free? Why? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

why don't they just email each other like we used to do bitd

I remember these two. I created a second post about them. Requested a check to see if there were sleepers. Anyways, these two will never learn. We suggested to them and even told them to use email, blogs and even their Wiki. At this point I think blocking and then protecting the talkpage should be automatic. By the way the answer is that they find it easier. Rgoodermote  21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see

WjBscribe really did not need to wheel-war for BC, when all BC needed to do was promise to undo the damage. Inexplicable, as always. El_C 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose I'll be seeing lots of image-related queries now, as seems to be the case whenever I criticize an action by BC et al. El_C 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who has participated at that discussion, I was frankly very surprised that WjB unblocked with no consensus, and no actual unblock request, nor any on-wiki promises to remedy the behavior that led to the block of the bot. Bellwether ^B_C 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like for someone to look into

Resolved

- I think. Most pages (except those with ban notices) deleted and user blocked. - Philippe | Talk 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A user, or set of users, are using a broad array of user pages and talk pages as some sort of a hosting service for a fictional universe. It's possible this is some sort of class project, but I doubt it. The fictional universe is based around "Jane Hoop Elementary" which is a real school in Cincinnati [5]. However, the only mention I can really find of "Ceauntay" via google refers to a 14 year old boy from that community youtube channel for this person. Thus, I think it's one person.

Here's a list of user and user talk pages being used by this person for this fictional universe:

• User:Ceauntay
• User:Ceauntay1
• User:Ceauntay2
• User:Ceauntay3
• User:Ceauntay4
• User:Ceauntay5
• User:Ceauntay6 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
• User:Ceauntay7
• User:Ceauntay8
• User:Ceauntay10 - Just says "see User talk:Ceauntay16."
• User:Ceauntay13 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay14 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay15 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay17
• User:Ceauntay18
• User:Ceauntay19
• User:Ceauntay20
• User:Ceauntay21
• User:Ceauntay22
• User:Ceauntay23
• User:Ceauntay24
• User:Ceauntayc noted the user is banned indefinitely as a sock of Ceauntay13
• User talk:Ceauntay
• User_talk:Ceauntay1
• User talk:Ceauntay2
• User talk:Ceauntay3
• User talk:Ceauntay4
• User talk:Ceauntay5 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
• User talk:Ceauntay6
• User talk:Ceauntay7 - This one was put up for MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ceauntay7)
• User talk:Ceauntay8
• User_talk:Ceauntay10 - was moved by User:Ceauntay16 from User_talk:Ceauntay16 to User_talk:Ceauntay10 and then back again, where it appears to be used as a regular talk page.
• User talk:Ceauntay13 - was being used similarly, but is now a redirect to User:Ceauntay13 which notes the user has been blocked indefinitely as of 1 October 2007. [6]
• User talk:Ceauntay14 - is being used as a regular talk page now, but was used to host something [7]. This user was banned 18 February 2008 [8] and the talk page notes this.
• User talk:Ceauntay15 - similar to 14 [9] and also blocked 18 February 2008 [10]
• User talk:Ceauntay16 - see talk 10
• User talk:Ceauntay17 - not used for hosting, but the only editor of the page (Ceauntay) and his IP) appear confused.
• User talk:Ceauntay18
• User talk:Ceauntay19
• User talk:Ceauntay20
• User talk:Ceauntay21
• User talk:Ceauntay22
• User talk:Ceauntay23
• User talk:Ceauntay24
• User talk:Ceauntayc - used as a talk page.

