Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive462

A long time image on the semen article has suddenly dissapeared, and now gives a red link. I've been unable to find it listed in any of the deletion requests queues, and there was nothing posted on the semen article regarding it being up for deletion, or anything like that. I also did a look on the commons site, in case it had been there, but could not locate anything about it there, either. It seems to have just vanished.

I found where it had been discussed for deletion in November of 2006, and then kept, but nothing recent. [[1]]

If someone knowledgable about these things can find out what happened to it, and possibly return the image, that would be great. I'd hate to think that it was removed outside of the normal process. Atom (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons.Geni 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found it there too. What is the deal with that? HOw can they delete an image that has had a delete request in the past with a Keep, and is currently used in one of our articles? With no notice? Atom (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons can delete pretty much whatever it likes (generaly due to copyright issues). In this case there was a better image and well someone may have been applying a version of Commons:Commons:Nudity#New_uploads but the deletion does seem somewhat odd.Geni 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in for a deltion review on commons. It is odd as the image has been in the semen article for two years, and survived a deletion request in November of 2006. Also, although a few opinions were that some other image was better, the content of the en.wikipedia article isn't their area, commons:nudity does not seem to apply. What I object to most, I guess is that there was no notification of the deltion request on the semen article. If there had been a number of people would have responded, and ironed out any confusion about it being a new or old image. Anyway, thanks for looking into this. I will try to iron it out over at commons. Atom (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to provide a replacement photo. In fact, I'll be glad to do so. I just need to go get some eggwhite, like they do in prestigious exotic websites, since nobody can tell the difference from a couple of feet away. That's what I've heard tell, anyway. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, I think we've shot our wad on this one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In related stories, see: #User:Emilfaro_abusing_many_policies and #User:Signsolid:ownership.2C_personal_attacks.2C_.26_failure_to_assume_good_faith. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we've milked about all the humor we can from these three articles. They could probably stand to be archived. Ironically, every time we add a remark, that delays their archival. Oops, I did it again. Where's Ncmvocalist when we need him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is likely another sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Randy Jaiyan, though the results of the checkuser case haven't come through. His hallmark is moving pages of General Hospital characters to different pages with the surnames he arbitrarily chooses. I've reverted his latest moves, but he's made a series of bizarre edits/moves in regards to his user account that I'm not quite able to unravel. He's managed to move his user/user talk page to User:Jackson7days and edited his original pages so that they cannot be moved back. Could an admin possibly fix this situation and block this user? AniMate 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, don't know name responsible or IP Address but vandalism on Page: "Checkin' it out". Single line of text suggests artist "lil chris" is a 'convicted rapist' and 'dirty chav'. Just sweeping through and thought you would be interested, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donahew (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan ǀ 39

23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's even an article on that, to tell you the truth. Enigma ^message 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• ...unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Though looking at the contribs briefly, that's not the case. RBI. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've advised this IP editor of this discussion and invited him to take part here. Agree with Sceptre that it should only be mentioned if relevant to notability, but if he continues on this course without discussion, there's only one place it's going. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Dayewalker (talk · contribs) for helping out with this situation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid his edit twice at Ralph Lauren. He keeps doing it. Recommend a block. Enigma ^message 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, definitely time for a block now. Just did it again. Enigma ^message 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Anyone that refuses to interact with other editors regarding their content additions should be blocked. A fortiori, where an editor's good faith is dubious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After his final warning here, he made 25 more edits violating the same precept he was warned against. Enigma ^message 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 55 hours. Absolutely unacceptable. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it says in
  comms
  ) ♠♥♦♣ 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnic roots should be included in the article, but - per
  wp:mosbio - not in the lede. If he was born in Ireland, its another thing, the "Irish" refers to his nationality, not his ethnicity. Indeed, the custom is to include nationality in the lede. But ethnicity should be mentioned in the bio/family section of the article. I will now proceed to fix Phil Donahue as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)
  02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord, let's not get sidetracked into "is Judaism an ethnicity, religion, culture, or race" thing, please. That's not an appropriate discussion. If a person's ethnicity is part of the person's function in culture, then it's fair. So, Donohue's Irish-Americanism is actually something he has relied upon in interviews. Jon Stewart refers to his Judaism as part of his comedy. On the other hand, Paul Volcker's Jewishness or lack of it is so brazenly unrelated to his work as an economist or advisor that it's simply not worth discussing it in the same terms. Common sense ought to be part of our editing at least a wee bit, and whether this IP is trying to build a Hall of Jewish Champions or trying to show a Jewish Conspiracy is irrelevant. We ask for relevance before we go into a person's background. Geogre (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a slipper slope. Consider

Sammy Davis, Jr., who was black and Jewish. Where does that ethnicity fit in? Especially since he wasn't born black, but he converted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

- Papa November (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, banned, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned? No, more like blocked once for 3RR.

It's funny that you bring this up. Because it appears that Aheadnovel55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been throwing about unjust accusations and comments regarding COAHCFD, such as,

• "you sympathize with the naizs and their goals then we have no nothing more to talk about"
• "So am I to assume that you are deleting these gigantic massive chunks of information that specifically talks about nazi crimes, because you sympathize with them?"
• "So you are a neo nazi you admit it? I will not stop restoring the facts which are sourced about crimes committed by the nazis, it is very simple you try to cover up the nazi crimes and I will restore them"

The responses were met with sarcasm, which apparently went over Aheadnovel55's head. seicer | talk | contribs 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I should have said blocked, not banned. Sorry. Regardless of whether or not sarcasm goes over a user's head, it has no place here in Wikipedia, this is clear in the wiki guidelines. There are many many other examples of Captain's rudeness available and I have provided them above. IS your implication that I am "throwing about unjust accusations and comments"? --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your comments are inappropriate here. Remember, this is not wikipedia complaint department. COAHCFD does not create disruption right now. Hence no administrative intervention required (if you wish you can file an RfC). Your complaint looks very strange. You edit in WP only around a month. You made less than 200 edits. Now you complain about COAHCFD with whom you do not have an editorial conflict. You also conduct an extensive forum shopping to bring other people here. I should remind that Aheadnovel55 (see above) was an obvious SPA with only one purpose: to wikistalk and revert all edits by COAHCFD. Hence his sarcastic reaction.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No my comments are not inappropriate. If a user is engaging in inappropriate conduct is it not up to every wikipedian to report that conduct, regardless of whether or not I am in a current editorial conflict. What I have seen is a pattern of rudeness that ought to be curtailed. My complaint was lodged because of COAHCFD's most recent comments. But wiki guidelines allow for reporting of inappropriate conduct, even if it is conducted over a span of time. You would do well to review the various guidelines yourself. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition I provided several examples. The above user was nowhere near the only example. So please take the time to review the other examples before discounting the complaint. As to the accusation of forum shopping, I only notified other users that there was a discussion ongoing. I did not ask anyone to support any position in any way, only to contribute if they saw fit. Do not try to paint this as any kind of marshaling of forces against a user. When a user is displaying a pattern of incivlility, you have to have input from people who have been invoived in conflict from that user from the entire span of activity. That requires notifying those users of a discussion. If any of you take the time to look at the notifications, you will see no bias, either explicit or implicit. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

COAHCFD writes very good content and I don't have any problems with him. He's a bit sarcastic sometimes, but reasonable. Half the links you provide of him supposedly being uncivil just aren't an example of that. I find it weird how you've gone through all of his many edits to find mistakes or supposed inappropriate comments of him and post them here to pretend he's always like that. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh fer crying out loud, I made a point of saying, "I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful" above. Doesn't anyone read? Fine. I give up. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see what is written at the top of this page: "To report impolite, uncivil, or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.".Biophys (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there, but I was talking about how you call him "generally rude or insulting". - Pieter_v (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this guy has made a lot of unpleasant comments towards other users, but it would be inappropriate for an individual admin to take action here so I'll mark this as unresolved. A better course of action is for you to go to

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (mild-medium disputes) or Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct (if you can show that at least two edits have tried and failed to resolve the same incivility issues with him) Papa November (talk

) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind if I ask for some comments on my Block. I was monitoring the situation at

comment was added at 19:52, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, if you wanted a 3rd opinion on your block you really ought to have used another unblock template rather than evading it. –

talk

) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know I could do that. I thought it would look like I was trying to game the system and just annoy people. I don't plan to be in this situation again since I have always thought of myself as a good editor but now I know. -- Phoenix (talk)

I saw 3 reverts from you in the past couple of days so I blocked your for edit warring, not 3RR. Also, your block was for 48 hours as you've been blocked (I think by me) for 3RR/edit warring in the past. How did this comment make it to ANI? :-S

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the previous block I believed that I was reverting vandalism [and my edits were] exempt from that because it was considered unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material and was Simple and obvious vandalism but I did understood that why I was blocked. Here I was not actually edit warring and actually trying really hard not to get involved and only get the new user to try the

3RR went unnoticed for about 3 days and it took my personal calls for an admin to step in for the page to be protected. So when I noticed that 2 editors were continuing where the ip's left off I found it suspicious esp when one had identical comments. So I reverted and asked them to talk. I was not trying to dispute content nor was I really interested in the fight. I must admit, being a Brit, I did find it funny that I was reverting stuff that made Britain look better. -- Phoenix (talk

)

Further to Phoenix's request for a block review, I have looked into the circumstances surrounding his block by

Historical powers

).

