Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Re-visiting an indefinite block - Betacommand

Resolved

 – Boldly closing this discussion as no consensus to unblock. It seems that it is too soon for the community to revisit this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Re-visiting_an_indefinite_block_-_Betacommand

Special:Contributions/213.198.225.221

Seems to be a pattern of anti-czech and generally unhelpful edits- probably worth keeping an eye on. Exxolon (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the user -- specifically for this gem. In the future, if you see objectionable conduct from a new/anon editor, be bold and take it upon yourself to warn the user. That's why we have these. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional info - questionable edit on Slivovitz has been repeated by User:Camanic. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on a user who doesn't follow Wikipedia policies

I've been having some long-standing problems with User:EuroHistoryTeacher relating to WP:V, WP:OR and generally what might be described as his attitude here. The problem is that he edits low traffic articles so there is not enough of a community to keep him in check. His modus operandi seems to be editing articles related to Spanish colonial history, and primarily making maps of the Spanish Empire. As the areas shaded as Spanish end up being on the generous side, I ask him for sources to show it is not original research. However, he feels he is above providing references when I challenge material because he has studied this at university.

He clearly displayed his attitude towards Wikipedia here:

• [1] "h c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this"
• [2] "ok lol pero hay alguien (y tu sabes quien es) que es un "jihadista" en wikipedia lol" (referring to me, using Spanish but not realising that I speak a little; translation: "OK LOL but there is someone (you know who) who is a jihadist in Wikipedia LOL)"

Three examples of unwillingness to follow WP:V:

• [3] "he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable"
• [4] "i suggest you go to an institution and study Spanish history and politics before trying to shoot other people). Im not going to look a source for you, i already know it, but im sure somebody else can around here, i just dont have the time to satisfy your every doubts"
• [5] An edit today to British Empire, which got FA status a couple of weeks ago: he takes a section from another article and simply pastes it in there, no references, no nothing, even though I have already asked him to provide references using the British Empire article as a properly referenced example [6].

I can provide many more examples, including other users' comments in a Wikiquette alert that I filed [7]. Countless times I have asked him to learn how to provide inline references, and in three months of editing, not once has he done so.

As someone who invests a lot of time and effort in trying to improve Wikipedia (not to mention money, given all the books I have purchased to help with editing articles in the colonial history space), I am seriously at the end of my tether here.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this require administrator intervention, except for maybe topic blocks/temporary blocks? Request for Comment/Editor Assistance would be better for this as it is a content dispute more or less with ignoring policies attached, on the other hand, you have every right to remove material not sourced, and he/she might violate 3RR. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EuroHistoryTeacher seems to be POV pushing in questioning that an article on the German Army in World War II, with the Holocaust and all that, should mention any war crimes [8] and shows bad behavior or vandalism in posting a spurious "New message" notice [9]. He/she might become a useful contributor if the bad behavior were held in check, because he/she seems intelligent and articulate. This also holds the potential for considerable mischief. It is up to the user.My advice is to caution the user then to apply progressive discipline per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid the damage to Wikipedia which can result from unchecked POV pushing and vandalism/mischief. Edison (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have we seen this before? Protonk (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Have you seen similar edits in the past? Edison (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Don't be cute. Has a report similar to this been raised at AN or AN/I in the past? Protonk (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a report about his general behaviour that was raised by myself which can be seen on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#EuroHistoryTeacher, though the responses were a bit disappointing as they concentrated on the perceived problem of me issuing him with a strong template as an established user, rather than his behaviour, which, having read through his talk page archives, seemed to be a constant problem that others had experienced. His subsequent responses on his talk page to me, which I think could be described as perhaps "gloating" and being unduly combative (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher#December 2008) merely strengthened my sense that a strong warning (such as the one I issued) was justified, and that he would continue his troublesome behaviour rather than cool down, as was advised. I see this report as merely confirming this.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that others are having an issue. I really do think that the only thing which will get him to change his behaviour is a temporary block. It has honestly been non-stop with him since he joined the project in October or November, and it shows no sign of letting up. (reply to Noian: The content issue is one aspect of the matter, but how can you solve content disputes when the other side is completely unwilling to follow policies?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher had a false banner at the top of his page which duplicated the Wikipedia "New message" notice. I removed it, and he replaced in on the page [10] telling me to "go away."(edited to add: with the added "please.") It seems like vandalism. Is a new removal followed by a block warning appropriate, or does an editor have a right to place on his own user page or talk page a false notice that the viewer has new messages? Edison (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a thread about this roughly a year ago, and ISTR the consensus was that UI spoofing is unhelpful and may become disruptive editing and blockable. link. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is now deprecated per this guideline --Rodhullandemu 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "is now deprecated" mean it is allowed on one's talk page, or that it is considered disruptive, and refusal to remove it is ultimately blockable?? Is it in the category of "frowned upon but permissable?" Edison (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He has now, after my apology for the prior removal and a polite request, removed the prank "New messages" banner from his talk page. That resolves the immediate issue. Edison (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So is the upshot that Request for Comment/Editor Assistance is the right way to proceed here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review and unblock of User:67.159.50.130