Actual accounts and status:

• Ceauntay - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay1 - created 24 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay2 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay3 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay4 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay5 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay6 - unknown creation (does exist), not blocked.
• Ceauntay7 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay8 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay13 - created 28 September 2007, blocked 1 October 2007
• Ceauntay14 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
• Ceauntay15 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
• Ceauntay16 - created 18 February 2008, , not blocked.
• Ceauntay17 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay18 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay19 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay20 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay21 - created 2 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay22 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay23 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay24 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntayc - created 13 October 2007, blocked 13 October 2007

Also note that User:71.72.229.143, User:72.49.190.124 and User:208.102.100.209 all appear to be one and the same person. And, the following redirects to userspace created by this user need to be deleted:

• Jane Hoop Elementary (film series)
• Sonic X and the Curse of Raven Radix
• Sonic X (film)

I think all the user pages should be deleted, and all talk pages not actually being used as talk pages need to be deleted. Also, the unblocked socks all need to be blocked indefinitely. Perhaps the IPs as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you warned him on his talk page just an hour ago. But he should have realised from the blocks on the other accounts. DGG (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The warning's moot, as you note. That's why I came here after realizing how deep it went. He's been blocked multiple times before for doing what he's doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is an archived AN thread about this subject as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That thread vaguely concluded that this was the efforts of a group of students. It isn't. It's the effort of one kid named Ceauntay. I located a diff where he self identified himself, but I won't reveal it here due to him being a minor. This kid is now evading 4 indefinite blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

blimey - the quickest way to delete with this is for an admin to go in and delete all of the content - hopefully that will make think it's too much effort to recreate. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's equally troubling that over the last week he's thrice created redirects in article space to his userspace pages via page moves. He's still, in effect, creating hoax articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and block every single one of the accounts - that is a real walled garden - the removal of that material will also save a lot of effort for the rest of us having to go through and remove article cats on a separate basis. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I upgrade my "blimey" to "oh my fucking god!" he has created those articles by cutting and pasting massive accounts from existing articles (from the look of it, harry potter articles) there could be all sorts of GFDL (and BLP issues if he ascribes comments to individuals that don't exist) can I just say we need a nuke strike and we need it now, leave nothing alive. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting some of these pages! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of them, and it looks like JzG's got the blocking mostly done. - Philippe | Talk 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Go Cabal! :o) Guy (Help!
  ) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone might want to block User:71.72.229.143 as well, as the latest IP used by this kid. With account creation blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing that. How do you know? Guy (Help!) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. (Guy, glance at the deleted contribs). - Philippe | Talk 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but will point out that I deleted a bunch of these things, created by an IP in article talk space on November 22 last year - there may be more out there, and I would be on the lookout for more talk space crap. Acroterion _(talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 IP blocked - per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceauntay - Alison ^❤ 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if action needs to be taken, but it appears there is a user with sockpuppets creating BLP problems on Neve Gordon, while also making personal attacks. An admin may want to take a look. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The style, content and MO of these editors is strongly reminiscent of Zuminous's sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets, of Truthprofessor and of Runtshit. Can anything be done to finally block this serial libellous vandal? RolandR (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user about

WP:BLP are subject to blocking/sanctions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparent from my suggestion, I would definitely like to see an administrator check into this a little deeper and take the requisite action. Unfortunately, without opening a

WP:3RR, the user really can't be blocked unless the disruption continues unabated after repeated warnings/violations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this page unprotected?

Resolved

The vandals were at it again. Let's leave it for a while, please? Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected for 12 hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And probably best to leave it protected for the full 12 hours, it seems like the vandalism just will not stop. Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this protection. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed back to infinite; once the semi expires, so does the move protection. We just need to check manually every so often. — Edokter • Talk • 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

It looks like someone posted on an external web site (per an anonymous tipster [11]) asking for J Milburns talk page to be vandalized with a rather rude message. The vandalism has been un-relentless for the last couple of hours forcing me to protect the page for an hour. Once the protection was up, they where right back at it. Should I protect it again seeing as it is a talk page and all. Tiptoety ^talk 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism is coming from multiple IP addresses, semi-protection for a day or two is probably the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears to have been re-protected by User:Acalamari for a little while. Should solve the problem. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I know who was attacking User:Gavin.collins and User:Jack Merridew during the Grawp case. I can say from experience that any and all admins should watchlist the page and block any IPs there on sight for such a blatant attempt at intimidation/harassment. These guys are complete nightmares to deal with. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 05:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that.... Tiptoety ^talk 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone--who hasn't already pissed off this editor at 68.236.154.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--check out the IP's contributions and advise (and/or block) the user appropriately if this edit can and should be treated as a legal threat? I've got to sign off... Thanks, — Scientizzle 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above, his subsequent edit is even more clear. Block away. R. Baley (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user on