For similar reasons, I also concur with Scarian's block of Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was heartily returning the ping pong ball in the edit warring at the article. The parties are invited to read related material on this matter during the duration of their respective blocks, including:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Edit-warring considered harmful
• Ditto, #Editorial process
• Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Edit warring is simply not the way we do things on here! I hope both parties can take useful lessons from these blocks. As a summary response, however: endorse block, and decline to unblock at this time.

contact

) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How was I uncivil? I was being very respectful and ironically I was advocating against edit warring something that I am now accused of. I had no interest in the content being argued I only didn't want another disruptive edit war to occour on this page. So I tried to get them to stop by reverting to the previous version before it was changed and asked them to talk. I had no idea what the correct version of the page was nor did it matter which one prevailed I only tried to get the users to talk. People are assuming that I was actually interested in the content being disputed when that is father from the truth. I was actually trying to get the page to stop being the ground for an edit war. I do find the accusation of edit warring quite amusing after I was saying similar things to the others involved. -- Phoenix (talk)

You may want to stop editing with your IP address, it is block evasion. Useight (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested you were being uncivil, Phoenix. I also understand that you were only trying to reverse what the other party was doing; however, our

contact

) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough I don't want to be seen as taking advantage of my computer knowledge to circumvent this situation. I have been waiting for the last few hours for any replies on my talk page but no one has commented, so I will post here. Consider this my last comment during my block as an ip user unless I am requested to reply. First Useight I'd like to reiterate the what I said on my talk page and I would like to say thanks for backing me up. It is nice that admins have actually discussed this, but I am surprised that I was not completely unblocked. I have read the official policies on wikipedia and they don't seam to agree with this block. I really was just trying to get in between two individuals and stop an edit war. I arbitrarily decided to revert to the original version that started the edit war per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and asked the editors... never mind I've explained that before. But from what I can tell 2 edits in 24 hours is not considered an edit war nor is 4 edits in 108 hours and 46 min (19:16, 2 August 2008 till 08:02, 7 August 2008) an edit war either. I really honestly do not understand the block. I was trying to do the responsible thing trying to stop a content war and got punished for it... why? -- Phoenix (talk)

This user was recently banned for 3RR. After returning has continued same behavior and is ignoring consensus. He is also refusing to assume good faith while attacking other editors on Talk:Circumcision. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning for this particular gem. If he persists in that vein then he'll be blocked accordingly. _Gb^T/c 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be having issues with that article today... lifebaka++ 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job fellow admins! Way to nip this one! (I couldn't resist...) Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something to the effect of that but got a little...cut short here at work.

talk

) 20:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, wildthing, it's no skin off my nose. I just hope you recover from your disappointment before you get too upset... Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a good circumcision joke (head slap) ;) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sports fans, who can tell me the difference between a rabbi and a mohel? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody? OK - the rabbi gets the salary and the mohel gets the tips. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given his interest in circumcision, the guy must be a real dick. Nyuck nyuck nyuck. HalfShadow 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He's able to withstand a lot of criticism - he's got 4 skins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope we don't get in trouble for this; nobody likes a cock-tease. HalfShadow 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could leave a

WP:NPA. _Gb^T/c

07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because I removed it for violation. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

I've warned the user concerned. I'm not sure that removing it yourself (without explicitly asking the user concerned to do so first, which I don't think you've done) was entirely the right idea, but I'm not going to be

pointy and reinstate it and ask Arthur to remove it. _Gb^T/c

08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that I made any form of personal attack. As someone else recently told him, "Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you." I made no personal attack. The complainant took it personally, thereby inflicting the attack on him/herself. If there was a personal attack, it was self-inflicted by the complainant. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think that "One wingnut WN presumed that the userbox applied specifically to him/her, in effect

synthesizing a direct connection where none exists. (I guess the shoe fit, even if the condom didn't.)" constitutes a personal attack? _Gb^T/c

10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never identified the complainant or anyone else, so if there was any attack at all, it certainly was not personal. The complainant is the one who took my user page contents personally, and through his/her own voluntary self-disclosure created a personal link where none existed previously, as others have pointed out. But I, on the other hand, committed no personal attack whatsoever. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that there is no personal attack there, although there is a lack of

talk

) 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I read the condom bit as being an attack. The fact that it is address at or about the "wingnut" who thought that the original userbox was aimed at them makes it, in my view, personal. In essence, I can insult someone. That no-one else can work out who it is I'm insulting doesn't make my original personal attack any less (a) personal or (b) of an attack. _Gb^T/c 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the person who said that hadn't bothered to go back and look at all the things you'd posted on my page as well as your own. There was nothing tricky, it just takes reading to see who you were talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Smart has repeatedly, on Niteshifts's talk page, altered Niteshift's username to make a personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This and this are clearly personal attacks on Niteshift36 (talk · contribs). Arthur Smart (talk · contribs) clearly not acting in good faith. Issuing 4im for personal attack and incivility. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this apparent legal threat on Talk:John W. Dickenson, indef blocked, but another set of eyes would be appreciated. The user appears to have some affiliation to the article subject. – Zedla (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "if defamation continues ... then we will resort to legal action" an actual legal threat? Presumably, if defamation were not continued, then no legal action would take place. See

☄

10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some significant history between the subject of this article and Francis Rogallo. Something about who invented what. Certainly nothing that cannot be fixed in the articles. Kevin (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute over who invented the modern hang glider. At the moment, the

☄

11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

☄

13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legal threat.

talk

) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalised the Michael Phelps article and has made abusive changes to my, Gwernol's and Digitalme's user pages, as well as responding abusively to polite warnings on their talk page that they will be blocked. Katharineamy (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs on AIV Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Todd got to them already].

talk

) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Americansteamers (talk · contribs) for 72 after he added 2 dozen spam links for his company by the same name. I think the length of time on the block is appropriate as it gives him time to reflect and guide his actions according to that reflection. He now requests an unblock, pleading ignorance and promising to do better. I left him a note suggesting he spend the remainder of his block reading our policies and thinking about whether his goals are compatible with Wikipedia's. I also have a problem with an account named for a business that has shown such a strong interest in self promotion, but that's another matter. If anyone else feels inclined to unblock or shorten the block, it's OK with me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that user to request a username change before unblocking. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Username soft blocked by Gwen gale. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Per User:Nick's suggestion here, I'm requesting that other admins look at the close of the DRV for wikijob.

Briefly, there was an

).

I was involved in the DRV, but not the AfD. I feel both closes were out of process and ignored clear (and nearly unanimous) consensus of subjective issues (if the article is spammy and if deletion is the right next step). I'd ask uninvolved other admins look at this and consider restoring the article (and perhaps reopen the AfD or DRV). Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(and yes, I really like parenthesis, why do you ask?)

Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2 admins reviewed this in the proper venues and handled it under the procedures of the venue, this forum shopping is not a productive use of time. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that one of the two admins suggested this as a reasonable place to bring the issue. If there is a 'more correct' place to bring this, please point me to it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)The speedy deletion is clearly wrong in both substance and process, but rather than go through yet more process, why not just rewrite the article in an improved state? A speedy deletion establishes no precedent, so the article can simply be recreated per deletion policy. Statements by the administrators involved confirm this. However, the demand that those involved in the deletion discussion or article editing should not recreate it is out of policy. It would be simplest if an administrator simply emailed a version to you (any takers?) but for the moment there's a cache version available at http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:M5jVtBDonHQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redsuperted/sandbox+"WikiJob+is+a+website+designed+for+and+used+by+those+involved+in"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum shopping, anybody? Corvus cornix_talk

01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless a version is written that can pass DRV, it stays deleted, end of story, ANI is not AFD_3. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a major reason to see it recreated, either, unless a version can be penned (on your sandbox) and reviewed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're tempting me to recreate it myself. If it's a notable company then an encyclopedic article can be written about it. I fail to see any plausible way in which the article was "blatant advertising". Speedy is for uncontroversial cases. That article was fine, just a little weak. Obviously it can be created in a better fashion. I don't see what anyone is trying to prove here. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about a notable subject let them. If the subject isn't notable the only way to determine that is a full AfD. We're past that point and the simplest thing to do is to write the article in improved form. Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the same thing - I've looked around, and I've found enough references that suggest that it is sufficiently notable. Not a lot, but I won't be arguing that it is eminently notable, so that should be fine. In looking at the cached version from the sandbox, it was perhaps not worded that well, but I'm surprised to see it being deleted via G11, given the presence of enough to make a case for notability and it doesn't seem like blatant advertising in spite of the COI. Not having seen the earlier version I can't speak to the use of G4, which may be appropriate. Still, recreating may be the best way to go, and would be easy enough. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion in this is that both the AfD and the DRV were closed too early. The DRV was closed after only 1 day, and after 2 admins (DGG and johnny-mt) had described the AfD closure as inappropriate. Now the option for discussion is closed off - if he brings it back to DRV, it will be speedily closed. If he brings it here, its forum shopping. Whats the harm in letting the discussion proceed at DRV until a consensus is clear? That's how it is supposed to work, and how it should have worked in this case. Out of process closes should only be done in obvious cases - since everyone who "voted" in the DRV voted in the opposite direction of the close, I'm not sure how this one could be classed as obvious.
  ^T
  02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec times 2) Just to be clear: #1 the AfD was speedy closed with 3 keeps and no one other than the nom suggesting delete. #2 the DRV was closed as "endorse" even though the !votes were 6 to overturn and none to endorse. #3 This (ANI) is where the admin closing the DRV suggested I bring this. #4 Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article. While we aren't a bureaucracy, process does matter. Was it really acceptable for an admin to speedy an article after it claim to AFD when all three !votes were to keep? Was it acceptable to uphold that deletion when the !votes were 6 to 0 to overturn? Please note that the arguments made in the AfD and DRV were both solid and not addressed by either closer. I'm not planning on making further arguments here, but I do feel this is something other admins should be looking at carefully. Maybe the close of the AfD and DRV were both reasonable. I'm fairly comfortable with the way things generally work (as well as the actual policies associated with AfD closures), and these look scary-wrong to me. But I've been wrong before. If everyone else is good with it, then I'm clearly overreacting. That's been known to happen :-) Hobit (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, since "Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article.", I'd say these admins acted within their discretion to prevent WP from being used as an advertising platform. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"We don't do process for the sake of process." Personally, I'm concerned that a useful article could have been created by some folks but that both discussions set aside for the subject of deleting it were short circuited. I don't know much about the subject, but what is the point of taking supposedly 10 days of open discussion and condensing it into 2? Especially when the discussion was shaping up against the close both times, and in the second instance two admins had already voted the other way. Discussion hurts no one, especially when the article was already deleted during the DRV.

