Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gas chamber edit war

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

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

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

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

• Seems to be one holocaust denier in particular - User:Keltik31. He's been warned for his section blanking in the main article. However, looking back at his few mainspace contribs, I am struggling to find one that is constructive. His very first edit was to call Menachem Begin a terrorist, his second was to change the 'Capture' of Adolf Eichmann to 'Kidnapping', he removes the word "Jewish" from biographies .. apart from his edits to Grand National, practically every edit is POV and related to racism or anti-semitism. However, his edits are such low-level vandalism that he has few warnings. Comments on this account would be welcome. ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

I've indefinitely blocked the account - for evidence see the above linked RfC, in addition to more recent problems. Addhoc 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the RfC - if I'd seen that I'd have blocked him on the spot myself. ELIMINATORJR 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Following Keltic31's block, I've unprotected the Gas chamber article - hope that's ok. Addhoc 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malware linkage

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

Everything is in order here :) Qst (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone's sure it's malware, the IP should probably be blocked: it just inserted the link into History of erotic photography. I'm not going to block because I can't verify the linked file is malware: ClamAV says it doesn't contain any viruses, and there's no such thing as a spyware detector for Linux. --Carnildo 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle

User:Lost Girls Diary (contributions) seems intent to keep these two entries written in a style that doesn't fit even the basic tenets of Wikipedia's WP:MOSBIO (most notably, insisting that the subjects of the article be referred to by their first name throughout the article, rather than by their surname). This account may be using either meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry as well (stated that she "emailed a good number of interested parties from outwith wikipedia" - [1]). User:Ktbyosmosis (contributions) appears to be a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I suspect the same of User:Relister (contributions), who did not edit for a month, but returned after User:Lost Girls Diary began reverting (this user also appears to have the same preference for referring to subjects of articles by their first name in the text [2]). (Relister, Lost Girls, and Ktbyosmosis all once edited Katharine Isabelle within the span of 2 hours [3] - on July 23rd). When asked if he/she is a sockpuppet, User:Relister issued a legal threat. Not sure how to proceed with these two pages. All Hallow's Wraith 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, Lost, I'd suggest you be more careful about violating WP:LEGAL. The fact that others have found the style acceptable doesn't matter; Hallow's is prefectly right to follow WP:MOS. Second, read WP:OWN; I concerned about language like "if people come along and mess with the pages which I have looked after" from you. Assume good faith. Your edits summaries overall are not at all helpful ("unnecessary and ridiculous") so be civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV stance

SOPHIA (talk · contribs) has an obvious beef with Cristianity that she is allowing to interfer with wikipedia's NPOV stance. More worrying is that she is making accusations that people are sockpuppets because they disagree with her. Her edits appear to add no value to the Brian Flemming article but serve only to aid Brian Flemming's activities that I have described for what they are. I have brought this here in case it looks like a slow edit war - can someone external please warn/block accordingly. Thanks. 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

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

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

Please also see the article Brian Flemming to see the damage being done by SOPHIA (talk · contribs). 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Yeah, it looks like you need to read WP:NPOV, Hoofhearted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Also WP:BLP. Putting this on BLP/N, if not already there. Clearly needs watchlisting. Relata refero 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(indented) Indeed; what exactly do you want Wikipedia to do about Flemming's anti-religious beliefs? I don't see any admin action required here. ELIMINATORJR 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia content break down

In case people haven't seen it, the latest analytical 'break down' of Wikipedia's content is now complete. The statistical analysis is available here--Doc^g 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit warring blocks on Adult-child sex

I've blocked both Pol64 (talk · contribs) and Albert Wincentz (talk · contribs) for revert warring on Adult-child sex. Neither had actually broken WP:3RR, but Wikipedia:Edit war is policy and revert warring is quite disruptive. I am inviting review on both these blocks. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had just warned them both about 3rr as they are new users and neither had edited after the warning but its only 24 hours and I think it is a good call. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] WP:OWN issue on anonymous shared IP talk page

The person who is currently assigned IP address 66.176.85.30 insists on blanking the associated talk page User talk:66.176.85.30, which contains templates showing the hostname, ISP, and recent warnings from that IP address. The editor has far exceeded the WP:3RR threshold although I'm not sure that applies to talk pages. Several editors (including myself) have attempted to restore the page, but the anon editor seems to insist upon ownership. Any way to resolve this? =Axlq 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

(e.c.x2) Aside from the keeping-warnings-visible issue, 3RR specifically does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." Regarding the removal of warnings by a user, see WP:UP#CMT. The IP doesn't seem to be violating any sort of policy, as the removal of warnings should simply be taken as proof the user has received them. --Dynaflow babble 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

A look through the IP user's contribs seems to indicate that the same user has been on that same IP for quite a while, and it should probably be treated as we'd treat any other account. The warnings are in the history, and assuming CVU and other patrollers leave summaries when they leave the warnings, seeing what "level" this user on is a simple matter. [EDIT:] As for Comcast IPs' "dynamicness," see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:24.62.241.203. In the case of an educational institution, I'd probably say that the warnings and especially the {{SharedIPEDU}} template should be kept, but we're likely dealing with just one person here. --Dynaflow babble 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] User:Laertes d

Despite the apparent differences we may have in editorial issues, I have repeatedly tried to help this user edit within the spirit of civility of Wikipedia ( past: but I am sorry to have failed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laertes we are not discussing any dispute here, this is not WP:DR or anything. Also, please do not interfere with my comments ever again.[23] NikoSilver 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And this is the fourth time. For those interested in my initial comment, this is the diff. NikoSilver 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

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

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

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

if their sole purpose is to disrupt an article and they haven't contributed anything of value I don't see any reason to permit them to keep editing. If they have contributed material of value to the article though an attempt should be made to reach out to them.--Crossmr 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

To me, the article looks it should be stubbed immediately, and then either speedied, sent to articles for deletion, or cleaned up. Fixing the article often eliminates the incentive for edit warring. I hope this guidance helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was discussed in WP:BLPN#Amir Abdul Malik and two editors (I was one of them) didn't find it to be a BLP violation. The comments were also cross-posted to the article's talk page. So I'm not sure why it got deleted anyway as a BLP vio. The text needed sources added to it and some serious clean-up, but that wasn't possible since the article was protected due to the edit war among the users listed above. If the article should be deleted, then it should be deleted for other reasons. –panda 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] American Brit 2: Electric Boogaloo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:高 edit-warring and changing page name without consensus

A few days ago User:高 decided to unilaterally turn the longstanding disambiguation page Magnetic Hill into a redirect to Gravity hill. Another user has reverted this several times, and so have I, but User:高 continued to make this major and non-stadard change five times, even though he obviously had no consensus or even common sense reason for doing so. Looking at the edit history, User:高 doesn't seem to understand what disambiguation pages are for.