WP:AIV, but it was declined because there has been no recent vandalism from that account. I even mentioned the legal threat, but to no avail... --clpo13_(talk

) 03:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would block, but the user has not edited sense the warning was given to him about legal threats. I think I am going to

assume good faith here, maybe he has learned his lesson? Tiptoety ^talk

04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems like there was a span of roughly two and a half hours between the IP's last edit and my talk page warning regarding legal threats. They probably got bored after attacking Scientizzle. Hopefully they won't be back. --clpo13_(talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been dealing with a user,

It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This user, in my opinion, is now violating

WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk

) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from

WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you "couldn't care less about the argument". The background and history of the affair is interesting, because it shows up both Rkitko's stalking and his hypocrisy. I agree with jossi that it is "amusing". This whole matter is a storm in a teacup, but it's a storm which Rkitko insists on blowing up. He's determined to have his way and not interested in reaching any compromise "I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template." and rejects the 3O advice of jossi. Rotational (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that the

Manual of Style exists for a reason, Rotational. If your edits aren't conforming to it, they're likely to be changed. As the Wikipedia edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." --clpo13_(talk

) 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Clpo13. It is the Manual of Style, though, and not the Manual Of Rules Never To Be Broken If You Value Your Life. It is a collection of guidelines, hints, rules, procedures, suggestions and advice, covering the entire spectrum. If there were no problems with its interpretation, then any forum for discussion, such as this one, would become superfluous. Thank heaven Wikipedia still leaves some things to human judgement! Rotational (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I doubt anyone wants to hear this, and it will certainly be ignored by many editors who insist on strictly following the MoS without question, but Rotational's layout looks better than the standard layout. This is because in a stub article or near-stub article without sections in the body of the article, the sections at the bottom ("source", "notes", "references", "external links" and so on) look very big and therefore out of place. For that reason, the smaller headings used by Rotational are a better, more visually balanced choice.

Of course, I've been known to champion non-standard layouts for other, similar reasons of visual impact, balance and ease of use, which I reckon will now be brought up to devalue my comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking specifically at List of florilegia and botanical codices which Rotational has rotated back to his style at the momemt, I have to agree that in this specific article his style is visually much more appealing, or I should say much less distracting. The header underlines count for nothing, and the resulting large amounts of whitespace simply don't help. That said, I have often cleaned up article headings that had been inserted at the wrong level, since in general they look bad.