^T

02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• If the closing admin has a differing idea from that of the community, he should have voted in the debate, rather than close it and impose his own view on the community. No matter how brilliant his opinion may be, that close is incorrect because it went blatantly against consensus. Bad close. I'm inclined to revert it so the DRV can run its course, but I'll wait for further opinions. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The closing admin did !vote delete in the AfD. He then blanked his !vote and closed as a speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  The diff is [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the process is, it's a lot more productive if we have a live version of the article somewhere in the meanwhile. That way it can be improved. It would take me all of about five minutes to edit the article so as to make the question of blatant advertising moot. A lot less work than this discussion or any process for the sake of process. Notability is a different question but that discussion hasn't occurred.Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot see this as forum shopping, if a deletion review is closed incorrectly, bringing it to the noticeboard, after discussing with the person involved does not work, is the only thing to do (it was what the closer recommended as well). I would not want it to happen very often though. But in this case the DRV was closed after one day when reviewing an AFD that was closed after only one day, the clear consensus of the participants at that time (it could change over a full discussion but I doubt it) was to overturn the deletion, however the closer, in effect, has closed it as Endorse but allow recreation but keep the articles protected from recreation until someone asks the closer to unprotect (which has a bit of a chilling effect on anyone wanting to create a new article). Thus I think the DRV should be reopened. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Bringing a contentious close to the noticeboard when it is closed early in oposition to the currently unanimous call for an overturn is not forum shopping. Viridae^Talk 07:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: DRV reopened I've reverted the early close of Wikijob DRV, due to consensus here and at the DRV itself. This thread can be marked as resolved. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Marked as such. I would have done the same thing, PeaceNT, so it must have been the right decision :)

☄

09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note JzG added the site's URL to the local blacklist ([4]); if the article is restored, this will need to be removed.
  ☄
  09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I added it to the blacklist ages ago when the site owner, Redsuperted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted that he was apsmming it all over the place. He then started using alternate domain names pointing to the same site; adding such is not usually a problem since it was done in order to evade the blacklist. Note that the deletion was G11 and G4, since the same text had already been reviewed and deletion endorsed back in April. The sole contributor to that article, and contributor to nothing else other than trying to add links to the site on articles on major accounting firms, is Redsuperted, who admits a COI. I am not, as a rule, very big on rewarding spammers for going away for a couple of months and then coming back and reposting in the hopes that nobody is looking. Redsuperted is a spammer, plain and simple, If anyone else wants to write an article then fine, but Redsuperted has spent the thick end of a year actively promoting his site on Wikipedia, with no balancing productive edits as if that mad ea difference, and that is an absolute no-no. Deletion of articles that have been previously deleted as spam five times by five different admins at three different titles, all apparently the work of the same user, the site owner, is rarely considered as controversial as it appears to be in this case, especially when the site owner has reposted a version whose deletion has already been endorsed in almost identical form. He must be laughing at us. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're right - the original addition was earlier this year, with two alternate domains added the other day. While I don't disagree Redsuperted is a spammer (he clearly is), comment on the content, not the contributor - there was enough "weak keeps" in the AFD to warrant a full review. Ditto the DRV.
  ☄
  12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See, there's always more to the story! I think if that history had been more clear from reading the closure and/or it remained open a little longer people wouldn't have been so perplexed. Wikidemo (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone were to guess, one might say

T.C.

15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if connection can be made it may be worthwhile to take it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The guys had an account since May 2006, so I'm not sure. D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't a person just hate lists? I mean, seeing an article written in 2003 that makes perfect sense, and then this "examples of ____" with the most inane and weird things on it could rile anyone. Seems like one thing would be to go try to reason with the user and try to urge her or him to argue that the lists should be nuked on an individual basis. Just wondering what else, besides disliking lists, makes someone so suspicious. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disliking lists is ok (I think some are helpful and some aren't). However, "declaring war" on them will tend to be disruptive, since lots of good faith editors like lists more than others. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 84.243.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy (see http://84.243.224.24), probably used by Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Akeron (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed and blocked it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Akeron (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was very likely Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok. Time once again to ask for review of my actions. As a bit of background, I have had a couple of clashes with User:DreamGuy in the past, such that I long ago declared myself ineligible to act in an admin capacity towards him. Even moreso, I have generally stayed away from the articles he edits, as I just do not need to be involved in the level of drama that tends to swirl around him. I do however still have a number of things watchlisted that he gets involved with, particulatly the Jack the Ripper page and it's talk page. And it is from these that I saw something last night that I felt I needed to act upon. Not an action by DG, but rather one against him.

alert sirens went off in my brain. I then proceeded to delete the two edits in question from the talk page and gave BH a "one and only" warning on the subject. As I have never that I can remember interacted with BH previously, and while the actions I took were related to DG, but not against DG, I beleive I am OK as far as my situation of avoiding admin actions about DG. But while I wanted to state that reasoning, that's really not the reason I'm asking for review.

BH has returned this morning and, again on the JtR talk page, is questioning my application of

) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, unless DG has himself revealed his name on wikipedia, it's not ok to post it here. But BH can claim not to have thought of that, so a warning is the way to go. If he posts it again though, further sanctions are needed. However, if DG is trying to push a theory he holds as an author (if he really is that person) then that's a possible

WP:COI and might be relevant, but not to the extent perhaps of going down to names. Sticky Parkin

13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: TA, "elsewhere on the net" is a ridiculous and absolutely inapplicable argument. In fact, the very meaning of the "outing" policy was to prevent people from taking something "elsewhere" and disrupting Wikipedians' ability to edit here in the conditions that Wikipedia promises. No one is going to draw up a list of "acceptable" other venues for a revelation of identity, and no one is going to argue how much of a confession is a revelation; it's all verboten. You were right. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, WHAT? When did that become the "meaning" of the outing policy? There's a very big difference between someone _else_ revealing someone's identity offsite (which is what the policy is supposed to prevent or at least prevent using that here) and someone revealing their _own_ identity. --Random832 (contribs) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the outside sites being referred to by BH are not me revealing my own identity, it's him assuming someone with a similar username must be me and then adding links to personal attacks made by people on the web against the name found there to try to support his own personal attacks on me here. That's several major policy violations right there. Plus, if anyone with any sense looked at the results of the search he pointed at (which should also be deleted per OUT rules, they'd see that the accusations made there are pretty obviously over the top bizarre. One of the main people involved, if you do a search on that name, is mentioned as having been locked up on psychiatric charges for stalking all sorts of people, and another was User:Sollog (read his article for whether his claims against someone should be proof of someone being a troll -- err, looks like that article got deleted somewhere along the way. switched to user page, others can Google if they care, he still exists on Simple English Wikipedia), and so forth. The existence of libelous personal attacks on the web by people, the most important of which actually got locked up for them, is not proof of anything wrong being done here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very different tune than what you said here this morning, where you didn't mind that they stayed. ..and you seem to know an awful lot about those users and other folk on the web for having just looked at it and not being familiar with the other identity..who just happens to be a published author in the field of Jack the Ripper (as you claim you are) and using your same handle for the last 6+ years..what a coincidence.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How in your head does my comment on my talk page at all contradict what I said above? You're just making accusations and hoping something sticks. You are well past needing a block, since you are unrepentant in your attacks and reliance on character assassination to try to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : I posted specific information to prove that he is intentionally trolling. (How-to Redacted) and look at the mountain of info (greater than 5 years) of specific info about him trolling. As I am trying to establish this as a pattern that precedes him and should be admissible...especially since it has been consistent with his Wikipedia activities. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, and try to use wild accusations you dug up on the net of some name you think you found as proof of this? Standard troll behavior is to call other people trolls. 100 million people could call someone a troll or other names and all it would prove is that people love to make wild accusations instead of dealing with real issues. You also need to consider the motives and reliability of the people making the accusation. Certainly the accusations of trolling on the JTR talk page are simply attempts at character assassination. I think a little looking into the accusations you find on the talk page will discover that the people making the claims cannnot be taken seriously. By your own admission you have violated several policies, and even if you think you are doing it for a good cause it's not an excuse. You need to understand the seriousness of what you've done and stop trying to rationalize it all away in an effort to make more personal attacks. I haven't even seen the accusations this time around about who they think I am, but certainly a similar username being used out there by someone isn't any sort of evidence. "DreamGuy" isn't exactly a rare nickname. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion, though I can readily understand both the frustration level that BH has encountered as well as the outrage at discovering the CoI aparent. I went through these same feelings when I discovered the same thing (another CoI point exist aside from the one revealed by BH) last year, and think it is partly what leads him to be as disruptive an influence as he has been for years. However, outing is simply uncool.

This begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person? I would think it has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary.

Of course, the alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the

WP:DRAMA that seems to tornado around him, and we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has been wikilawyering for years, and so alleging a COI is just the latest strategy of his. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had to switch browsers, for some reason typing text was delayed by about 30 seconds per character, so long posts weren't getting through, especially with page being editing while I typed. The above was supposed to include: It is especially bizarre considering that he has alleged that Colin4c, another editor on the page, is supposedly a published author in the field, and Arcayne has tried to use that as an excuse for why any conflict between me and Colin should result on Colin having his say. He didn't raise any COI concerns about Colin, but pretends to be worried about me. As far as alleged COI concerns go, I've told several admins watching the page over the years my name and background, and even a longtime bitter foe of mine, Elonka, knows it. If there were any real COI problems with my edits, which I bend over backwards to not make (perhaps even underrepresnting the views of people I am personally acquanited with), certainly Elonka or one of the other admins would have raised them eons ago. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good we're all here! There's a specific

conflict of interest noticeboard for such issues, but to be fair to DG, I don't think he's ever made any bones about his 'expertise'. Kbthompson (talk

) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he has; the insistence of the Goulston Street Graffito as being used by first "most" and then "many" is but one instance of that dismissal of other opinions that do not dovetail with his own. The difference between Colin and DG is that Colin doesn't push his published pov as being better than anyone else's - a point to his credit, I think. I hesitate to continue, due to outing concerns. I will take a look at the CoI noticeboard, and have emailed one of the admins here my specific concerns, sidestepping outing worries. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your particularly bizarre interpretation of a personal conflict over a minor point in the article certainly isn't a COI issue, or else you could declare ANYTHING I ever say a COI by equally flimsy logic. And the fact of the matter is, Colin certainly has and does push view as better than everyone else's... or at least those who disagree with him anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: There's specific policy to support your actions, even when there are clues elsewhere on the net, or in real life. BH became incensed at the continuing drama and brouhaha at Jack the Ripper, and went a little OTT. As I keep tying to explain, the talk page is not the place to punt accusations back and forward. In addition, I should explain, I specifically recused myself from admin actions at JtR because I had an editing history there before I became an admin. It's a bit of a storm in a teacup, but if there are any admins left who haven't had experience of the participants, then independent eyes on that article are more than welcome. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support TexasAndroid's decision, especially considering BH's clearly misplaced rationale behind the attempted outing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think the user was looking for confirmation from other administrators, DG. Your opinion as the affected user is pretty clear aleady. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support not only was the outing unnecessary, but BH's comments were little more than a blatant personal attack. Shell ^babelfish 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question shouldn't the edits in question be
  oversighted? --Akhilleus (talk
  ) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed oversight to request removal of the edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask they remain at least long enough for this ANI to close. In the event, it comes into question and/or what I wrote needs explanation and those who are making judgments may be properly informed, please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about what looks like BH defying the warning -- If we agree that it was right to warn BH and remove the edits naming who he thinks I am, how is him naming the exact steps he used to try to identify me any different, functionally, as the intent and end result is exactly the same. He has done so at least twice since he was warned. Once above in his own response here, and one on the talk page of someone he hopes will join him in his conflict. If he's not supposed to be able to do this, he needs more than just a warning of one and one time only and then let him go ahead and do it multiple times later, he needs all such edits removed and maybe a block for defying the order (plus, as others have pointed out above, he other recent comments have included way over the top personal attacks, the kind that usually lead to immediately behavior blocks). DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No, I'm not trying to defy any orders..I'm explaining my actions. The policy is meant to protect innocent people but not people who intentionally troll. This isn't about a simple revelation of identity but that the identity has a notable history of doing this. I don't imagine too many regular folk have such things printed on the web..but then there are also the things you wrote yourself which are revealing about your intentions...and No, I'm not wanting Jack to join into this (I like him too much for that). Since you went at him so often and drove him off I thought he might be interested in seeing it..that's all. I believe he is a self-proclaimed wikiGnome and doesn't usually butt heads with people. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

History of being accused is not proof, and it's disturbing that you not only can't tell the difference but that you purposefully don't want to and instead try to find some bizarre character assassination rationalization to justify your bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DG's point about the How-to, though I give you the benefit of the doubt about you not doing it in defiance of my warning. I have removed the How-to from Jack1956's talk page history, though I left the bulk of your comment. Above, I have redacted the how-to from your comment, though I am unable to actually do anything about the history of it, as 1) there have been many edits here since, all of which include it, and 2) ANI's history is far too large for admins to actually delete specific edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line when it comes to "How-tos", tho? Are we allowed to say "Use Google", or is that a how-to, too? --Conti|✉ 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Suppose, on a blog that I run, I admit that I'm actually
  Ashley Alexandra Dupre." That seems pretty messed up, if you ask me. Whether this user meant to release confidential information or not, bringing it in is just kind of... irrelevant or speculative or bad. Utgard Loki (talk
  ) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, this begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person. While I agree that BH was wrong to give any personal info or 'how-to', DG does indeed surrender their ID in normal netspace, though the simplest of methods (read: nothing sneaky or especially complex).

I still think the issue has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary. That DG has acknowledged the existence of CoI, and that he actively takes steps to avoid it are to be commended. Unfortunately, he has also claimed to be aware of the finer points of civility, and continues to fail in that respect. I think maybe he might need some assistance in ensuring that his edits to JTR-related articles remain free of CoI.

Again, a viable alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the

WP:DRAMA that he seems to engender with his manner of editing; we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you will get a good answer in your question of the conflicts between

WP:OUTING. Those two issues have been in conflict for quite a while now, with a number of debates right here on ANI on the issue. I've seen strong opinions on both sides, and I don't remember any specific resolution to the conflict between the two. - TexasAndroid (talk

) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are administrators who already know the details of DG's identity and background, they should be able to evaluate claims of

WP:COI without revealing any personal information. Not that I've seen a credible allegation of COI in this thread yet... --Akhilleus (talk

) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a side issue that just muddies the primary purpose of the thread. It's not about DG's self confessed involvement with ripperean matters off-wikipedia; DG's behaviour, nor indeed other's behaviour - merely whether TexasAndroid was correct in removing the outing information. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a conflict of interest would only come close to anonymity in importance if the person so accused were an administrator using some version of extraordinary powers. Therefore, if Jimbo is with some ladyfriend and then hard protects her article, people can say, "Ooooh, this is a conflict of interest that's worth knowing," because the extraordinary power of his position were being used to immunize him from regular reversion or oversight by other users. If you don't have some use of position then normal oversight and peer editing takes care of conflict of interest, and there is therefore no way that identity should be revealed. At least that's how it seems to me, but I'm gender confused. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(@Utgard Loki) "etc etc, to that audience, etc etc, to this audience," How are the audiences of two public websites relevantly different? "The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information." What if it's someone who's read your blog for years and happens to recognize your name when they see it on Wikipedia? --Random832 (contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then they still shouldn't mention it here. Some people might know my real name but that wouldn't make it ok for them to mention it here without my consent. It's unpleasant and a breach of netiquette nowadays, as well as exposing people to possible hastle if more wrong'uns happen to see it than otherwise would have done. Sticky Parkin 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia perhaps overdoes anonymity. If you really need anonymity because of what you're editing, you probably have a conflict-of-interest problem. I'd argue that COI issues, which actually affect the quality of the encyclopedia, should trump anonymity. Personally, I edit under my own name, and my user page says who I am. Once in a while someone e-mails me. Big deal. --John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You and I may be an exception - in that we edit under our own names, but there are perfectly reasonable reasons why people who edit here would not want their RL identities to be known. There are many wiki-editors in countries that don't provide the kind of freedoms we appear to enjoy; or young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lie. That principle of anonmity should be respected, even if it goes down to the level of someone who seems to have rescinded their right to privacy elsewhere. Kbthompson (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in a household that was under mild public scrutiny and we were always taught "if you don't want it in the paper tomorrow, don't do it". After a childhood like that I can sympathize with someone wanting to keep their head down. I'm sorry KB, but this is a big nitpick I have "young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lay". Very few young people want a future that deceives them. (Pedantic, I know but I can't help it.) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In my case, I just prefer not to give out my real identity to the whole of Wikipedia because the people who like to harassing when they don't get their way have in the past harassed me off-site as well. Back when I had my main email as my Wikipedia email and didn't realize the return address showed when you send an email through the Wikipedia emailer, I communicated privately with someone who had had a personal conflict with me and acted like they were trying to resolve it, but they saw the email address, Googled around, and started contacting people in my private life and making bizarre and false accusations. So I changed that email. He periodically still years later emails people I know, or people I have conflict with on Wikipedia. That person and some other people may know, but I prefer not to have it be a public announcement, and that right has been guaranteed to me by Wkipedia policy.

The assumption that anyone who wouldn't give out their real name publicly probably has a COI conflict is just wrong. I have given out my real name to a limited set of people and they can and do check (some obsessively) to make sure I don't do anything that could be a COI. If other admins who watchlist that article want to know it and do not, they can ask me. Besides, this section isn't about me, it's about TexasAndroid and BH and who was right, which appears to have been quite thoroughly settled. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: There are dispute resolution steps for a reason. If you think an editor has gone too far you are more than welcome to take it up with an admin or go to ArbCom or what have you. OUTing is not the accepted way of handling this. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dream Guy- no-one's suggesting that just because you feel the need to use a net name on here for your privacy, it's an indication that you have a CoI in itself (I hope no-one's suggesting that.) PadillaH- you misunderstand why people use a net name. It's not because we're ashamed of our actions under that name, it's because most people have run into dodgy people both in the real world or on the net at some time in our lives, or run the risk of doing so. People who would delight in causing trouble, not necessarily due to our own fault/actions but because some people aren't very nice. Sticky Parkin 19:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone was ashamed of anything. I was referencing the shadow of the MSM that I was raised under. I'm not misguided enough to think everyone lives with reporters on their front porch. I only brought it up to sympathize with the notion that someone would want their privacy and go to great lengths to protect it. In no way did I mean to intimate anything about anyone else. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. A day or so ago I

19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 218.213.226.210 (talk · contribs) one month as a sock of Klaksonn. A colorful edit summary like this one suggests he wasn't planning on a long career with this IP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved in an editing dispute with

I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look and warn the user if you think it is necessary. He is a very new wikipedia user and does not appear to understand wikipedia policies. Perhaps someone else can find a way to help him understand? Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre posts. I wish he'd use more punctuation :-). In all seriousness, it does appear at least to be working out on the user talkpage? (Your patience here is noted, Karanacs). I don't see any "explicit" legal threats, but merely "threats to tell your boss" type misunderstandings about what Wikimedia is/isn't. I'll watchlist the article and the talkpage, another opinion here is certainly welcome. Perhaps I'm being too lenient? Keeper ǀ 76 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I've also been having a bit of difficulty trying to figure out exactly what is being said. And, since I'm the one in the dispute it's sometimes harder to see the forest for the trees. Another pair of eyes would be extremely helpful! Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would also say explicitly that Ottava Rima is doing an excellent job communicating to the new user why "he is being objected to". I'll keep watching at this point. Keeper ǀ 76 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the lack of punctuation is odd. I don't see a legal threat, but it's edgy stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His most recent post is actually really encouraging...Keeper ǀ 76 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a matter of emotions before reasoning, which is human. This is a passionate subject, and he was afraid of being misrepresented. Most cases like this seem to be fixed with a sympathetic, and thankfully this one worked out that way. I will continue to follow the situation. Thanks for looking into it, Keeper. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

after a string of ip vandals attacked the page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it has now been unprotected. Tiptoety ^talk 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.

It is at this point that Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrives, templating the user and blanking the potential article that was being discussed replacing it with {{indefblock}}. I undid the addition of both of these templates. He put them on again, saying don't be daft: this is SOP and not a special admin task. Again, I undid both, and he again blanked the userpage, which I again reverted. At this point, I began a discussion with Calton, the entirety of which can be viewed here.

Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.

Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse

to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.

I apologize for this

talk

) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of

WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}

00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at

WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This behavior is one of the worst case of

biting I've seen in a while. It must stop. — Coren ^(talk)

01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? "Worst"? And the ones being bitten are whom? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of

the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin

5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –

talk

) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the

WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuice^talk

01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.

One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged

04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: [15] Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one.

WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Wikipedia, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton arbitrary break 1

• Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Tiptoety's suggested ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Wikipedia, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for
  WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuice^talk
  05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Wikipedia. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others.  Sandstein  07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Wikipedia in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See
  WP:COI. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban. This is hardly an isolated issue. Viridae^Talk 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history
  BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety ^talk
  13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Wikipedia. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?