Now he has changed the title from Magnetic Hill to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), again without consensus, but even worse, he has started deleting articles listed on the disambig page, for example here [25].

There are now eight different articles associated with the term "Magnetic Hill", and there is no primary topic for the name. Believe me, I have been researching gravity hills for more than ten years (hence my username), and gravity hills are nearly always referred to as gravity hills. If anything, the tourist attraction in Canada is more commonly associated with the term, but there is really no single article which could be determined to be the most likely target for people searching the term. Therefore the disambig page should be at the Magnetic Hill title.

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

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

I would really recommend the WP:DR tools. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• No offense, but IMO that list of hills shouldn't be in the Gravity hill article or in a separate list. I had a look at the history of Gravity hill and it's mostly made up of passing editors adding dubious unsourced claims, even many of the gravity hills with refererences have sources that I wouldn't call reliable. Merge it back to Gravity hill and remove all the unverifiable stuff and that way it won't take up so much space. I agree about reverting the dab back to Magnetic Hill though. Crazysuit 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost comical to see one rant of consensus conveyed by scorn. I'll kindly point to WP:BRD. Apparently the first and third steps are lesser known than the second. 高 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (I'm the "other user" who reverted some of 高's edits, in case anyone hasn't looked at the edit summaries). I was assuming you thought the disambiguation page was a list of gravity/magnetic hills, instead of a list of articles called Magnetic Hill, but your recent creation of List of magnetic hills does appear somewhat pointy, given that the article's called Gravity hill and the category's called Category:Gravity hills, so the list should be called List of gravity hills.

Regarding your constant revertions to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), why would someone searching for Magnetic Hill (Canada) find it helpful to be directed to a page listing hundreds of gravity hills? Disambiguation pages help readers find the article they are looking for, just because the disambiguation page contains articles that also happen to be gravity hills doesn't mean it should be redirected to the article about gravity hills. It would show some good faith on your part if you moved the list of magnetic hills back to the main article and tried bringing it up on the talk page, editors respond more favorably to major changes when they are discussed first (and WP:BOLD isn't an excuse here for not discussing first, because your changes were clearly going to be controversial considering your other recent edits). Masaruemoto 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's migrate this to the relevant talk page without further aspersion, for the sake of step three. Perhaps in the process you could read WP:BRD-- bold edits are acceptable without prior discussion. Maybe next time step three can be mutually followed to prevent the needless elevation exhibited here. 高 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a username vio, since the username is in non-latin script?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arcayne

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

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

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

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

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

Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening diffs. (Overly critical)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me help you with the research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As user 71.203.223.65:

1 - 12:33, October 18, 2007

2 - 09:59, October 20, 2007

3 - 16:19, October 21, 2007

As User DreamGuy:

4 - 13:50, October 22, 2007

5 - 13:52, October 22, 2007

6 - 13:54, October 22, 2007

7 - 13:56, October 22, 2007

8 - 13:58, October 22, 2007

9 - 13:59, October 22, 2007

10 - 14:00, October 22, 2007

11 - 14:03, October 22, 2007

12 - 14:12, October 22, 2007

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

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

Edit #10 is revert number three.

Edit #11 is revert number four.

Edit #12 is revert number five.

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

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

[edit] DreamGuy blocked

We have strong evidence that DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) engaged in incivility, edit warring, abusive sock puppetry, and gaming the system to evade ArbCom sanctions. I'll add that DreamGuy ceased editing under his own account from Aug 24 until October 22 ("he has not been heard from since Aug. 24, so maybe there's no longer an issue" [36]), and used a sockpuppet during that time while his ArbCom case we being discussed. [37] [38] [39] This was apparently a ruse to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. I am going to block the account for abusive sockpuppetry, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. The reason for the block is to prevent further disruption and sockpuppetry. If an IP appears to edit for DreamGuy, it may be blocked for block evasion. DreamGuy's block should *not* be lifted without a discussion and consensus. I am going to bring these matters to the attention of ArbCom and ask them for advice. The block is stated as one week, but may be increased because there is no reason to allow further editing until another arrangement is made. The sanctions imposed were based on an incomplete understanding of the situation. Had ArbCom known that abusive sockpuppetry was occurring during the discussion of the case, I think the result would have been different. I invite discussion, but please don't refactor the block until we come to a consensus. DreamGuy may comment on his talk page, and the comments may be copied here. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you seriously just block an editor for month-old edits, or are am I just missing something? I don't understand quite what the point of this in-depth investigation of old edits in order to find something blockworthy is. Dmcdevit·t 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the sake of sanity can someone please cite a single edit from this month that justifies a week-long block? Dmcdevit·t 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, to all concerned, if there are disagreements about Jack the Ripper, try WP:RFC instead of edit warring. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

That's called gaming the system. When an editor causes an article to be protected for two weeks and refuses to cooperate with other editors, do we let them carry on until they drive away the other contributors? When an editor uses a sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and to edit war, do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month? Excuse me for using common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, instead we drive them away with spurious blocks based on stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary, I see. This is a bit ludicrous. I note that there was no evidence of any edits this month warranting a week-long block, and you explain that it was because the article was protected... so you blocked him out of the blue because he wanted to edit war, or what? This attitude that "do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month" is a license for witch hunts by editors' opponents and branding people without regard to their actual value for the project. I guess the whole "blocks are preventative" concept is quaint now. This what I think you should have done if you thought the continued protection was harmful (which of course is true): unprotect the article with the clear directive to all involved editors that any edit warring will result in an immediate block. But block for real misconduct; don't block willy-nilly for old or presumed misconduct. I also notice that you weren't, apparently, so concerned about the article's long protection to, say, unprotect it after blocking the editor that you blocked so that the article could be unprotected. Bizarre. Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] unresolved?