Unless ALL of Rotational's articles are lists of plants with images down the right side I can see no reason for always violoating WP:MOS. It exists for a reason, and I can understand an editor happening by and zapping thigns to match. But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. On the numerous other points brought up above in the original discussion I make no comment.Loren.wilton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a single editor's view of what makes for better visual and textual flow shouldn't overrule a style guide put together by many collaborating editors. In certain cases the Manual of Style is fit to be ignored. It says so itself. However, that usually requires a good reason. In the case of the articles in question, I can understand a different style. But as Loren.wilton said, that doesn't condone ignoring it all the time just because one's opinion of what constitutes proper style happens to differ from what the manual says. --clpo13_(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the MoS is in most instances a valuable guide, and that it creates the framework for a unified look for Wikipedia, which is a valuable thing, but there's a tendency amoung many editors to consider it Holy Writ, and to expect that merely citing the MoS is sufficient to counter anyone who's actually taken the time to consider issues of visual impact and balance, ease of use, reader functionality, textual flow and so on. Dogmatic adherence to what is repeatedly stated is a set of guidelines and not absolutely rules is taken as a substitute for discussion of the merits of the specific instance, and that's a shame. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, a guideline should not be ignored solely on the basis that it is a guideline. I can't speak for others, but I follow the MoS because I don't find anything wrong with it, not because it's there. --clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that ignoring the MoS just for the sake of ignoring it is wrong. Someone who uses non-standard formatting should be able, and willing, to justify their actions in discussion. Unfortunately, a lot of editors -- thankfully not all -- consider waving the MoS to be the end of the matter and are unwilling to engage in conversation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) And Rotational continues, diff and in one of his new articles, diff. I agree with the users above on opportunities to ignore the MoS, but Rotational has not presented any sufficient reason to not use the headings beyond his dislike for them. Could an uninvolved admin evaluate this for ownership issues and take appropriate action (whatever you deem that to be)? --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no ownership issues here except in the fevered minds of those who want to hang a simple stylistic matter on a peg labelled "GROSS VIOLATION" of MoS. Rkitko has often objected to my rendition of an author abbreviation on the grounds that it did not automatically add the botanist's name to the List of botanists with author abbreviations. When I took care of that objection by manually adding the name to the category, it was promptly reverted. I maintain that if the information content of two styles is the same, then Wikipedia should be flexible enough to countenance both. I like my version more, because it doesn't surround itself with an unjustifiable box and stand out from the rest of the text like a sore thumb. As for the heading issues, I have never understood the alarm and hysteria at trying to avoid meaningless lines cutting across the article and making it appear like a schoolboy's first essay. If one could separate the headings from the lines I would embrace the headings, sobbing with gratitude. To summarise - surely it should be possible for a FEW reasonable versions of style to peacefully co-exist. That way WP would be more like an evolving organism investing in speciation, instead of placing all bets on one potential dinosaur. Rotational (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotational, other editors and I have told you that there are places to discuss changes to the MoS or to the botanist template. Take your issues with those features there and try to gain consensus instead of making potentially

WT:MOS or Template talk:Botanist, instead continuing to revert to your style to make your point that you dislike what the MoS calls for. And so it continues today: diff. --Rkitko ^(talk

) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who makes "harmonious editing difficult or impossible" and demonstrates "a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." As proof, he repeatedly attacks anyone who has expertise or an interest in eastern spiritual traditions as being members of cults and labels even simple meditation groups cults, in order to promote his very strong "CultFreeWorld" POV (consistent with his username).

He has been warned multiple times, yet still continues to escalate his attacks and lies, most recently accusing me of being "paid" by a "cult" to work on Wiki when I'm not even a member of this group. Here are his warnings:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195631919&oldid=195624393
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195647299&oldid=195644852
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195786209&oldid=195783290
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195835390&oldid=195834925
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACult_free_world&diff=195648124&oldid=195646785

Here are some examples of personal attacks and offensive labeling of groups.

1. Here he calls an admin with expertise in eastern spiritual traditions a "cult-promoter" and intentionally mis-states facts and tells lies in order to mislead other editors (i.e., asserting that people want to hide information, saying that admin Jossi deleted the original article when can't sleep clowns will get me did, etc.)
2. Here he adds anti-cult blogs, promoting his POV and in violation with WP:RS and WP:V.
3. Here he labels a meditation group a cult; this is on par with going onto an Islam page and calling all muslims terrorists.
4. Here he adds an anti-cult blog source to a legitimate article; again, in violation of WP:RS and WP:V.
5. Here he attacks the administrator again, calling him a cult member and making false accusations.
6. Here others note his tendency to troll and call names.
7. Here he calls me a "cult-promoter" and makes false accusations, when I've never even interacted with him before (unless, of course, he is a sock of previous editors involved in edit wars on the deleted pages, which I strongly suspect; please see User:Rushmi and User:Shashwat_pandey).
8. Here he bolds "cult member" after being warned three times for WP:NPA, showing his intention to continue to attack.
9. Here he gives a blanket statement calling all people who disagree with him "cult members."
10. Here he moves a heading in an attempt to subvert the process and further promote his views on cults. (I had created a header for sources where an admin had stated the guidelines for what would be good sources, and CultFree assumed poor faith and moved it as a further show of disruptive editing.)
11. Here he starts lying outright, accusing me of being a member of "this cult" (which I am not) and expanding his untrue accusations, saying I am a "paid" to edit this page.
12. Here he attacks me as being mentally disturbed.