• Maybe I should have also put, "Don't make up shit. It insults my intelligence." --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –
  talk
  ) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Wikipedia. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect.
  talk
  ) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"[16]; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." [17]. The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Wikipedia nobility.
• (Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{

talk

) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

That's policy: Wikipedia:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –

talk

) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at

talk

) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.

Calton, nice to see you've mellowed. --CBD 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calton does yeoman's work dealing with COI accounts. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

—

few or no other edits outside this topic. _Gb^T/c

20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Calton is not just the guy whose badge number you want to see. He's the abusive cop you want fired from the force because his behavior is so frequently
  GOOD FAITH? Welcome, now get lost??? Calton is the ill-natured cop who joined the force because he was DYING to taser and billy club punk kids, but never had ANY intention of adding anything constructive like helping old ladies cross the street or getting a cat out of a tree. (or creating and editing articles) Bad attitude. Bad intentions. No matter how many smammers he blocks (skaters he tases), he is bad for Wikipedia. For a very clear example of how blatantly insulting and abusive he behaves have a glance at my User talk:BillyTFried#Your e-mail. BillyTFried (talk
  ) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe a short break is required, but a permanent ban is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly a short break is not a way to resolve this issue, but instead just push it under the rug until another incident occurs seeing as this issue has been going on for quite some time now, there needs to be a resolution and everyones concerns need to stop being ignored. Also, no one said the ban would be permanent. Tiptoety ^talk 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns over specific conduct issues need to be expressed in order for the break to have any chance of being effective of course (RFC on user conduct is a good way of doing so). That, accompanied with a break from the area, is something that can resolve the issue. I think people here would be more willing to support a ban proposal if there's still no change after taking those steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Calton performs what is probably the most tedious janitorial task on the project: going over hundreds of useless/promotional userpages and deleting their waste of Wikimedia servers. He shoved his nose into an ongoing discussion and I can see why xeno thought it was rude, but the same thing happens on this very noticeboard every day, so I don't see anything actionable. If he is willing to put in the time to patrol for spam, thank him. When he is willing to pick a fight with anyone who disagrees, seek input from impartial parties (mediate). If editors require appeasement for the resulting irritation, advise them to calm down and not take Calton's comments personally. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Another case of good faith volunteer doing a job noone else wants to and occasionally getting a bit testy in their communication. This is not really an issue for a topic ban in my opinion - that would require multiple instances of bad faith and evidence of trollish or inappropriate behaviour. Orderinchaos 00:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do

Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.

1) I scan the "New Pages" page, under "Users" (after being busy until recently, I went backwards through the list) or use User:MER-C's "Vanispamcruftisement in the userspace" page.

2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...

05:46, August 2, 2008 ‎User:Uniproma (hist) ‎[2,262 bytes] ‎Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')

a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.

b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.

3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.

4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.

5) I add {{

}} to each and save.

6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{

}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:

FAQ for businesses

.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

7) I go to

's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.

Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My request is simple: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –

talk

) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –

talk

) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all.  Sandstein  15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic's statement is eminently reasonable and the perfect way to end this disagreement. Calton, the ball is in your court. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My fundamental concern is the same as

WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth

16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein says it well. --John (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Calton asked "will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in [the 7-step process outlined] are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities?". The answer is that they're not there - the 7-step process is beneficial work which (a) no-one else seems to engage in with anything remotely approaching to the dedication that he does, and (b) keeps this encyclopaedia clear of spam that shouldn't be here.

The problem is in step 8 - it's not included on the list above, but just as formulaic and predictable a part of his actions as the preceding seven steps. Step 8 is what happens as soon as anyone dares disagree with his actions, or question his judgment (or, as he terms it, "insults his intelligence") - whether that be in flagging the page for speedy, listing the name at

WP:UAA

or whatever - they open themselves up to his, erm, interesting and somewhat relentless style of discussion.

The DRV linked to above is a prime example - the declining admins get a dose of step 8 (here, here and here), and it doesn't take a lot of looking through his talk page and its archives to dig out similar episodes almost beyond number - I've been on the receiving end of it myself a couple of times, in both cases because I've declined or removed a speedy tag. Maybe it's not a "monstrous crime", but it's clear that his way of dealing with all other users, and not just spammers that he deals with, that is against policy, practice, common sense and very definitely against decorum. I can't speak for Ryan's sensibilities, delicate or otherwise.

I would oppose a ban from

WP:UAA

- doing so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces, because I do think that the work that he does is exceedingly valuable, and he rarely gets enough credit for it.

I would support some sort of check on his behaviour, however - even though it's fun to see how long he can resist before wheeling out one of his staple phrases (accusing the other person of "projecting", of making "vague, handwaving assertions" (which he's used three times in this thread alone), "reality check", "period / full stop", "Guy" and "Buckwheat" invariable make an appearance somewhere along the line), no matter how much he may feel his intelligence is being insulted there's not excuse for the manner in which he responds to it.

I'd also support a restriction on resubmitting the same pages repeatedly to CSD or the same username to UAA.

Numerous reports to

WP:ANI, blocks and an RFC in the past haven't actually lead to any modification of his behaviour, though, so I wonder how much benefit all the above discussion will actually result in, if any. _Gb^T/c

21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing momentum, but I must say that, IMO, Gb absolutely nails the situation on the head here.--

talk

) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion at DRV

I've opened a deletion review for the page User:Losplad, mentioned as an example a few subsections above, as its deletion seem to have been at least somewhat controversial. I hope this somewhat nonstandard DRV nomination may help determine the actual consensus on whether pages like that one should be speedily deleted or not. Everyone involved in this discussion here is welcome to comment. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

kind of a moot point being a year later (though the precedent may be worthwhile), but it does demonstrate his tendency to edit-war/admin shop on these types of things. –

talk

) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton 0RR restriction

• Support revert and/or re-tag ban The solution here, I think, is not to ban
  the Orphanage
  01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think this could work. –

  talk

  ) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a good idea, lets him do the stuff he's good at, but keeps him from being too attached to an issue and causing harm as a result. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the discussion does appear to have run out of steam, to a degree, and (if past behaviour is anything to go by) were things to peter out without any firm decision coming out of the discussion he would simply keep a low profile for a few weeks, then return to his usual activities without any modification of his behaviour. This allows him to continue doing what he does best, but hopefully avoids the friction that at present arises somewhat inevitably whenever anyone disagrees with his actions. _Gb^T/c 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Aervanath's proposal. Calton is right 99.9% of the time; it's that 0.1% that causes problems, but we do not want him to stop doing the 99.9%. A simple "do not re-add tags removed by an admin without discussing first" - which does not mean doing it anyway and telling them afterwards - is a perfect solution. It is not right to call this a ban, which is a loaded term; I would call it a 0RR restriction.
  ☄
  14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested. –

talk

) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have declined only one time Calton speedy request on User:Djlanet, although I do not strongly oppose his revert of my decline, I believe that Caldon does a good job here and 0RR would be a nice compromise to address some problems with communication. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - 0RR in respect to CSD tags. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Supports A 0RR on CSD tagging would certainly be beneficial. My only question would be whether or not it would also be beneficial to have a similar restriction on reporting names to UAA. The initial report at the top of this discussion indicates there's also been an issue with resubmitting names to UAA after an admin declines to block (I haven't looked into the UAA issue). - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's a good idea. I hope Calton will take to heart both the positive and negative feedback. The consensus here seems to be that he does some really good work, but that his occasionally brusque or sarcastic manner undermines a collegial environment.--
  talk
  ) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. This all goes back to "point 8" above. Calton, 99% (even 99.9%!) of the time, has it right. Once in a while, someone disagrees with his tagging/requests for deletion. Once in a great while. And yet, it is still frustrating to some users/editors/admins. If Calton would please agree to not "go back" to the one's he's "attempted" and try to "re-attempt" a deletion (at least, not without talking to the declining editor), then I see this as a reasonable solution to both Calton and to the community at large. Let me reassert, I strongly believe that Calton's work is invaluable, 99.9% accurate, incredibly necessary, and appreciated. Just need a better approach to "step 8" 'tis all...Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (allow me to clarify, that by "step 8", I mean the "step" that is expounded upon by User:Gb above). Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Calton's "I'm right, you're stupid" approach begs for this type of remedy. 0RR seems a bit restrictive though, I'd say 1RR provided that he petitions an impartial third party for a review. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't everyone technically under 0RR by default for CSD tags? Once they're declined, they're not supposed to be re-added. –
    talk
    ) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, everyone is already under this restriction. Maybe a "Look, you should already know this, but..." and "...continued misbehaviour will result in sanctions, and you've been warned." would be helpful though. WilyD 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have been more specific. Challenged CSD tags in articlespace do necessitate a trip to AfD. However when it comes to blocked accounts and spam userpages (as in the above case), 0RR looses its meaning, since {{
      WP:CSD#G5 deletions have caused controversy on various noticeboards over the right course of action. The vast majority of cases deal with obvious spam, so arguing about deleting those userpages is counterproductive. So, in short, I'm in favor of enforcing the limits on CSD re-tagging for anyone in articlespace, but userspace content is a gray area. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
      04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd object to the voting but I know no one would listen... regardless, I'd prefer to hear Calton's response to the above proposal before making any further statements. We're not cops, getting him to talk reasonably about the problem will be better <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">than "enforcing" something. - brenneman 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a formal measure is needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would also Support a UAA re-submit ban, per AuburnPilot's comment above. I should clarify that when I say "ban", what I mean is that Calton is free to appeal to the editor who declined his speedy or UAA submission, since it is certainly possible that he could convince the editor in question of his view by pointing out something they may have missed.--
  the Orphanage
  03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Well, as Xeno pointed out above, there is already a 0rr on declined speedies. Once declined, an article can be tagged for PROD or sent to AfD, but not re-CSD tagged. Calton should simply follow the rules as any other editor should. So, in lieu of a better choice, I guess that I will reaffirm my support for the existing procedure. —
  ^talk
  03:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. - ludicrous. You admit he's rarely if ever wrong, and then you want to limit his ability to act. Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Raul. You believe that when an editor tags an article for speedy deletion, and that request is declined, it is perfectly acceptable to retag that article for speedy deletion? That is ludicrous. Speedy deletions are not for controversial deletions; if the request is declined, other methods should be used. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Follow the logic, Raul654 - Calton is rarely wrong, correct. But on those infrequent occasions when he is wrong, he refuses to admit it and causes (directly or indirectly) a great big fuss. Calton being reminded that speedy tags are not to be reapplied is not ludicrous. Speedy deletion tags aren't like cooking spaghetti - you don't get to keep throwing them until one sticks.