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

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

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

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

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

I think this incident has played out and that complaining about three week old edit warring after the editor has been blocked and unblocked isn't a good use of effort. I recommend dropping this. If the edit warring resumes, post diffs promptly and ask for help. You don't need to question the other editor first and wait for response. Simply post the diffs and say, "This looks like edit warring. Could somebody please investigate." It's not a violation of assume good faith to call a duck a duck. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If you are unhappy with the result here, your final recourse is to file a complaint at requests for arbitration. Otherwise, you can let bygones be bygones. If any editor causes problems for you in the future, you now have a much better idea how to file an actionable complaint. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] TyrusThomas4lyf

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

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

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

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

I would say that a block is the more ideal solution at this time since this sock-puppet is a front for a banned user (by community consensus -- for example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TyrusThomas4lyf, User_talk:TyrusThomas4lyf, and User:TyrusThomas4lyf). However, if I had to choose one among the many articles that this user has chosen to infect, I would choose List of National Basketball Association teams by single season win pct‎ for protection since this user is constantly reverting sourced information. In other words, repeated long-term vandalism. Myasuda 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Improper AFD closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The closures may have been a bit brusk, especially the first one, but they appear to have been done in good faith, and they all appeared to be heading for WP:SNOW keep. Even the first one, which appears to be the fastest closure, looked unlikely to generate ANY result better than "no consensus" given the number of keep votes already cited, with reasonable keep rationale. It would be nice to see most of these stay active for a day or two, but I see no evidence of malice here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Perhaps here he should have ideally waited to let the snow get rolling, but I really don't agree that this is a persistent problem. This is a perfectly acceptable, I would venture to say nearly unobjectionable, withdrawal in which no one wanted the article deleted. If someone comes across and does want the article deleted, they can start their own AfD. This was an extremely clear snowball case, and IMO a perfect example of a non-admin closure. The three that he closed here had, by my best speculation, virtually no chance of resulting in deletion. Looks like mostly uncontentious housekeeping to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, there really is no such thing as a valid WP:SNOW speedy keep. WP:SNOW is not an invitation to break proper process (it is an invitation not to dig in your heels and climb the Reichstag dressed as spiderman when process has already been broken; quite a different thing.) WP:IAR is also hardly ever a good reason to speedy close an AFD, because a running AFD doesn't "prevent people from improving Wikipedia"; proper process shouldn't be broken unless there is a problem to be fixed, and there very rarely is a problem in simply letting an AFD run its course. Speedy keep is only for dealing with irregularities of process, such as bad-faith nominations, and for retracted nominations. So-called SNOW speedy keeps should almost never be done, and certainly not by non-administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

[edit] Inappropriate restoration of article skirting deletion review

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

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

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

The reason for recreation is inappropriate, the consensus that was developing was that the speedy delete was correct and a lack of response to the availability of sources establishing notability was no reason to ignore the existing consensus. If further content was found that could be added then it should have been noted at the DRV and the consensus allowed to change. There is no requirement or pressing reason for the article to be recreated prior to that happening, and the DRV should have been allowed to be completed. I think Rhythmnation2004's actions to be very pointy, and suggest that they be admonished for them - lest this establishes a methodology by this editor which may well cause disruption in the future. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• OK. I've userfied the article to User:Rhythmnation2004/JAMAA and deleted it. I will be informing the user and placing a note on the DRV page. The new version is very possibly notable, but that doesn't mean we can end-run round procedure, or chaos would ensue. ELIMINATORJR 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read We can end-run round procedure. Chaos is SOP around these here parts, so long as it make the encyclopedia better - and adding sourced articles is the very essence of creating this encyclopedia. Give people who are trying to add sourced content the benefit of the doubt. Don't handicap them. Don't drive them away. Help them. WAS 4.250 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to help them in a way that satisfied everyone. Obviously that wasn't successful. ELIMINATORJR 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] MIGO 99 (talk · contribs)

MIGO 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)- appears to have uploaded some images without licenses or sources, and he is placing them in an enormous range of articles. When people are reverting these edits he is putting the images back in and he has already broken WP:3RR on Mido (footballer could an admin sort this mess out? The sunder king 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Two of the images have already been deleted, the rest will be deleted later if no license or source is provided and if the user keeps reverting please inform them about 3RR. Oysterguitarist 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request semi-protection for Bindeez while it's on the front page.

Resolved.

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

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

Just for future reference, you can use requests for page protection, too. Qst (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScottAHudson

ScottAHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user has a long history of disruptive edits and serious ownership issues. He was even blocked on September 29 (2007) for this type of behavior. Today, he once again made made changes to a Big Brother related page that went against a known consensus for that page. I reverted the edit, with an explanation in the edit summary as to why I did so. I also left another notice on his talk page explaining this. I've left him at least 10 notices and/or warnings in the past 3 months and others have also. Apparently he hasn't learned from his last block. This user makes very little contributions to the main space and focuses his time on his, what I feel, are pointless subpages. This point has also been discussed with him on several occasions, as evident from his current talk page, and the previous removed comments. Perhaps an admin can leave him a note (if he even deserves more warnings) as he is obviously not taking me, nor anybody else seriously. - Rjd0060 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Socking

This section has been moved. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#SockPuppet KingPuppy 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User claims plausibly to be sock of indef blocked User:LtWinters

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

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

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

[edit] Please indef block this WR troll

Resolved.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bizarre behavior from Jehochman

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

[edit] Requesting Block of 209.175.168.14 (talk · contribs)

This ip has repeatedly and blatantly vandalized random subjects. Please investigate and impose a block. (Empty comment for archiving purposes) Fram 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin review required please

Resolved.

IMO this attack on me is unacceptable, especially ther threat to take me down. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the comment could have been expressed in a more politically correct manner, but to put it bluntly, I think your behavior in the pedophilia-related articles has lately been very provocative. Remove it if you'd like, but I think it's a very understandable, if not desirable, reaction to your involvement. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? IO have not been at all provocative as all, the contribs I make there amply prove this. I am looking for admin review, and that is not you. And no, it is completely unacceptable for supporters of pro-pedophile activism to advertise a collective attempt to take me down so that they can pursue their well known pedophilia pushing agenda on wikipedia, an agenda the arbcom are very keen to clamp down upon. Your defence of such a statement is not needed either. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...he'd have even less adversaries to protect his victim, due to his general lack of rationality...that's why I'm trying to create an atmosphere that he might be taken down by collective effort."