Resolved

The IP User:67.159.50.130 has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy.[11] It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. Durova^Charge! 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can change the settings to a softblock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I told User:Spellcast since it was his block so he can review. If something has changed, he would know if others may be blocked for similar reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is no longer an open proxy, there's no need to keep it blocked at all :) (I can't nmap from here) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's still open, but I'm no expert with nmap, so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The above IP is within this range: 67.159.0.0/18 owned by FDCservers. Currently the range is blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian

Not sure where to raise this case to get the best out of it, but here goes:

User:Yorkshirian, a banned user (possibly double-banned by suspicion of being User:Daddy Kindsoul), has requested to be unbanned and unblocked on his user page. I understand that only the Arbitration dept. can make such a call, but I think more input is needed on the talk page eitherway. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Special delivery: unblock for Mr Yorkshirian, by Porcine Air Express. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What sort of edit summary is "oink flap"? I was expecting a sort of piggy cat flap. :-/ dave souza, talk 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help

Resolved

Hi, could someone please move English LGBT slang back to LGBT slang. I attempt to but was unable. -- Banjeboi 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate, Chinese restaurant syndrome

We need some wider input and help on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. The user is very prolific on the talk page but does not address the raised concerns, reinserts his content without discussion and edit summaries as repeatedly requested, and starts to extend this behaviour to related articles [12]. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. I see good faith discussion on the talk page. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see any reason for administrator involvement here. Nandesuka (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something you're missing. Monosodium glutamate was listed on Fringe noticeboard also; I went and was immediately thoroughly insulted. Apparently there is a conspiracy of editors trying to censor Wikipedia, and I am part of that conspiracy. I'm only there to gang up on this editor and prevent The Truth^TM from being put in the article. Adding a sectionheader to split an incredibly long thread I didn't even post in was "Your obvious attempt to highlight your own post with a new section" - mind you, I state again, I didn't even post there! I didn't know about Chinese restaurant syndrome, sigh. No, this editor is on a crusade to get a Fringe view inserted and is busily insulting and edit warring to do so. The "discussion" is anything but constructive. I requested a cite which met certain parameters; he told me to go find it myself. To support his desired edit, mind you. Meh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Content Committee?

Well, happy new year y'all, and since I'm here anyway, allow me to bounce an idea off a few heads.

The Ireland ArbCom case recently came to my attention. This strikes me as a dispute that is extremely important to 1% of our userbase, who are more-or-less evenly divided between the two sides, and mostly irrelevant to the remaining 99%. It also strikes me that we have a whole gallery of this kind of disputes, and that they tend to rage on for months and cause serious burnout in involved people.

We need a way for resolving these issues. I believe that an option may be to create a Content Committee, and have suggested as such on the Village Pump. Just notifying the people here to get more attention over there (so kindly respond on the VP rather than here, thank you very much). >Radiant< 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI... The essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User moving pages