  ☄

  08:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—anything that can be done to place a check on Calton is worthwhile, although I think a strict civility parole would be more appropriate because, in my view, his main problem is his utterly hostile manner of interaction. Everyking (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I'd say the root cause of most of his outbursts of hostility is when an admin or admins repeatedly disagrees with one of his speedy deletion taggings. Remove that root cause, and the saltier comments should dwindle away.

  ☄

  08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If Calton is right 99.99% of the time, and does a whole lot of useful work for wikipedia, we should be willing to live with the .01% of the time they are wrong. Why censure or restrict an editor who is almost always right? --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Opposing on the grounds that Calton is right 99.99% of the time is missing the point entirely. Under current policy/procedures, nobody is supposed to re-tag a declined speedy. —

  ^talk

  12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work, Aervanath, on proposing a corrective action that is appropriate and acceptable. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Everyking. Dwain (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose his multiple requests for speedy Delete was ultimately correct. No need to impede progress. IAR and propose spam for Speedy Delete every and all the time. The restriction should be on admins that close speedy delete requests without understanding the policy. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the community

) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case. However, I think some perspective is necessary here. Everyone agrees that he does useful work, lots of useful work, but is testy and occasionally (one time out of every 1000 apparently) disses an admin or two. The consensus seems to be that he should be rapped on the knuckles for this occasional admin-dissing behavior. In an entirely voluntary undertaking, this is dangerous because there is no reason for a useful individual to keep contributing if they are punished (0RR is pretty severe for someone who thinks they are doing the right thing by the encyclopedia). From the perspective of what works best for wikipedia, I think we should do nothing, close this, and move on. Perhaps the initiating admin should consider taking the high road and do that. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't written to this topic in more than 2 days now so I'm already on that road - that being said, this is a community issue - not just my issue. In fact, I doubt I'll even come across Calton again - this was a one-off type of situation where I happened to be in the vicinity of a helpme template and was doing my thing. But if he continues to edit war because he refuses to accept someone else's judgment of the situation - he's going to run into problems again, sooner or later. And I think that's all I have to say on the matter. –

talk

) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moot point

I’m left wondering why this “0RR restriction” is even being discussed. To quote existing policy:

Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions…

Everyone is essentially already under a 0RR restriction against renominating an article for speedy deletion. —

12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and mentioned this above, but I gather this would also apply to such things as UAA reports, tagging userpages, templating talk pages/ etc. –

talk

) 13:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With a formal restriction in place, however, should Calton continue to edit-war over such things, there will be far less kerfuffle when he is blocked for doing so.

☄

09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. The IP that has been removing the Background section of the

) 13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected yesterday.

talk • contribs

) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks, didn't notice :) But can we end with the guy's provocations, he obviously refuses to stop... Is it possible to block his IP? --

TALK

) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the IP is now being incivil to the point of

WP:NPA on the talk page. And from looking at it, you'd have to block a /16 (89.164.0.0/16) range at minimum to stop him. And even then, he's on a /8 range (89.0.0.0/8) which is too large to block, so that may not help. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me

) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's also been indulging in a few (stupidly disguised) threats, saying he'll "see me in college" ("vidimo se na referadi") [18]... Is there nothing that can be done about this guy!? --

) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the blocking complications the best course of action is probably

denying recognition. Simply revert anything that isn't acceptable. Usually they get bored and move on rather quickly. If you genuinely take concern with the threat you can always alert some relevant authority to investigate it but unless you're in belief that his threats are genuine it seems like that might be overdoing it a little.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@

16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One idea for blocks: If an admin wants to get involved, then you have to be fast with the button and block for 1 hr at a time. If this is a rolling IP a la AOL, then that won't do more than possibly inconvenience the user, but if he gets his IP at log-in, a one hour block will actually be a block. With 1 hr increments, the chances of collateral damage are low. It's a PITA, but it would work. <shrug> Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing is certain, the guy will not give up because of some semi protection or constant reverting. He did not give up for months, he's not going to give up now... Perhaps a block of his current IP lasting a few days? I do not think he realizes that his IP changes: he may very well give up if he sees he can't edit and go away. In either case can we please get some help with this guy? --

) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Direktor, I have it on my watchlist and will keep an eye out for what you describe. I may also remove the IP comments and hope to draw his fire to my talkpage. Feel free to attempt to divert him my way. --mboverload@ 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor generally refuses to use edit summary comments, despite repeated requests and discussion from a number of other editors (which he deleted from his talk page without ever defending his behavior). [19], [20], [21]. Many of his edits are contentious (his favorite pastime seems to be removing images from articles), and he's an experienced editor who should know better. Perhaps an "officious" message from an admin will help him to reconsider this behavior.

) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly note. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a policy, he has done nothing wrong, just leave him alone! Chafford (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken, straying wholly from a guideline can be very disruptive, please see

WP:Edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk

) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is definitely not required. Misleading summaries can be disruptive, but none cannot. WilyD 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors who edit contentiously while not using summaries so edit after edit must be manually investigated is disruptive editing. If that's so hard to understand, perhaps it's time to adjust policy. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the

meta guideline is very clear: Always fill in the summary field. Straying too far from this, as ThuranX says, means individual edits may need to be looked into and moreover, a lack of edit summaries makes trust very hard to come by since there is not a hint of what an editor has done without taking the time to look at diffs. Hence, the disruption. Moreover, editors will find things go much more smoothly if they use meaningful edit summaries. Trust will tend to grow because it often takes only a glance at an edit summary by a known editor to get a quick take on what's been done. Maybe it's time to strengthen the policy, if only to make all this more clear to those who haven't thought about it. Gwen Gale (talk

) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a Help Page from Meta - it has all the compellingness power of a userspace essay. Edit summaries can be helpful to explain unobvious edits, but they're worse than chicken entrails for tracking problematic editors. There's no need to harrass Fasach Nua over it. WilyD 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yah, it's nice if editors remember to collaborate and communicate and save boldness for actions that don't cause alarm. Dlohcierekim 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About the underlying conflict here – removal of unnecessary non-free images – Fasach Nua is correct, as usual. Explained to RedSpruce on Fasach's talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FP@S: You might consider not handing out "edit warring" notices over instances of single reversions of legitimate images, given, as pointed out just below, that there is no consensus for the strict deletionist interpretation of policy you are attempting to enforce. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come off it already, FN is being disruptive. This has been debated and there is currently no consensus to adhere to FN's or BetaCommand's myopic interpretation of policy. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it may well be the case that FN is a deliberately disruptive editor, using super-strict interpretation of WP rules where another disruptive editor would use vandalism. A scan of his contributions shows only a few marginally constructive edits, while the bulk are deletionist and destructive. Yeah, I know; "AGF" and all that, but AGF shouldn't mean "Ignore All Evidence."

talk

) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasach, at times, is a bit vague, myopic and stubborn, but it is possible to have meaningful discussion with him if you try. About this thread in particular: lack of usage of an edit summary does not require any admin intervention. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that there is a clear choice available as to whether or not you're prepared to be respectful of other editors. This is just one example of FN's consistent pattern of contempt for other members of the community. Sure you can choose to skip edit summaries. You can wipe your talk page clean after every message and disdain to answer questions put to you. However, if you want to conduct yourself in a wilfully rude and ignorant manner you can expect to be taken to task for it (and end up repeatedly at ANI) just because you can't be bothered to behave in a civil fashion. But maybe its all just the mob talking ... Wiggy! (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Signsolid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is getting very emotional in his/her attempts to delete longstanding material from the

14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talkpage, and issued Signgold a 3RR warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Signsolid has made a
  WP:POINTy edit with a petulant summary, which has been reverted by a third party. As I have been involved in the immediately prior matter I do not feel I can deal with this. Is there anyone else willing to risk being referred to as a "weirdo" and advising the editor of the consequences of releasing content under the GDFL as well as violating point? I would comment that since they already have a 3RR warning that disrupting the encyclopedia in such a manner may be considered blockable, but I would be inclined to issue a further warning with explanation in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

2 pro-circumcision editors removed my edits which changed the article from over emphasising the link between Jesus and circumcision, which would mislead readers into believing circumcision was related to Christianity or a Christian ritual as the image was posted right next to an image of Jews circumcising a baby. Yet there's no mention of Islam, who by far most circumcised men are Muslims. Signsolid (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am uncircumcised, and do not consider myself religious (while acknowledging I am the product of a predominantly Christian culture). I find the appellation "weirdo" quite cute, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce, Batman! We've got one section about semen, and two sections about circumcision, in this otherwise-dignified discussion page. Things must be a little slow at the old corral today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Have some patience, and we can work the ejaculation article in here, and bring it all to a head. Atom (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WOWWWWWW! LOL! --

(mailbox)

03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as though Signsolid's edits would have made a vas deferens anyway... HalfShadow 04:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not only laughing hysterically (how's that for irony?), I'm prostate on the floor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you really laughing that hard? Sorry, I guess that sounds like a rude question... I just know that people are prone to exaggeration on the internet, I didn't mean to come off as a

WP:DICK... --Badger Drink (talk

) 03:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of block

Folks, I blocked an editor as noted on her talk page here: [22] for using "the F-bomb" in this [23], edit summary. Please review it and tell me if I over-reacted. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Needed a warning. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a prior warning, so a block may have been a bit much. I'd suggest a storng warning, and seeing if the user calmed down from there.

talk

) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the block seemed a bit harsh. I didn't look this over thoroughly, but generally a block isn't warranted for something like foul language unless there is a prior pattern of incivility going on. Shereth 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not quite certain that the statement "We don't use the f-bomb on Wiki" is accurate. The oft-cited

WP:FUCK is a prime example to the contrary :) Shereth

15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert and post a warning. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but a dirty word by itself is just a collection of letters. If you want to block someone, please look for the substance below, above, and around the word. I.e. I don't want to see us censored for George Carlin language, even in edit summaries. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking for saying "fuck" is just fucked. "Fuck you" is one thing; "I fucked up" is quite different. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, that's fuckin' harsh gies. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much the word as it is the intent. Saying 'I fucked up' is much less harsh than a blatant 'fuck you', which implies a personal attack. Nonetheless, I think it was going a little bit overboard to block for this alone, I would've just warned for incivility. No worries though, I'm not an administrator. —

06:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Several single-purpose accounts and an IP keep readding the same tract of text supported by an unreliable source to the Pickens Plan article. I'm quite sure it's the same person, who opens an account, adds the text with the link to the POV attack site, and then does nothing thereafter. A couple days after I remove the text again as unsupported POV from an unreliable source, another account pops up and readds it.