These diffs show a clear and persistent pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks in line with his username, in order to promote his POV.

I have tried following procedures regarding his username, which others have found offensive too (e.g., see this), and again he fails to make any meaningful attempt for discussion, see this. When I attempt to work on the article he is creating, he says, stop and wait (see this), then he recruited someone to help him write the article consistent with his POV (see this). There is not attempt at civility or cooperation in developing articles.

I request CultFreeWorld be banned from editing articles of an eastern spiritual nature, given his stated purpose and pattern of posts that promote a strong negative POV toward these groups. Wiki is not the place for agendas (and certainly not in their usernames!) and those who derogatorily label whole groups or classes of people do not belong here. He has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease engaging in personal attacks (and even escalated his attacks in the face of warnings by making false statements). In addition, he has now recruited a person to write a POV article while not allowing opposing viewpoints voice. None of this belongs on Wiki. Renee (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has warned them, and the two of you seem to be battering each other a bit. That said, I agree that they're over the line, and left a level 3 NPA warning on their talk page.

It would be best if you disengage from discussions with them except in article talk space, to avoid aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The personal attacks to me were concerning enough to merit a one week block. If anyone has issues with this, feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remain civil and on content. Regarding Georgewilliamherbert's statement above,here is one other admin warning him too and here and here the same user has to remove persistent trolling. Renee (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did this even merit a discussion. User's name implies an SPA. User makes personal attacks in support of his POV. User has few to no constructive edits otherwise. A week seems too short to me.

True dat. Definitely a reasonable block. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we issue a indef until his username is changed? personally I feel that pushing propaganda can be considered either disruptive or promotional, both of wich are listed in

WP:IU. - Caribbean~H.Q.

22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block for this username as the user seems to promote prejudice against a particular group (Asians) and edits are consistently biased. When requested to change username here the user ignored the request. - mayawi 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~

• sigh* Yeah, he came on Brahma Kumaris when he first started but negotiations there got a little edgy with him there. I don't think he's prejudiced against any particular group, I think he just has particular world views which preclude working easily with those opposite (or even those on the same side, for that matter). That being said, on reviewing the situation, a few of the others complaining here about agendas have some of their own, so it's probably best that these things be neutrally reviewed. I don't support the block as that has not yet taken place, but at the same time I have no mind to undo it. Orderinchaos 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am uncertain as to the veracity or

*Moan*. (just read the article) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my reaction as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You should check out the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Good times all round! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

*double moan*. Even worse. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Jimbo was a bit slow with his expenses? That'll bring the Government down, no question. What a shame there's nothing important going on in the world. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People should be aware that this story (and variations) is being picked up by the Associated Press and other highly reputable newswires and media sources. Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Still gets a big "so what" from me. We've had massively worse problems with expenses than that at work, and Brad's been interviewed and said Jimbo was all square with the Foundation financially. Silly gossip. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Everything's fine, nothing to see here. Drink your Kool-Aid." Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope that was some good steak. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to learn what the policy or guideline is whereby an editor can discount a story published worldwide by major newspapers because in his view it is is "silly gossip." Edison (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Or the policy that says AN/I is for discussing said silly gossip or the policy that tells people to give their opinions on said silly gossip even though no one gives a flying fuck what they think. John Reaves 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to be The Opinion Police. Anyone is welcome to hold an opinion on said issue. But considerations such as reliable sourcing and NPOV should guide decisions on article content rather opinions such as "big so what" or "silly gossip." And for the good of the Wikipedia project, there should not be the appearance of whitewashing or coverup. The "We've had worse expense account issues at work" argument runs counter to the fact that major newspapers have viewed it as worth talking about. At my company, people got fired for padding expense accounts with things far less extreme than $1300 steak dinners for four or $300 bottles of wine. And my company was not constantly asking for contributions. Edison (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresh after having their article nuked at an AFD and upheld at DRV -- what, two weeks ago? -- the supporters of self-published crank author G. Edward Griffin are taking another run at getting their man into Wikipedia. The latest batch of argumentative SPAs and usual suspects may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (3rd nomination). --Calton | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - if it was deleted and the that was upheld at DRV? why is there an article to go to AFD? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete it under {{