A user is moving pages citing capitalization as the reason. I don't have time to do it right now, can someone else get to it? See his contribs. iMatthew // talk // 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Perhaps if you post on User Talk:Fram and discuss it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me; List of Events in Baton Rouge was improperly capitalized, as "events" isn't a proper noun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fram is an admin as well... Mr.Z-man 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

protection of indef template

I've protected {{indef}}, which redirects to the protected template {{indefblockeduser}}. I reasoned that it ought to continue to do so, and it is potentially in use on a large number of user pages - and not just nice users. Hoping this ruffles no feathers, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Completely reasonable. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering the template itself looks to be fully protected, doing the same for redirects is quite sensible. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

request for unblock

Resolved

15:45, 15 October 2006 Gurch (talk · contribs) blocked 刻意 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) .That's another name of mine. Now, I request for unblock. A lot of non-Latin names(e.g. User:에멜무지로) existing in wikipedia, I unified all the names, but was blocked indefinite here!--Keyi 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC) The name policy did not say non-Latin names were forbiden.(even on October 2006)--Keyi 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the best way to proceed is probably to make a request to be unblocked on the talk page of the blocked account. Given the new potential to unify accounts originating from Wikis that don't use the Latin alphabet, I don't see why the account wouldn't be unblocked here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

In 2006, non-Latin names were forbidden. That's no longer the case now (obviously) and Lankiveil is correct - log in from that account and make a request for unblock from its talk page. --B (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN. Since that time, he has persisted in disrupting Wikipedia - revert warring, making false/inflammatory edits that are likely to cause edit wars, making personal attacks, using talk pages as soap boxes, making false claims about policy says and then using those false claims for wikilawyering, etc.

He recently returned from several weeks on hiatus and resumed his disruptive ways, leading me to warn him that any further disruption would not be tolerated. He continued revert warring (in violation of the 1rr he promised to adhere to the last time his behavior was discussed on AN), so I blocked him. GoRight posted an unblock request template on his talk page, and unfortunately he found an admin who fell for the trick. Aitias unblocked him, claiming falsely that I was involved in the matter (I was not; I issued my warning to GoRight before ever reverting him) and that no valid reasons for the block had been provided (when in fact they had been provided in abundance. [13] [14]). To wit, since his return, GoRight has - literally - not made one single productive edit. Instead, he has been using talk pages as soap boxes for personal attacks, revert warring, removing relevant sourced information from articles - all in all, disruptive editing.

I think it's time to re-consider the GoRight community ban. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in his January contributions to justify a community ban, but don't really care enough to have a strong opinion either way. The one thing I do care about and think is important to say here is that Aitias acted correctly in unblocking this user. You were obviously a heavily involved admin. In addition to your reverting with him in that article, you were in a discussion with him on Talk:Global warming [15] and were obviously involved in August. Aitias acted correctly - if you want to propose a community ban, fine, but you don't have to do it by criticizing the actions of an admin who was pretty unquestionably in the right. --B (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you bring up no particular edits here. You say that all of them are terrible, but I'm not seeing it.

• One of his edits (edit-warring) was on adding a closing statement to a RfC on his behavior. Perhaps technically not permissible, but certainly not a terrible banworthy action. One can understand why he would want to clarify something in that sort of page.
• In another case he wanted to trim a long quote to the basic gist: the guy said he was not a global warming denier. This is perfectly reasonable given summary style.
• Edits like this and this are more troubling. It's disruptive to make inflammatory, unsourced statements on the talk page. And he apparently did edit-war to keep it in [16].

I'm not ready to say he should be banned, but if he keeps up with those kinds of comments, I could see a ban in his future. II | (t - c) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, in my above summary, I certainly discussed individual edits. Specifically, I linked to this edit of mine, where I broke down all of GoRight's edits for the last week into three categories - the inflammatory edits to talk:global warming you mentioned (and subsequent revert warring and wikilawyering on his talk page about it), the attempts to rewrite his history on the RFC, and the disruptive editing on The Deniers.

GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning. GoRight's other edit there, was to insert original researchy commentary from Solomon, as WMC explained on the talk page. In short - GoRight's edits to the article made it worse, and predictably, caused an edit war.