The accounts:

• 68.209.177.178 (talk · contribs) [24]
• Peakoil30 (talk · contribs) [25]
• Just The Facts (talk · contribs) [26]

The last account is a suspected sock of

) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is possible. But just a question, User:Pythagoras is not indefinitely blocked, then why he would create socks? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is not employed exclusively by blocked users, for the purposes of block evasion. I have dealt with a number of cases whereby editors have created sock puppets that stage a somewhat weak argument in opposition to the sock master (in an article talk page discussion, request for comment, etc.), in order to make the sock master's particular argument appear even better: ie., the sock master argues with his/herself...

Of course, I'm not saying that's what's going on here: I was simply noting that indefinite blocks are not a stead-fast criterion in identification of sock puppetry. In the more complex cases, it often isn't.

(talk)

12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Another user (Klaksonn/GreenEcho/Monkaa - user banned for disruptive editing and sock puppetry) has some how figured out how to register my former user name, and make edits as me. I used to be George.Saliba, but request a name change to George. The user has found a way to make edits as me.[27] Need immediate help with this issue. ← George ^[talk] 12:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, reverted. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure what loophole the banned user found that allowed them to register/log in to my old account, but as long as the vandalism is stopped, it's all good. ← George ^[talk] 12:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Also, I don't think the IP compromised your account, the IP created it and it redirected to your account since you were renamed. --

talk

) 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Joji Obara, a user claiming to be Mr. Obara's attorney has requested that the article be deleted because it contains false and libellous claims: [28]. I suppose the user should be advised to contact OTRS or the Foundation or something, right? Should anything be done to the article in the meantime? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the user has also placed a (very detailed) prod template on the article: [29]. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, contacting OTRS would be best.

WP:NLT isn't applied there, thank goodness :) Plus we can confirm the email address the email is sent from is that of an attorney, etc. etc. Daniel (talk

) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually asked about it to a user who has edited criminology a lot.[30] Anyway, the alleged lawyer sepecialzing in such field seems to really exist in Japan according to googling.[[31]--Caspian blue (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would be a good idea if some of the BLP experienced editors examined the article closely, including checking for newer sources.

15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP user will complain about the article, even if the article is rewritten. He seems to strongly support Mr. Obara.--ACSE (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has many good sources. I don't see a case for deleting it. Obara was convicted of nine rapes, even though he was acquitted in the Blackman case where the woman died. The lawyer seems to object to the inclusion of sentences about Obara's Korean origin and early life. This material seems normal and I don't know why it shouldn't be included. The lawyer mentions the claim that Obara may have raped as many as 400 women. A range of 150-400 rapes is cited as the opinion of the police in a newspaper report. Published sources have speculated that Obara was guilty of Blackman's murder, and ask why the prosecutor couldn't get a conviction. There is no reason why we shouldn't link to those newspaper opinions that I can see. The lengthy PROD nomination does not identify any specific statement as libellous. I don't see the alleged BLP problems with this article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the {{

GRBerry

16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Until our name is change to "Speculationpedia" we should allow no defamatory material which is attributed to "speculation" by unnamed police, prosecutors, or anyone else.

WP:BLP is a policy which requires that any derogatory or negative material be extremely well sourced, Unnamed gossipmongers do not qualify. Edison (talk

) 02:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Joji Obara - Legal Threats

Legal threats are occurring on this article. Expert attention required. Exxolon (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• IP blocked for legal threat -- he can contact the Foundation if he's serious. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see a threat. I see a lawyer asking for incorrect/libelous information to be removed here and here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't either, which is why I didn't block, then NawlinWiki did block before I could comment here. The meaning is clear though, there is an implied threat, so I'm ok with the block, even if I wouldn't have done myself and left only a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I should say I really respect NawlinWiki. When I first read the post, I thought the same thing as Nawlin. However, I'm trying to understand how these requests from an attorney are different from this request from an attorney which was discussed ad nauseum

here. Toddst1 (talk

) 22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Making a demand that an article be removed, and calling it "libelous", very clearly implies that the writer intends to sue if his demand isn't met. I believe that is substantially different from requesting the contact information for Wikipedia's counsel. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have deleted numerous personal attacks from Wikipedia article, and have referred to the defamation as "libellous" withoiut contemplating, threatening or engaging in any legal actions. The block seems well intentioned, but premature and based in mindreading. It is altogether appropriate for an attorney or a defamed person to request that incorrect, unsourced, libellous material be removed. This is in accord with

  WP:BLP. Edison (talk

  ) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but I don't imagine you've ever said "I'm an attorney and I demand that this article be deleted because it's libelous." Again, I consider that a very clear implied threat. Also, demanding that an entire article be deleted is not the same as asking for questionable material to be removed. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an attorney and{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER works for me — CharlotteWebb 14:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Brand new user

and has exceeded the 3 revert rule by far. I've tried to help guide him along, but he's not seeming to get it.

Since his talk page is brand new and I recently archived my own, I'm not going to link to diffs on them, you can follow the discussion there. I try to be civil and helpful with him, but he does not listen. You can see the discussions on both of our talk pages User_talk:McJeff User_talk:Aharon42.

I'd like to note that despite the fact that this looks like a 3RR report, I filed it here because I think finding someone who can help give the guy some instruction would be better than just getting him blocked before he'd been active for 24 hours.

• First edit
• Second edit, a revert
• Flagarant BLP violation, spanned several edits
• Revert #2
• Revert #3
• Revert #4 though this one added some new content too.

At 03:42, 9 August 2008, after his fourth revert, I informed ďthis user of the 3RR and WP:BLP rules. However, this did not slow him down - he readded the BLP violating section 4 times.

• Revert #5, please note that the editor who reverted Aharon was not me.
• Revert #6
• Revert #7 though this time he attempts to cite a source, as such, I didn't undo this one.

I guess I want to repeat that I don't want to get the guy in trouble, he just doesn't know any better. But I really need someone to step in and help with this situation. McJeff (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A block for the 3RR breach would be appropriate now, and I will post a welcome on his talkpage, as he hasn't had one yet, and this would help him further as he can read the linked policy pages. Chafford (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked

WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk

) 07:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I decided to withdraw from reverting prior to filing this AN/I. To be quite honest I'm recently removed from making something of an ass of myself over a rollback misuse, and I'm highly willing to listen to behavior suggestions. McJeff (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he posted this on his talk page. 6. The mediators and McJeff will be hearing from other friends who are as disgusted by your behavior this evening. I mean this in the sense of legal means of course... McJeff (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a legal threat. I think he means that he won't be doing anything illegal. i.e. they wont be coming round your house to beat you up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked him with EdJohnston permission. I have put some advice on his talk page on how to behave which i hope he will follow. Naturally I shall keep an eye on the situation for a bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A

) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's also got himself in the non-existent category

Category:Wikipedians that poop, which, by the common rules of grammar, should be Category:Wikipedians who poop. Just sayin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well,

a/c

) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to keep bringing this up every six months until someone gives you an answer that you like? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm going to keep bringing it up until it is dealt with rather than ignored. VegaDark (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just my recollection, but I believe it was dealt with previously, and the link removed from the user page. (If this becomes contentious, I suppose I can go find the links.)

So really, the question is: Are you going to continue to act contrary to repeated consensus and convention by continually restoring the link to your usepage? - jc37 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm! CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what harm is done by SchmuckyTheCat being in this category.

☄

13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that a single user in a single parent category by itself isn't all that harmful. Then again, a single vandalism, a single speedyable page not being deleted, a single user in a mainspace category, etc. isn't all that harmful either. It's when we set a precedent to allow others to do so is when it becomes harmful. If the consensus of this UCFD can be ingored, why not others? What makes this UCFD so special that that SchmuckyTheCat gets a free pass to ignore the consensus reached? Nothing, and he should be held to follow it like everyone else. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No more harm than is done by the several members of

Category:Rouge_admins. DuncanHill (talk

) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, that category is nonexistant. Category:Wikipedians by religion isn't. I'm not complaining about users in redlinked categories, I'm complaining about users in categories designated as parent categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask that question the other way: what harm is done to the project when self-proclaimed user-space cops threaten contributors with "enforcement" for having a little fun and humor on their user page -- which is supposedly the one place on Wikipedia where we relax our rules and don't take ourselves seriously. Chasing aways users does more harm to the project than users in misplaced categories and redlinks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That same argument could be made for someone repeatedly re-adding a fair use image to their userpage, or a mainspace category, or material meant to circumvent a deletion. None of those would be tolerated, and this shoudn't be either. VegaDark (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, copyright legal problems, deleted content and userpage humor are not equivalent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I didn't say they were equivalent, I simply stated they would all be enforced. VegaDark (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They're user categories. The only time we really seemed to agree about an actual disruptive use of them was when people might pose as admins who weren't. Other than situations like that, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Somenewuser

The edits seem clearly to auto-confirm the account, or at least to test auto-confirmation. They also don't appear to be constructive edits, but rather testing protection, etc.