Wow, that's not just a failure to assume good faith, that's a threat of harassment, defined as a personal attack in WP:NPA. Since Squeakbox has done nothing wrong it is totally inappropriate for editors to talk about getting rid of him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, from my (sometimes involved) perspective, it seems that you have

• Removed pertinent discussion threads from other users' talk pages and WikiProject talk pages, against the reasonable requests of editors(*)(*)(*)(*), edited acceptable comments made by others(*), and removed criticism of your behavior (*)(*)
• Labeled virtually everyone who contested the neutrality of your behavior as a pro-pedophile advocacy activist and/or POV-pusher(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused several editors you didn't agree with, myself included, of being SPAs, trolls, sockpuppets or meatpuppets(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused editors of using "dirtier and dirtier" tactics(*)
• Used derogatory terms like "ridiculous and childish", "idiot", twat, etc.
• Neglected to assume the assumption of good faith(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Made a large number of comments in a tone that some, though not necessarily all, might interpret as mocking (examples: (*)(*))

That's what I've observed, which is a relatively small portion of all the related discussions. None of the above actions are individually outstanding, but taken together one can understand how they might cause other editors stress. I have noticed that a number of editors have complained about your behavior recently.(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) I'm sorry if anything I'm saying offendeds you, but I feel strongly that if you're going to request that action be taken against an editor you are in dispute with, the broader context of the dispute should be disclosed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly you do not provide diffs and the only diff I could find was to a completely innocent archiving of my own talk page[72] which doesn't give me faith to even check your other links. You on the other hand have persistently disputed arbcom blocks in any public place you can find in spite of having been repeatedly told that such comments need to go directly to arbcom, and your behaviour has resulted in the locking of User talk:A.Z. which can hardly help that user. There are editors who disagree with my assertion that the known socks of banned users should have their comments removed. Opposition to my assertion does not make that opposition right or my removal of them wrong. I am not sure what your comments are doing here but an admin has reviewed anyway and given a warning to the user. Supporting a user trying to take another user down is not a good idea and I urge you not to get involved in such an enterprise as it goes against what wikipedia stands for. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when questioning a block on the user's talk page became an offense, least of all when the questioner is uninvolved and is simply expressing a concern shared by a majority. It was User:JzG who made the decision to delete the discussion and protect AZ's talk page, not me. If you're interested in discussing this further, let's switch to user talk namespace. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy blocked the page after you reverted his deletion of unnecessarily inflammatory talk page discussion was going on there, he did it in response to your not leaving his deletion in place but instead reverting and continuing the thread. The arbcom have made it clear that if you want to discuss this issue you should email them, you should not revert the deletion by an admin of inflammatory material and continue the inflammatory discussion. Feel free to continue this conversation on my talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit that my phrasing has been misunderstandable due to my irate status bakc then. What I meant to be done to you could have been anything from an admin warning to a temporary block because people keep talking up against you so that you might refrain from your irritative forms of behavior.

Now that I've had a few hours to cool down, let me describe my, and other people's, problems with you further. Of those mentioned by User:XDanielx, I personally have the most problems with you "labelling virtually everyone who contested the neutrality of your behavior as a pro-pedophile advocacy activist and/or POV-pusher", "accusing several editors you didn't agree with, myself included, of being SPAs, trolls, sockpuppets or meatpuppets", "using derogatory terms like 'ridiculous and childish', 'idiot', twat, etc.", "neglecting to assume the assumption of good faith", and your general mocking to derogatory tone. Whenever somebody critizizes you or complains about your irritative behavior, you yell that you're being "threatened" and in turn immediately threat people yourself with a likely block or ban to the person trying to tell you what you're doing. User:Will_Beback seemingly has been supporting you in these tactics more than just in my own case, which is obviously why a user has referred to your continued tactics of immediate threats, intimidations, and blocks as a "Krystallnacht". User:Strichmann and I have been maintaining that your two are always in the minority, no matter how many people you two accuse and subsequently ban as "sock puppets". Of those still around, User:Homologeo, User:HolokittyNX, User:Ssbohio, User:Digital_Emotion, me and User:XDanielx here have voiced continued severe frustration with your behavior User:SqueakBox, apart from any topics to talk about.

I've tried to think of an equivalent to the one of your behaviors most irritating for me. Do you feel it would be fun if in every single post, somebody would be yelling at you offensively that you'd be "probably making money and/or a career of the illegal status and infamitity of the topics of child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them because you're either a therapist, pharmacologist, politician or similar" and that therefore, nobody must listen to you and you must be hindered from editing? It's not only offensive and provocative what you're doing, it's also disruptive for any discussion you're in, and considering the Wikipedia policy of permabanning any certain self-identifying sexual deviant, as well as your own profession on your userpage that you endorse permabans of any PPA "activists", your constant accusations are far from being as harmless as the equivalent I've tried to give above. One might say that by any single "PPA" accusation you've made, you've therefore could've done far more harm than what I did when I expressed on my userpage that I feel you ought to be taken action against.

On top of it, how common is it to directly request administrative action from admins against editors without telling the people in question, publically yet behind the accused person's back? --Tlatosmd 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loose cannon, chasing rapidly changing IP editor

Recently, there have been a number of contributions to various Kent-related articles that are coming from IP numbers (80.0.110.148, 80.2.201.239, 80.0.117.237, 80.1.88.210, etc.). It looks like it may be the same person. The problem is that although the contributions seem well-intentioned, the editor appears to be blissfully unaware of WP's guidelines (POV, linking policy, verifiability etc). So far I have been unable to communicate with him/her because the IP address keeps changing.

It seems heavy-handed to revert, but at the same time their contributions need extensive fixing and it would be good to introduce them to Wikipedia principles. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? How does one chase an ip-editor? Pgr94 12:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When reverting/tidying up leave a request to discuss the edits on the talkpage in the edit summary? Include a non visible message (I know it can be done, just not how - who made me sysop!?) in the text that is being edited to the same effect? LessHeard vanU 13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn't seem to be working yet. I added a comment at the start of Broadstairs but as yet no effect. This editor seems rather concentrated on his changes. Would it be reasonable to block editing from unregistered users until he has made contact? The Broadstairs and Thanet articles would be sufficient I think. Pgr94 14:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marinidil

Resolved. Account blocked as a sock of banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the AdF for West Garden Grove admits to creating a new account for the sole purpose of commenting on the AdF. CelticGreen 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they don't use it to votestack or disrupt, I don't see the problem. east.718 at 00:42, 11/12/2007

Did you look at the page? They have definitely disrupted the page. They've also left unveiled threats on other users pages. CelticGreen 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide differential edits to substantiate your claims as I can't find any evidence of disruption; although the user could use a lesson in diplomacy. Also, restoring warnings constitutes harassment on your part. east.718 at 01:26, 11/12/2007

Hardly. I was replying to his accusations in the article that I was vandalizing the page. How you cannot see his comments as disruptive is beyond comprehension. Admitting he created the account so his long time account wouldn't be blocked for his behaviour? How is that not an admission of guilt? He accused me of "fixing" the vote while I was only putting comments in order. He further accused me of deleting comments, which I did not. Seems to me he's the one making baseless accusations and hiding behind a new user name. Oh, and that "differential edits" thing makes 0 sense. And a cursory check of his latest edits are definitely disruptive and do personally attack. CelticGreen 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, just please leave me alone Celtic. I have done nothing wrong, I just created a new account to use because I didnt choose to use my original account for this purpose when I learned about this issue. I have done nothing wrong. I just want you to leave me alone, stop harassing me, and everything will be alright. I have done nothing to you and have not attacked you, I would appreciate the same consideration in return. Are you now going to report me for every little thing? Admins dont have time for complaints like this. Just leave me alone I would appreciate it. Marinidil 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is CelticGreen. I have only conformed to Wikipedia policy by reporting an abusive, incivil, sockpuppet. I have not harrased you. You left the first message calling me a coward and accusing me of deleting comments when all I did was move comments to the order of their arrival on an AdF. You also hurled same accusations against Esanchez. I would call that wrong and I'm not harrassing you. This is not on your user page, it's on the admin notification page based on your behaviour. See this edit [73]CelticGreen 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I never accused him of deleting my comments personally, but the Anon who he/she argued with did. And there was truth behind that accusation, this Anon's comment was deleted [74]. Marinidil 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted, it was moved to the bottom of the page in order of arrival on the AdF.CelticGreen 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• User Marindi warned. Please go back and make useful contributions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi-Under legitimate uses for socpuppets, this is one of the statements: "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area."