Κaiba

17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's asserted that it's not the same article, and that the issues have been addressed, so it looks like this wouldn't be an appropriate use of CSD G4. —Random832 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not the same article, and, even though I made the last nomination, there seems to be enough sources added that show he's a notable self-published crank author. The best we can do is to ensure that the fact that he is a crank appears properly in the article, and, for that, we need sources. I'm sure the truth is out there.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Betacommands rollback, specifically for this edit. Now I'm no fan of

I reverted the blanking of a section that multiple other users agreed shouldnt be removed. so why am I getting punished? if your going to treat me that way MickMacNee should be serving at least a week block for edit warring, and disruption.

β^_command

02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

if you look at my contribs I pop up a lot and edit random pages.

β^_command

02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can still do that with ordinary editing. Rollback is no big deal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the situation between the two editors, and that this was clearly a content dispute, I support the decision. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that rollback is no big deal and you can basically perform the same tasks with twinkle or what ever suits you fancy. I have to agree with Ryan here, you engaged in a clear content dispute (in which you could have been blocked) using a tool that as given to you based on trust, you have now broken that trust and had the tool removed. I think that the way you are handling it above shows the reason why it was removed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BC was warned to stop making

☎

12:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would people here be able to have a quick look at User:MBisanz/Botlist and say whether they think some bot names can be misleading if they seem official when they are not? I am, in case people aren't aware of this, thinking of User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (I recently proposed a rename of that bot). The name for that bot was taken from my (still mostly unwritten) proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, but it has since become apparent that that bot is not intended to be anything other than a clone of BetacommandBot. I am concerned though that some bots that have descriptive names referring to policies or areas in Wikipedia, can end up sounding more official than they are. Some are dedicated-task bots, such as User:RefDeskBot, User:ArbComBot, etc. My question is whether this sort of descriptive "role naming" of bot accounts should be encouraged, and specifically whether User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot should have the air of being "official" that such a name confers? And should this be considered for bots in general? Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Still more than happy to discuss the matter with you. SQL^{Query me!} 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Replied over there. The idea of keeping the name is growing on me, but I do hope that code written to enforce the other part of the NFCC can be used (subject to BAG approval) on that account. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure I see a problem with the examples given, as long as the bot is only performing the suggested action and has been properly approved.

✽

03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a bot will not be perfect. It will probably sometimes do things even when it's inappropriate to do so, in situations where a human would notice that it's inappropriate (or even in situations where a human might not notice either). The name implies that it's enforcing policy and might give people the idea that the action was appropriate and that that's what the policy is, even in cases where it is not. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be enforcing policy, even if not perfectly. I'm not sure I see what your point is. — Coren ^(talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it for approved and trial bots without flags as well as indicating if a bot is inactive. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Krimpet. Sure. The problem with a name such as User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is that there are several ways to enforce NFCC with the aid of a bot. BetacommandBot does it one particular way by looking for the article name on the image page. Other bots could check for other things (eg. image size, namespace, copyright tag, and so forth). Some of this is already done by other bots, I think. Such bots would be/are also doing NFCC compliance work, so the title of the original bot would be misleading, and that is why I am proposing a name change or that all such NFCC bot-enforcement functions (existing now and in the future) are gathered together under one bot and one account. Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that ArbComBot's last edit was on 26 July 2007. Is it redundant now? Orderinchaos 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the block of Miamiboyzinhere (talk · contribs) from a prior 2-week block to indefinite. He continues to edit under various IP addresses and sock puppets. His most recent sock, Finefox771 (talk · contribs) spent most of his edits blindly undoing the work of Vegaswikian, an admin who has been involved in cleaning up after Miamiboyzinhere. Given the refusal of this user to abide by the block, and given the decent from edit-warring (the original block reason) to outright harassment of another editor, and also given the prior support for a community ban (earlier at ANI... lost the thread), I thought it prudent to do this. I am posting this decision here in the interest of full disclosure. Let me know what you all think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Full evidence of sockpuppetry can be found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. He was getting annoying. Will ^(talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussions from