I'm hesitant to block, but I'd like others' thoughts, and also, other eyes watching. - jc37 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link there. ;-) The edits appear disruptive, and this edit does seem a bit suspicious as to his intentions here. Merits a close watch, certainly.

a/c

) 23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest. It looks like someone who is up to no good, certainly. OTOH would a vandal write autoconfirm in the edit summary? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh..... Haven't you ever received spam from a misconfigured spambot? With subject of "$SUBJECT" and a body of "Dear $USERNAME, please buy $PRODUCT_NAME for growth". This looks like someone using a bot to auto-confirm accounts. I bet that someone forgot to replace "Somenewuser" with "generate_random_username()". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's funky, but not problematic per se. Best to keep an eye on this one, but no action necessary (except perhaps a notice about unconstructive edits) as of yet. Shereth 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

After this edit[32], I have created

Snigbrook ^(talk)

03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE: ==

== "I have reported your disruptive behaviour to the administrators noticeboard. You may want to comment. Alun (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)"

Reply: Just for the record Alun/Wobble as I have said before I don't "hate" the REF article, but you are far too possessive about it and always have been - to the apparent point of 'obsession'; I have asked Lynne Elkin in Oakland, California to have a go at trying to improve it. Nitramrekcap (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: While I have always enjoyed a good robust discussion with Alan/Wobble about the Rosalind Franklin article - but as an 'editor', he monopolises the article which wrote himself - and will not "accept" any changes of any description to it. He unfairly accuses me - see above and on his/my discussion pages of hating the article = I DON'T, I JUST DO THINK IT CAN BE IMPROVED!

To this end I have asked the author of the forthcoming third biography of Rosalind Franklin to have a go at improving it, but I do wonder whether Alun/Wobble will accept her changes; BUT SURELY IT IS CONTRARY TO "WIKIPEDIA" POLICY FOR THE 'AUTHOR' OF AN ARTICLE - EVEN IF HE IS AN 'EDITOR' - TO TRY T0 MONOPOLISE AN ARTICLE - PLEASE CONFIRM? I can assure you that my own behaviour was not intended to be 'disruptive', but an attempt to show Alun/Wobble the error of his ways, i.e. his taking out vital details and thereby minimising the introductary paragraph.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Without looking into the specifics, I don't see any problem with asking another editor to come in and contribute to an article, Nitramrekcap. However, if that person, off-Wiki, is involved in some way with the subject of the article in question, then

(talk)

12:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony for the advice, but the real issue is still over Alun/Wobble's 'over-possessive' attitude towards the REF article/refusal to allow others to edit freely - as described above.

I have reminded him several times that the REF article is not 'his' to monopolise; I would not dream of removing other people's changes of the article for Francis Crick, for example (apart from vandalism) until I had debated the points in question, rather than just reverting them.

No the real conflict of interest is that Alun/Wobble wrote the majority of the REF article and is some higher form of Super-Editor, yet cannot entertain anyone else changing 'his' article!!!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know what the core issue is -- I simply didn't want to get involved. :) Complaints over user conduct generally need to be accompanied by supporting evidence: diff's to examples of incivility, etc. You may alternatively wish to file a

(talk)

13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I can't blame you! But IF the "core issue" is conceded to Alun/Wobble in Finland, then the REF article may as well be 'locked' for all eternity, and a notice put at the front of the article that THIS WAS WRITTEN BY ALUN/WOBBLE AND CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT HIS PERSONAL APPROVAL! That is effectively the dire situation which the article is currently in, ie in the hands of the one person who wrote it, is exceedingly possessive about it, is no doubt proud of all of HIS efforts - with some justification I might add, but is still prepared to take on all other editors - ie especially me! Somehow I don't think that is in the spirit of Wikipedia?

Alun/Wobble holds very strong views about the late R.E. Franklin's involvement in the major scientific discovery of the 20th century, ie the elucidation of the structure of D.N.A, a.k.a. "the meaning of life", and is not afraid to criticise anyone with differing views of the other main people involved, ie Crick, Watson, and Wilkins. This debate (for what little it was and still is worth) was inspired by the publication of James Watson's best-selling book "The Double Helix" (written in the literary style of himself as a young man) and the award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Chemistry - to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins - in 1962.

NO amount of retrospective re-writing of scientific history will make any difference whatsoever to the latter, as she died in 1958 and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Quite rightly her scientific reputation has effectively been 'restored' from the caricature in "The Double Helix", but surely that it is not the sole purpose of a Wikipedia article, i.e. to propagandise retrospectively for the reputation of a great female scientist who died some 50 years ago?

Everyone recognises that the real tragedy was her early death from cancer, when she could have gone on to do much more - especially if she had moved with the rest of the Birbeck College unit to the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, alongside other scientific 'greats', such as Brenner, Crick, Kendrew, Perutz, Sanger and her former colleague Klug. No doubt she would have been an undisputed Nobel Prize winner in her own right at Cambridge, had she lived. The fact that had she lived she would have moved from Birbeck 'back' to Cambridge was deleted.

Her major contribution to the elucidation of the structure of D.N.A. is well recorded on the new D.N.A. sculpture in Clare College's Thirkell Court, a fact which I duly repeated in the article word for word, but it was cut to pieces by Alun/Wobble and reduced to a meaningless handful of words - for which (ironically) a "citation" has been requested. This is the kind of thing which happens every time anyone other than Alun/Wobble himself makes a change to the article. I do wonder what will happen as and when the third biography of REF is published? Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the above material or essay is all speculation and original research. If she had lived, maybe she would have discovered the cure for the common cold or found out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. Unfortuneately, the world will never know. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things. This is not a case of

) 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The most recent reversion by the complaining user Wobble is about Nitramrekcap's attempts to tone down Wobble's POV-pushing rhetoric. [47] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Nitramrekcap's edit summaries, if you did you would observe that this has got nothing to do with pov-pushing. Because I had stated that the introduction did not need to be long, Nitramrekcap decide to have an editing spree where he removed as many words from the introduction to make a point, in violation of

WP:POINT. Edit summaries include "of complications arising" : these 3 words are not really necessary in an absolutely 'minimalist' opening paragraph![48], "made very important contributions" changed to 'contributed' (saving 4 words); "very important" is OPINION not fact? [49], "pioneering" deleted to save 1 word as this adjective is a matter of opinion, not a 'fact' without any reference added [50], "critical" deleted to save 1 word as this adjective is OPINION and not fact unless a reference can be added Alun? [51]. This is a content dispute, I have not pushed any particular pov regarding Franklin, and I'm surprised that anyone would make such a claim, Nitramrekcap makes no such claim. What pov do you think I am pushing? The section is the lead, as such it summarises the article, all opinions in the lead are discussed and cited in the article. This whole thing is due to the fact that I do not think it is necessary to put a quote from her death certificate in the lead of the article, nor do I think it is necessary to say that Crick, Watson and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in 1963 in the lead, especially since Franklin had been dead by five years in 1963. I resent being called a pov-pusher when I am attempting to keep irrelevant or overly detailed information out of the lead.[52] I suggest you look into the dispute in more detail before making accusations of pov-pushing, comment on content not users etc. I'd also point out that the lead has been stable for a number of years, with very similat wording.[53] Alun (talk

) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since yesterday, when I reverted his controversial edit to

19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong, this guy just keeps on threatning to have me block and stalking me, plus I'm still new here. I was not making personal attacks, and about the Wall E article, there was a disscusion about it, and agreed. The reason why I deleted my warnings is because I thought it was jsut messages like on myspace that can be thrown in the trash for new messages. I still don't know how things go on here, but all i want is Mizu onna sango15 is to leave me alone and to stop threatning me, that is all, I will behave and to edits right. I even started to read all the rules. --WikiLight14 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to delete the warnings on your talk page. Go ahead and do that if you wish. I think you two should just stay away from eachother's talk pages. Not much else that needs to be done really.--Atlan (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree, although I'll note I'm not the only one he's harassed (which is why I've brought it here rather than

Hello!

19:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

Thank you Atlan for understanding, I will totally listen to the rules for now on, plus I'm new here, and I will stay away from this guy's talk pages, but he keeps stalking my every mistake and threatning me, but I will not bother him, and hopefully Mizu onna sango15 will do the same. Plus, he made a big thing out of me deleting warnings and stuff from my own talk page that I already understood and read.

Later! --WikiLight14 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun has re-directed 2 active WikiProjects here and here. No discussion or agreement with any of the project members. Very bad form. Could someone please have a discussion with the user on Wiki-etiquette. Thanks! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've reverted him. Why don't you just leave him a note on his talk page? I don't see why an admin needs to do anything at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two projects didn't look active for me okay, sorry, i thought i was doing the best for the project okay sorry, wont happen again. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

) 00:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. DrugProblemm (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to report/discuss this is is this way → Tiptoety ^talk

00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - as well as the others socks. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh Alison, I might as well just redirect WP:RFCU right to your talk page. :) Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's what I'm talking about. Nice work yet again, Alison. So many sockpuppeteers, so few active checkusers... Enigma ^message 06:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Both of you are teh awezum when it comes to sorting out sockies :) Tiptoety - instead of patrolling RCU, all I need to do is follow you around :) - Alison ^❤ 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User making legal threat over a link being changed, see here. Thanks!

00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Taken care of. Didn't see the warning for legal threats in TW.....

speak out

01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Within minutes of my first edit on Wikipedia my phone rang. I picked it up and the person on the other end asked if I was "Wanque Job," the person who just editing the article on the Swedish author...and I said yes. Then the person just "went off" on me... I am upset and some what frightened; I thought you should have better security. Perhaps that other user traced my IP address? This is very disturbing to say the least. Wanque Job (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block, inappropriate user name. Corvus cornix_talk 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(

(talk)

01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, the guy directly mentioned my edit on Wikipedia...I am totally freaked out! Wanque Job (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - yet another JeanLatore/Wiki brah sock. Nothing to see here ... - Alison ^❤ 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. I'm not surprised... *sigh*.

(talk)

03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kostchtchie moved Bernie Mac and included an edit summary that included the word massive c*ck. Schuym1 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerk. Schuym1 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you saying that to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You typed "User already bl*cked" which seemed like you were mocking me because of me typing c*ck. Schuym1 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is simply a bit of humor, and you should know that

Wikipedia is not censored. You can say the whole word.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1 - relax. It was nothing personal. DS (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a sysop please restore the article this discussion for review. I saw the instructions for this, but I think it wanted me to place the request for this on the main page of DRV, which made no sense. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't lead anywhere useful. Perhaps someone archived the discussion prematurely? But if not, if you can state what article you want restored temporarily perhaps someone could be of assistance. Hope that helps (and that you see this before someone marks it as resolved and archives it...) ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- I've restored it, then blanked it. I am not aware of the template you put in to denote history only review (if there is one) so maybe someone else could add that. No comment on the DRV question itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked, could not find one. You might protect it however. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected. I do think there is one but I'm not really good at searching WP template space for stuff, it's so vast. No matter. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive462&oldid=1147983992"