That is simply what I am doing, and it abides by the rules of Wiki. Can you explain my wrongdoings? Marinidil 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that it is obvious that Marinidil used the sock account for disruptive/abusive purposes. However, CelticGreen's "harassment" (as quoted above) by re-adding the warnings, and then accusing me of being involved in sockpuppetry was completely uncalled for. - Rjd0060 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Marinidil is a sock puppet of banned Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I've blocked that new account along with some IPs and an old account he used to contribute to an AfD. Anyone who works on articles related to Orange County, California should keep their eyes open for him - alhough he was banned a year ago he keeps popping in every week or two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VoABot II defending badly damaged article

Resolved.

Monica Lewinsky was tripled in size by a vandal, and three others, myself included, have had their efforts at reversion undone by this bot. Mine was [75]. This bot is presently quite exploitable. 68.183.26.130 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been fixed, with no bot revert....yet. - Rjd0060 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot seems to only revert anon edits, not admin ones. —Kurykh 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well anons and new users only. Voice-of-All 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why doesn't your bot limit to 1RR like some other similar bots? —Random832 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death threats by User:Jahary

Resolved.

Hi, my user and talk pages have been repeatedly vandalised by a user, including a death threat (here). I also have some vulgar language on my user page edit history that I was wondering if I could have removed by a sysop.

Thanks so much!

Malzees o.0 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely and am working on undoing his vandalism. east.718 at 07:33, 11/12/2007

Thanks again!! I was hoping I'm going through the right channel. Malzees o.0 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and done. Making death threats isn't very smart when you reveal your real-life identity at the same time. east.718 at 07:40, 11/12/2007

[edit] İş Bank commercial featuring Atatürk

Can one of you Wikipedia Admins go and look at this article and tell me if it is valid to nominate it for deletion at wp:afd ? I think it is because it sounds like an advertisement for a tv commercial but I want to be sure before I nominate it.

Thanks,

Tovojolo 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything can be Afd'ed. The chances of it passing vary from article to article. Three things must be considered:

1. Verifiable?
2. Notable?
3. Sourcable?

Based on the sources (Independent and appearances of reliable) and who is involved (long dead founder of Turkey), I would say that it probably would not pass a AfD but I have been wrong in the past :) spryde | talk 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(And this should probably be on the administrator's noticeboard instead of the incidents board as no admin action is required here...) spryde | talk 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the nature of Turkey's laws about Ataturk, it might be notable, if there's some discussion about whether or not it does or does not defame Ataturk or Turkishness in any fashion. But they'd need citations. ThuranX 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Relatively rare occasion: one set of people want to AfD an article and another set have sent it to GA candidacy. Relata refero 12:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that rare. spryde | talk 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defamatory edits

Hi, please can you review/remove the defamatory edits (non current) this vandal is making after a final warning - [76] thanks -- Daytona2 14:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was a bad WP:BLP violation, but it's for 29 October so tere seems very little point in taking action at this point, especially given it was an IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they were talking about their current edits not this, and the user has seemed to stop. Oysterguitarist 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. For instance - [77]. Thanks -- Daytona2 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable response. It's Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified. See WP:LIBEL. Thanks -- Daytona2 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like the information was already removed. In any case, you don't need an administrator to revert vandalism. If you see libelous material, there should be no reason why you can't remove it yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, but the information is still visable in the posting history. Having seen it occur in other articles, I believe WP policy is to remove all traces from public view, which includes the posting history. -- Daytona2 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is plain vandalism, there is no need to Oversight it. Oysterguitarist 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's usually only done when there is an actual complaint (by the subject or their representative) or in the case of very serious libel. Wikipedia has somewhere around 200,000 biographies of living persons. Almost every act of vandalism to a biography could be considered libel. Until we get a more efficient way for admins to delete individual revisions, it's just too impractical to do it for every instance. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Block of 65.3.194.85

Please see recent history of Pearl Harbor article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bighickey (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That IP has been quiet since yesterday. Likely he got bored and left when the bot kept reverting him. Also, that is an ISP's IP, so if he does come back, he could very easily have a different IP. I'll put a warning on that IP's talk page, though, so if he does come back on the same IP, he will have been warned not to continue this. Arakunem^Talk 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [78]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [79]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [80]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[81]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [82].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with Category:supercentenarian trackers AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is formatting, there is no issue. The issue is CONTENT. The content I added was highly appropriate. I merely documented the assertion that what I said about User:Aboutmovies was accurate: that he was the creator of the Mary Ramsey Wood page and therefore had a conflict of interest in this discussion, since he maintained that the woman was '120' years old, when research suggested she was around 97 or 98. User BHG claimed that some of the links didn't mention me, when in fact they did. Thus, in both cases the facts were on my side. The response, to delete them or 'claim' the issue is 'formatting', is a smokescreen.Ryoung122 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. Some persons have made themselves into 'Wiki-stars' and have made process more important than 'content', making Wikipedia an end unto itself instead of the tool to arrive at the theoretical purpose, education of the public. I don't believe that 'uncivil behavior' should be excused. I do believe that persons who 'claim' someone else is being uncivil, OFTEN are being UNCIVIL themselves. For example,

How about THIS comment:

Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the typical, BAITING, FALSE comment that BHG has posted. When the facts were on my side, the response is now an appeal to emotion. I note that her track record isn't clean, either, with disputes such as on the Erdos numbers page and others asking her to tone things down a bit. Saying that "I have to seriously question whether anything (they) write can be trusted" is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, given that what I said was VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL. Deleting references that support my statements hardly constitutes a fair, balanced, or civil approach. If the arguments get heated, remember it takes both sides. Remember user BHG started it, by deleting appropriate comments on a CFD page. If one as the accuser claims something is not 'verifiable' then, at the least, one would expect that the 'defendant' could post evidence of verifiability. Deleting proof is simply muzzling free speech.Ryoung122 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anyone has ever been "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", or even that such a position could exist. and the problem is that Robert does not seem to understand the sweeping nature of the claim being made. He probably intends to claim to that his role as a fact-checker for a popular publication is not limited to old people in any set of countries, but the inability to distinguish between the two is what leads me to query whether any of his claims is credible. This sort of hyperbole is one the things which fact-checkers should be rigorously hunting down, rather than employing it themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I'd like to note some items in your response. First, as Natalie asked above, please furnish diffs -- or at least links -- to the pages you refer. I have spent a couple hours trying to find any trace of this exchange where BHG acted inappropriately. (I assume you are referring to this talk page.)