As to the third set of edits - the soapboxy personal attacks on the talk page, I'm glad you agree that are "troubling". But what do you mean, "if he keeps up with these"? He has a 2 year history of disruption here, including a prior block for personal attacks last summer. Even prior to the last August's RFC and community sanction, he had already been sanctioned for violating BLP with regard to William M. Connelly's biography, and making personal attack against WMC. It's not as if these behaviors are new or unexpected - they are par for the course with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm seeing evidence of disruptive bahaviour, has anyone any diffs of positive contributions since GoRight's return, or indeed at any time? . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked that question on my talk page, and the answer I got was a resounding silence. I think we can safely say the answer is "No" - by any reasonable standard, he has not made a single positive contribution since his return. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has at least one, here. Has there an RFC on this user? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was revered by consensus it appears, so it probably wasn't that good, and the general language is good enough probably for NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between "criticism from climate scientists" and "criticism from some climate scientists". The latter leads one of think that the criticism comes from a relatively small number of scientists, or that there is dissent, when in fact none exists. GoRight's edit distorts the reality of the situation, which is something common to much of his article editing. And, as you said, it was reverted. So that's still 0 good edits from GoRight.

For your other question, here's a short history of GoRight: GoRight caused much disruption in 2007, then left for several months, returning in mid-2008 and picking up where he left off - he started 9 simultaneous edit wars. He was brought to AN last June for BLP violations and making personal attacks. Then in July there was an RFC where a plurality of folks endorsed the idea that he contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, followed by an ANI discussion in August which resulted in community sanctions. During that ANI discussion, GoRight promised to turn over a new leaf - to be less disruptive, adhere to BLP, adhere to 1rr. I knew this was a lie (As R. Baley said, "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard"), so I began keeping track of his edits here. GoRight caused more disruption from September-November, then left for two months. He returned last week, and again resumed his disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on all this he falls into that cheeful polite POV pusher side of things. Or mostly polite. Either way, he's playing games with the articles and we can do without him, I agree on that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support a community ban on GoRight. After reviewing the evidence, that is the only option left for dealing with this editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from GoRight

Sigh. I was hoping to stay out of this discussion so that others could decide for themselves the truth of the situation, but Raul's ongoing litany of lies and distortions demands some sort of response.

This WP:HARASSment by Raul654 is beginning to get old. The simple fact of the matter is that he disagrees with my POV on AGW and things have escalated to the point where he is now using his administrative privileges to attempt to institute his own personal community ban against me. The edit he blocked me for speaks for itself on this point. Read it for yourself. There is nothing overtly disruptive about it. Check the edit summaries and commentary on the talk page as well and decide for yourself.

Here are a few points to consider if you believe that I am simply being hyperbolic here:

1. He began his campaign for a topic ban against me on 24 June 2008.
2. When this didn't yield the desired result, he decided to WP:FORUMSHOP by creating a User RFC against me.
3. The RFC itself yielded no consensus for any action as evidenced by the fact that on 3 August 2008 one of the co-certifiers proposed closing it since everything had pretty much already been said. The only reason it remained open is that a few people wanted to make some final edits.
4. On 7 August 2008 a WP:AN thread was started that was completely unrelated to the RFC was started, and while that thread ultimately resulted in a very narrow topic ban against me, the topic (pages related to William M. Connolley) was never even mentioned or discussed in the RFC. In fact, when some of the participants in the RFC learned of the WP:AN thread after the fact they expressed dismay that they had not been informed nor had the matter been mentioned in the RFC (see this, this, and this).
5. Raul now wants you to believe that the sanction against me was a direct result of his RFC (e.g. "GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN.") when it had absolutely nothing to do with the RFC.
6. Apparently since the sanction was imposed, Raul has been WP:STALKing me and maintaining a WP:Attack page against me here.
7. I guess he now wants to simply WP:FORUMSHOP the same topics again in the hopes of getting a different result.
8. My edit history will show that I have respected the topic ban against me and there have been no additional incidents in that regard. The topic ban specifically does NOT restrict me from continuing to edit global warming pages.
9. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am a single issue editor (this does not disqualify me from participation on wikipedia) nor that I am a skeptic. As I said in the previous WP:AN thread my purpose here is to combat the blatant AGW bias that is pervasive on these pages. This too is completely within intent, purpose, and spirit of being inclusive in wikipedia and trying to represent all points of view. Does that make me a POV pusher? From Raul's perspective I have no doubt that it does which is why he wants me to simply go away, apparently by force, coercion, and subterfuge if necessary. But from wikipedia's perspective? I don't think so.
10. This edit which evoked this response and description: "GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning." is a fine case in point. It is completely illustrative of Raul's modus operandi here. He is completely exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth of the situation in an attempt to bias you against me. He does this when he says that my sanction was a result of the RFC when it was not. He does this in the example above. If you want more examples simply look at the descriptions he has in his WP:Attack page then follow the links and read the context. In the overwhelming majority of cases there the outcome will be just like this example.
11. Raul wants you to believe that this edit is inflammatory and POV pushing on my part. But take note of the content that HE is arguing to keep in the article, not me. Did I simply trash the entire comment? No. Did I leave the operative portion of the point being made? Yes. Did I improve the article by removing biased material that was being given WP:UNDUE weight given its context and location? I claim yes. He claims no. But if you go read the section that comment is in you will find that the whole thing is highly summarized. The entire series of articles has been collapsed into a single paragraph. The original rebuttal paragraph was similar until this comment had been added. This single comment almost doubles the size of that section on its own. Is that, therefore, WP:UNDUE? I say yes. He says no. This is a simple content dispute and nothing more. So, who is POV pushing here and who is not?
12. Raul claims that I don't follow wikipedia policies. But WP:DISPUTE clearly states that disagreements should be taken to the talk page. When KDP reverted my edits I did so. Raul on the other hand simple committed 2 drive-by reverts without so much as an edit summary as to why. This is a very common modus operandi of his as well and this is but one example. So who's following policy and who is not?
13. Raul claims that he was not in a content dispute with me prior to warning me and blocking me. He then impugns the character of Aitias by calling him, in effect, a liar and saying that he falsely claims Raul was involved in the content dispute. Check the timestamps here and here to see if Raul is being truthful in his description of the chronology of the events.
14. Given our past history together I think it is fair to say that Raul and I are perpetually in a content dispute regardless of this most recent edit he is objecting to. He knows this well and he could have easily gotten an uninvolved administrator to make the block if it was justified. He chose not to because he knew he wouldn't be able to find anyone who agreed. That only left him to use his administrative privileges to try and silence me. Apparently this is a recurring theme, see here and here and even comments already expressed by others in this very WP:AN thread. So, who is adhering to policy here and who is not?
15. Raul also knows that maintaining WP:Attack pages over such a long time is considered unacceptable. He himself has made that very argument in the past when it suited him. Now he chooses to ignore that reality. Note in his attack page that he claims I am maintaining hit lists. Those pages contained evidence I was collecting as part of the WP:AN discussion. Note also that those pages no longer exist and were deleted within days of the sanction being imposed against me. Who is following policy here, and who is not?

I would very much appreciate some action be taken to prevent Raul from continuing to WP:STALK and WP:HARASS me (as evidenced by his WP:Attack page and his repeated and failed calls to ban me), and most especially to prevent him from continuing to abuse his administrative privileges as a means of silencing me in all manner of content disputes because he simply disagrees with my POV. Since others have also commented that this is a recurring theme with him against other users on GW pages, perhaps a general ban on his using administrative privileges on GW pages would also be in order. Either way something should be done to rein him in as this current incident illustrates.

The questions you have to ask yourself here are, does this edit that he blocked me for represent the devious and nefarious attempt on my part to destroy the whole of wikipedia that Raul would have you believe, or does it not? Did he block me to prevent imminent damage to wikipedia or did he simply do it to punish me and teach me a lesson? In other words, was he following proper wikipedia policy or was he not?

--GoRight (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Community review of User:Raul654's block of User:GoRight