WP:ANI

are here:

• Rangeblock needed. User 74.225.XXX.XXX edits tendetiously and using multiple IPs to get around blocks
• 74.225.169.82
• Proposed community ban of User:Miamiboyzinhere

—Whoville (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Returns to more soapboxing: see [13]. Clear by references this is the same user.--Gregalton (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems fairly obvious. I tagged the user's talk page as a suspected sockpuppet to alert other users. I'll allow an administrator to take it from here though. Keep monitoring the activity. Could always open a

sock case - but this might be quicker. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 08:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KarmasBlackSwan, filed earlier today - Alison ^❤

08:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are all bots not supposed to have 'bot' at the end of their name? Should this be "computerbot"? Brusegadi (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, most bots include the term "bot" in their name. I've always thought it wasn't a hard and fast rule that they must, but you made me go look at Wikipedia:Bot policy which clearly says:

The account's name should both identify the operator, and make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot".

This should go to

WP:BON for specialized discussion. MBisanz ^talk

08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's evident it's a bot - "computer", after all... 09:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Looking through this list and this there are a number of bots currently operating without "bot" in the name:

User:VixDaemon, along with about a dozen or so others that I didn't list because they are inactive or discontinued. User:Brother Abbott is a borderline case, since it has "bot" in it, but it's not at all clear that it's a bot account. User:RoboMaxCyberSem has the opposite problem, its seems to clearly announce it's a bot account, but does so without having "bot" in the name. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont}

) 09:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A better list of flagged bots is [this one] MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From that list I can add

User:Pending deletion script, User:PoccilScript, User:Portal namespace initialisation script, User:PsychAWB, User:R. Hillgentleman, User:Thadius856AWB, User:Tuonela and User:Wikipedia Signpost, with User:Botx being perhaps a problematic case. (BTW, I'm surprised that no one's used "Cambot" - not enough MST3K fans?). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont}

) 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but

User:Pending deletion script and User:Portal namespace initialisation script are classed as Dev Bots and therefore exempted from the Bot Policy. MBisanz ^talk

15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that, although I suspected from the names that they were distinct in some way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits the other users page in a manner to suggest they have changed user names without going through normal channels (Quentin X (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Well no name changes took place. But it does look like a case of sockpuppetry or they are good friends.Rgoodermote  16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I would like to inform that following article has an image which has depiction of Muhammad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

Image is as following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

I can remove the image but I would like admins to take notice of it. There was/is already some controversies due to Muhammad's cartoons. I would request to please refrain from disrespecting religions and earning bans by Islamic countries (as recent incident of YouTube.com). People in US and Europe have many liberties and don't suffer from such bans. But people in not so lucky area, like in South-East Asia, will suffer a lot if government put any ban on Wikipedia due to some cartoon issue.

Thank you for taking some moments to think on this issue. I am looking forward to take some action and prevent cartoon/depiction of Muhammad to prevent blackout of Wikipedia by governments.

Thanks, Ketchup Wampyr (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see

WP:NOTCENSORED. Community consensus is to allow these images, as not doing so would cause POV issues and a possible slippery slope. Will ^(talk

) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there is a version of that image (Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg) where Muhammad's face is blanked out. But as Will said, Wikipedia isn't censored. The image should stay as is. --clpo13_(talk) 09:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This user first vandalized my talk-page six times then after an admin. semi-protected my talk-page for 24 hours he/she moved onto my user-page. I warned him/her several times but it didn't seem to help. Here are the edits I am refering to starting with the most recent one: 1.[14] 2.[15] 3.[16] 4.[17] 5.[18] 6.[19] 7.[20] 8.[21]--Harout72 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)