Second, there is a very clear line between commenting on a person & commenting on their actions; sometimes it is easy to blur the line between them. However, BHG's comment you quote above can be read or seen as a comment on your actions: she is making an observation based on your claim that you are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Taken at face value, the words "in charge" imply that you are responsible for their welfare -- you make sure that these people get enough food, receive shelter, are attended to by a doctor, and so forth. While I know from other contexts that this is not what you meant -- IIRC, you are in charge of maintaining a list of these people -- rather than clarifying this statement, or explaining that you were quoted out of context, you respond with a strongly-worded paragraph with six words capitalized for emphasis! (Using capitalization for emphasis is not like adding hot peppers to salsa: using a little goes much further than a lot.)

This makes for very unpleasant reading, & I wonder whether you are aware of how intimidating your responses can be. And I speak from experience. The one time we crossed paths was at the article Katr67 refers to below. Looking back I'm amazed that although I was only marginally involved in that dispute, reading that conversation left me with an unpleasant impression of you. Every point you made could have been done with fewer words & far less emphasis. Have a look at the discussion at the link I made above, to the CfD on Erdos numbers: people were passionate, even angry, in that discussion, but I rarely saw anyone need to capitalize their words for emphasis.

All of this leaves me with an impression of a person who is given to making sweeping statements, & who responds to questions not with careful, rational arguments, but impassioned assertions accompanied by wild gestures. I don't think this impression is accurate -- seeing how you have a job that depends on meticulous work -- but it is very hard to reconcile these two. I believe this led to BHG to make her observation about you. Unless you change your style here on Wikipedia, more people will come to believe she is accurate. If that happens, they will act appropriately. -- llywrch 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that the conflict at the Mary Ramsey Wood article that Ryoung122 often brings up, (and in which he cited himself as source, which is what necessitated creating an article about himself) was not about whether she was 120 years old, a claim which nobody involved in the article was defending, it was about how to present the information that debunked the claim (which was made in 1908 and not by any of the involved authors, who were simply quoting cited sources). The article history and talk page gives the details of the mediation I requested by Trusilver, involving myself and Aboutmovies, with additional comments from Peteforsyth, who also made some attempts at mediation. I walked away from that article because of the relentless accusations of bad faith by Ryoung122, and I hesitate to comment here now because it's likely my comments will bring additional bad faith accusations, making my editing experience on Wikipedia stressful and unpleasant. If any editor previously uninvolved with the Wood article can point out how my actions there might be characterized as bad faith, however, I will certainly apologize to Ryoung122. Katr67 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I saw on the talk page of that article it appeared that Young was attempting to brow beat anyone who didn't accept his word and opinions as irrefutable fact. Assuming good faith aside this guy seems to have a self-installed God complex. He appears to be rude, patronising and bullish. From what I saw you have no reason to apologise for anything. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since I’m apparently a topic of discussion, I’ll introduce my introduction to RY. After writing the aforementioned Mary Ramsey Wood article using reliable sources and no original research, I received this lovely message from RY accusing me of re-writing history. I replied to RY that he should really read the article and notice that it was sourced, so no I did not re-write history, I regurgitated it, otherwise that is a violation of original research. I and others then “battled” RY over his changes to the article, not because we cared how old she was, but as I think the talk page bears out, that it was about core Wikipedia policies of verfifiability and reliable sources (plus some WP:LEAD issues and undue weight thrown in for good measure). Instead of dealing with the issues in a civil, measured manner RY wanted to debate the whole age issue and god knows what else, when we just wanted sources per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A, and then presentation in line with the WP:MOS. That’s all. We said the age discrepancy should be included, but it needed sources. Then RY’s auto-biography gets nominated for AFD, and well yes I will comment on that AFD as anyone can. I didn’t stalk RY to find it, I just followed the link he inserted for the autobio in the Wood page. Low and behold it is an auto, and didn’t assert notability per notability guidelines. So yes, I will vote for delete every time in that case, as to me that is the only reason to delete an article (outside of legal issues with copyright). And my past AFD participation shows that is how I roll. Not notable with WP:RS that provide enough substantial coverage, delete. One article with substantial coverage is not enough for me. So when the article was back up for AFD, I reiterated that argument (of which BHG's looks similar to my breakdown of the sources provided). Now, had I actually had a vendetta, I could email the large number of editors RY has ticked off to inform them of the AFD so we could all dance on his grave and start an offical anti-RY cabal. Additionally, I would have also become involved and voted for deletion of the category partially at issue. Then I would have gone around nominating all the other articles for AFD that RY has started. But I didn’t, and I would not. I have not with this or any other editors. I have several “enemies” if you will on Wikipedia that piss me off far more than RY, and I don’t go around nominating their articles for AFD or vote in AFD debates about articles they are involved in. Tempting as that may be, it is not inline with Wikipedia guidelines/policies and that is what is important to me, hence the strong policy based arguments (not random collateral issues like the meaning of the Wiki or Universe) I make whether it is in AFD, CFD, or just in general on talk pages like the Wood article or more recently on this article. This is not about RY, its about Wikipedia, despite rantings to the contrary. I will NOW TYPE in caps for emphasis, that makes my argument better. Oh wait, where’s the bolding and italics? Aboutmovies 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More canvassing by Ryoung122

Just as he did at a recent CfD, Ryoung122 has now done some stealth canvassing of the AfD on his autobiography: see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9032

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now. Carcharoth 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryoung122: more canvassing and a sockpuppet

In addition to the self-promotional disruption, Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has acknowledged creating a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122). To add to the stealth canvassing ([83]) he has also engaged in extensive partisan canvassing on wikipedia: the AFD on his autobiography (see [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]), to which he has now posted over 4,000 words. He also been engaging on in more stealth canvssing off wikipedia, through his yahoogroups mailing list: [95], [96], [97]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked at the language he uses around the place - he's being pretty savage to people who don't support his "supercentenarian" neologism, falling into the classic trap of believing that not accepting the label implies disrespect to those so labelled. He's also quite blatantly engaged in sockpuppetry, vote stacking, and our od favourite vanispamcruftisement. I think he needs to clean up his act or get out of town, but he's unlikely to calm down while the deletion debates are underway since xFD is pretty brutal. What say we suggest a brief Wikibreak? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I did NOT use any 'sockpuppets' to 'VOTE' in any AFD debate. I did nominate the Keeley Dorsey article for deletion, which was withdrawn due to a formatting error (I haven't figured out how to create a 'second nomination' yet). The second ID was created with the first! What, that isn't obvious? Just the way that I suspect that User:Guy was once Just ziz Guy, You Know? Is that you?

How about this:

You claim the word 'supercentenarian' is a 'neologism', yet the only 'neologistic' aspect about it is that in the 1950's and 1970's it was hyphenated as 'super-centenarian'...and in the 1870's the term used was 'ultra-centenarian'. Thus, both the concept and the word are NOT new. This is just one of the many, many inconsistencies that others have not admitted to. Compromise and consensus-building must come out of not merely 'assuming good faith' but listening to what the other side has to say. I categorically deny 'vanispamcruft' on the grounds that there is no financial interest or .com link being used; all material is non-profit and scientifically oriented, save Guinness World Records, which in that case hardly needs mentioning as a COI since every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'

So, I ask: your NOT accepting that the word 'supercentenarian' existed before I came along, what does that mean? How can I assume good faith if others are resistant to even the facts? And while a Wikibreak seems like a good idea for everyone involved, continued tagging of articles like Habib Miyan (not created by myself) or A Ross Eckler Jr (not created by myself) is simply giving me 'more work to do' at the same time there are quite a few others. A non-Wikipedian e-mailed me that what is going on appears to be like Sherman's "March to the Sea." Consideration and rules-following must be in both directions. Both BHG and KittyBrewster have, at the very least, themselves engaged in questionable activity including COI nominations, name-calling, deletion of relevant material or crumpling into infoboxes, votestacking, canvassing, etc. Of course it's not called that when someone like them does it. But that's what it is, and the IP addresses show it.Ryoung122 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, no wikikipeda notability guideline says that "every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'" The fact that you claim this suggests that you either haven't read the guidelines or that you pay them no attention.

As to your counter-allegations I have not canvassed anyone, I have not votestacked, I have not offered opinions on the XfDs other than at the XfD pages or when Robert and others have posted to my talk page, and I have no interest in these issues for there to be a conflict, as Robert would be aware of if he read WP:COI. If he has any evidence of any of these things, then he should post the diffs here, and if he he doesn't have the evidence then stop making accusations.

Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by the remarkably limited response to the evidence of disruption and votestacking which has been posted here. Should Robert and others conclude from this that such widespread canvassing, self-promotion and disruption of XfDs is acceptable, or at least sufficiently tolerated to be indulged in without being restrained? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• When the hell is some admin going to sort out the disruptive behaviour of Ryoung122? It's bad enough his overt and OTT canvassing for his autobio's AfD but when he starts resorting to canvassing other editors to help get an administrator blocked for trying to keep his behaviour in check, then that's well over the line. This guy needs cutting off at the knees before he does any more damage. So who's up for it? The evidence is overwhelming, c'mon, enough is enough now. ---- WebHamster 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. For the past few days Ryoung122 has been running a campaign of harassment, bullying and intimidation directed against BrownHairedGirl and anyone else who has supported Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Now he proposes on Carcharoth's talk page that BrownHairedGirl whose conduct has been unimpeachable throughout these constant attacks be blocked. Let’s have some action now please admins, as WebHampster points out, the evidence against Ryoung122 is overwhelming. - Galloglass 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ryoung122 appears now to have brought his harassment to this notice board. See below for his latest attack on BrownHairedGirl. Past time something was done about this. - Galloglass 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked indefinitely

This kind of behaviour is wholly unacceptable. It's disrupting the encyclopedia. My reasons are outlined in the block log, of which generally they are "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information", as well as (omitted in the reason), abusing multiple accounts. Now, hopefully, we can get on with doing something more constructive than pasting hundreds of diffs on AN/I about a disruptive user. Like writing a neutral, verifiable, stable, well-written article. I have a few of them that I'm itching to write, and I intend to do so. Maxim 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Maxim. Thanks. I'm afraid that I saw no indication that this editor had intention of engaging with wikipolicies on verifiabillity, notability etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current behaviour was not acceptable. I did see some faint signs of being amenable to working in a collaborative way, so I'm not going to agree that an indefinite block was the right thing to do. I would unblock if the user could demonstrate that they can change their ways, but they can't do that while blocked. I'm also wondering is who is going to edit the articles that this editor contributed? The ones that survive AfD, that is. Maxim, would you consider a long but not indefinite block? This editor has only been blocked for 31 hours previously, so possibly a long block might work better than an indefinite one. I fear an indefinite block at this point will only spawn more sockpuppets. Really, though, what is needed is for the editor to expand his editing outside his area of interest in order to gain more experience with Wikipedia. It is painfully obvious that there are basic things he has failed to pick up on, probably due to editing in such a narrow field. Carcharoth 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the question is whether he failed to pick up on them or alternatively chose not to learn about them/not to abide by them? He has been repeatedly pointed to a series of guidelines, and paid no attention to any of them other than occasionally trying to find in some of them a point he could use, generally out of context. I admire your faith, but in this case I don't see the basis for sustaining it. I prefer your suggestion on Ryoung122's talk page that a prerequisite for any unblocking would have to include an statement from him "you understand why you were blocked and what has changed in the interim period". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment. Ryoung122 was editing in a small area. His attitude was abrasive but from my point of view seemed to arise more from inexperience outside that area and an argumentative attitude (neither of which should be reasons for blocks, though his arguments did tend towards the tendentious). I understand that it was the specific threats and personal attacks and levels of disruption that got him blocked, but, to be frank, I think you could have handled this better. Your approach does, in my opinion, contribute to the level of drama sometimes. Like it or not, people not used to AfD and Wikipedia's policies do see nomination of an article for deletion or tagging as an 'attack'. Sometimes just talking to people before tagging or nominating will help. And not just for a day or two. Sometimes turning situations like this around take time, and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Slow improvement is sometimes better than scorching the earth and starting again. It is possible that Ryoung122 would never have reformed, but I don't think he was given a proper chance to do so. In my opinion, escalating lengths of blocks should have been used rather than an immediate indefinite block. If you read what I said above:

"He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now."

Well, that was actually meant for both you and him to read. From what I can see, you both ignored that plea for calm, and that disappoints me. At some point, when disputes like this erupt, it is sometimes better to step back and become less involved and let others report the bad behaviour. I can understand wanting to see the issue through to the end, but trust your fellow editors and admins to do the right thing. You could have eased off on the tagging and nomination (for now), filed the sockpuppetry report and then stepped back and waited for things to calm down. Carcharoth 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some truth in that. But an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block. And BHG has said she regrets this becoming such a trainwreck for RYoung122. The troubles is that that he took it very personally (in which he was wrong) and over-reacted. All is not lost for him. But he certainly needs to calm down during a time-out. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Carcharoth, I would have been happy to let others report the disruption, but that wasn't happening :(

As to your suggestion that I should have tried talking to Ryoung122, I did. I tried lots of times, and it was as futile an occupation as herding cats or building a house out jelly: he simply wouldn't or couldn't focus on any one point at a time, and poured out masses of irrelevant copy-and-pastes. It's all there on my talk page, plentiful and lengthy efforts to discuss with him, which I invite you to read if you have a few days to spare.

It's quite possible of course that I could have handled it better, but one of things that's not uncommon in this sort of situation is for people who didn't do anything to criticise the imperfection of those who did do something. The core of this an editor using wikipedia to promote his own work, with non-notable articles on himself and his colleagues, and dozens of unreferenced or barely-referenced stub articles carrying links to his own sites. It would have helped considerably to have had other admins pointing out that wikipedia has plenty of guidelines about this sort of activity, but I'm not going to criticise any admin for taking the easy route (we're all volunteers, fully entitled to choose when to get involved).

Most editors skate over the piles of unreferenced stubs they encounter along the way, which is understandable because there are so many of them, and most editors don't tag problematic articles or bring them to AfD. That's their choice, but it might sometimes be appropriate to reflect on how much easier is to criticise those who do identify articles which fall short of basic standards than to try upholding WP:V and its sub-policies. Why is it that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTE come as such a shock to so many editors? Could it be connected with the fact that raising these issues is so often a very uncomfortable process that it isn't done as much as it should be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make one point regarding the recent article for deletion debate about Robert Young. I posted on the deletion discussion page, and my comments were immediately tagged as if I were a sockpuppet, or some lackey who had been manipulated into posting there by the subject. This assumption seems to have been made because I have only posted and edited one article on Wikipedia (an article on the Jazz singer Jimmy Scott), the reason being that I only recently joined, and am learning the ropes about wikipedia (there is a lot to learn and we are not all born experts! Maybe some people forget that!). Anyway, I found am interesting wikipedia guidleine "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" which I think some of the people on this website would do well to have a look at. I was disappointed to encounter such mistrust and such assumptions merely for expressing an opinion. "Newcomers" may be a bit green, and have a lot to learn, but give them a chance please. You have no idea what an individual might have to contribute once they have learned the ropes. I just thought it was worth adding this because it seems some people may not have considered it. Cjeales 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjeales (talk • contribs)

I don't want to spam this discussion by posting the messages, but I'll just note that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is urging all 800 members of his " his mailing list to come and disrupt wikipedia's AfD process.

In response to Cjeales, newcomers are welcome. However, newcomers who join wikipiedia as a result of an outside campaign to change the outcome of a particular debate will find that their views will not be accorded so much weight until they learnt how wikipedia works and earned the trust of the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that the same person as Ryoung122? I peaked at the account because I was concerned he was trying to evade Maxim's block above (there ought to be a rule stated somewhere that "even if you were blocked for the wrong reason, don't make matters worse by evading the block by creating more accounts"), but it's an old, currently inactive account with no traceable activity & therefore no clear evidence that the user behind it is the same person as Ryoung122's. -- llywrch 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my typo: I meant Ryoung122, and have corrected my previous post. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat from U.S. military?

Resolved. dealt with on OTRS⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I get someone uninvolved to assist in a situation, and possibly give a NLT warning to a user who is threatening potential criminal charges over my reverting of their page blanking? This is all over the now deleted page Weather earl, this user's multiple blankings of that page, and their non-explanation/demands for the blankings on the article's talk. I'm a bit shaken by the threats, and even if I could write a civil enough response on their talk page, which I'm not certain I can currently do, I suspect that any more correspondence should come from someone uninvolved at this point. Also note that the editor in question regularly blanks their talk page, so if you want to see previous conversations with them you will need to go into their talk history. - TexasAndroid 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned them, it's a pretty b.s. threat to begin with so we can let it slide for now. -- John Reaves 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked (before I was aware you were warning them) on the basis that it was a clear threat of criminal charges. I've clearly stated that I'll unblock the minute the threat is taken back. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Ryan. I'm now more concerned after viewing the deleted page in question. It appears to be an article on a new military technology(?) The last deleted edit was also a legal threat, but given the WHOIS information, it may be credible. -- John Reaves 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it could be a legit legal threat. Maybe let the foundation know? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(After a couple of edit conflicts) My best guess is that he's trying to say that the page was "Sensative", if not "Classified" information, and it was from there that the idea of criminal charges built. If he's with the US Air Force, and in a position to act on the fact that WP had such information inproperly on the project, then I could see how it could somehow lead to such charges. (And that's a *lot* of "ifs".) OTOH, his demands for it's removal were far from clear on what the problem was, making it hard to know if he is for real, or a creative troll. OTOH, with the page deleted by another admin, the threats were mostly moot, which is a good part of why I recommended a warning, not a block. I'm an admin. I know I have to have think skin around here. But this one just has me a bit rattled for some reason. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP taces back to "Air Mobility Command Comp/Systems Squadron" with *.mil adresses, I'd say it's not his creativity. I'm in the process of sending an e-mail. -- John Reaves 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not an official legal threat; rather, I suspect that it is someone in the Air Force using their personal judgment of what is allowed/not allowed. Official channels would call the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, since the article cited no sources, deleting it was proper. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to demand official action they need to do so though WP:OTRS and/or the foundation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weather earl was deleted by prod "No real claim of notability, nor references to establish such.", but it looks noteworthy to me: forecasting weather at airfields is important to save lives and aircraft. Undelete it and AfD it? Anthony Appleyard 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to, go for it, anyone can dispute and undelete a prod. Though it might be best to wait until the situation is settled out a bit first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The version that was deleted should probably stay deleted: it appears to be the operating manual for a specific piece of hardware, and not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. --Carnildo 19:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't undelete; if it is a viable article based on sources you find rewrite it. The deleted version fails to meet Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, point 1 "Instruction manuals". On the other hand, it is pretty obvious from the page history which user blocked for making legal threats was the IP editor. GRBerry 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)