As long as we're going to discuss GoRight here, I think the community should assess whether Raul's block of GoRight was appropriate given their history. The two have an excessively nasty history to the point where Raul keeps a list of GoRight's so-called "disruption" and has attempted on multiple occasions to have GoRight community banned. To me, it seems rather obvious that Raul should not personally exercise a block on GoRight (except in a clear-cut case of policy violation or a violation of his topic ban, neither of which seem to be the case here as two uninvolved admins disagreed with the block here and he was subsequently unblocked). In my opinion, there is no way that Raul could have considered himself an uninvolved admin here and therefore he clearly should have asked someone else to perform the block or presented the behavior to the community. I'm far from being an uninvolved party in this whole mess as well so I'd ask the community to review this block and decide whether it was appropriate. Oren0 (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user--and without any comment on the value of either GoRight or Raul's contributions--blocking a user you're in a nasty, long-term dispute with is blatantly not okay. It takes 10 seconds to find an uninvolved admin, and if the user warrants a block as much as you say they do, they get it. There is no ambiguity in the policy, and as a longtime admin Raul should know better. I suggest we review this further. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we use a little common sense here? There is a difference between "a nasty, long-term dispute" and "a nasty, long-term disruptive editor whom one admin has been trying to get to Straighten up and Fly right". Don't conflate I've blocked you, warned you, and tried to get you to follow policy with I'm involved. This trend is not helping the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maintaining a userspace list of perceived problems for many months (I have just sent it to MfD) does make an admin involved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To save others the trouble, the Mfd and the page. That is "involved" in watching a formerly banned user, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding: DuncanHill must not have read Raul's talk page, where immediately above the section for this Mfd, Raul states the page is in case GoRight goes to another Rfc or to Arbitration.[17] KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I had not seen that, but I must say coming up with a "it's just in case there is another case" justification 5 months after starting such a page rings a little hollow to me. Other editors are not allowed to maintain such pages over such a long time "just in case", so I do not see why Raul should be. I assume he has access to a computer, so it should not be too hard for him to maintain such a list if he wishes off-wiki. If KC is going to copy his responses to the MfD here, so shall I.DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

During the ANI discussion in August, I had no doubt in my mind whatsoever that GoRight was lying when he said he intended to improve his behavior, and that it would inevitably wind up back at ANI/RFC/Arbcom. I started that page so I would be prepared when it happened. (That's why "evidence" has been the first word on that page since day 1) Raul654 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, I realize you tend to support Raul almost universally, but the rule's real simple: don't block people you've had personal conflicts with. Get an uninvolved admin to do it. It's real, real, real simple, costs nothing, and eliminates drama. Wikilawyering about intent is not helping the encyclopedia, and I'm a little disappointed (but unsurprised) that you're unwilling to even admit that Raul MIGHT have done wrong here. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 13:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? I don't support anyone universally. I support or disagree as my intelligence and conscience dictates. I suggest you back off, I am tired of slander and insult this particular day, and you are the last straw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this a little, there's certainly been a resumption of disruptive editing by GoRight and in light of past disruption a block seems reasonable. Whether it will lead to an improvement in behaviour is something to watch. The suggestion that any admin with past experience of a disruptive editor should therefore leave them to continue disruption to "eliminate drama" is a recipe for more disruption, and probably more drama. Vague allegations and what appears to be a personal attack on KC's motivations are not the way to improve the encyclopedia. . . dave souza, talk 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is more than just "past experience". If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user, particularly if you are actively arguing with them on a talk page. WP:BLOCK#Disputes says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." The proper course of action would be for Raul654 to recuse himself from blocking people for global warming-related issues except for obvious spam/vandalism and the like. This isn't the first time there has been a concern here with Raul's use of the tools in global warming articles. Usually criticism is just shouted down, and I'm not under any delusion that anything different will happen this time. One of the biggest failings of Wikipedia is its inability to deal with abuse of the administrative tools. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is shouted down because there's nothing to it, just like this complaint here. You are saying, in essence, that only an admin who has never interacted with another user can block him, which is a recipe for problems if that user is disruptive in a non-obvious way. Hell, even the policy you cited doesn't support your interpretation (Policy says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute"; you say "If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user". These are substantially different statements) Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I'm in perfect agreement with B on this issue. The block constituted a blatant conflict of interest. — Aitias // discussion 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raul654, you were involved in a particular (and current) content dispute with this user and have not just “interacted with” them at a random point of time. — Aitias // discussion 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Aitias here. To paint this as if you've just "interacted" with GoRight is disingenuous. If I had to pick a particularly heated conflict I'm aware of, the one between yourself, GoRight, and WMC would probably rate near or at the top of the list. There is a lot of history here and you are about as involved with GoRight as any user can be involved with any other user. Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with us debating whether there was a COI - but B, are you sure you want to say "abuse of the administrative tools"? Surely even if your view is that Raul was involved, this was a misjudgment? IOW, was the block itself bad, or merely who did it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If he was really under 1RR, then a block by an uninvolved admin could have been appropriate. I looked at the previous ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Continued_baiting_and_harassment_by_User:GoRight and it looks like, among other things, GoRight agreed to "3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments." Unless there is a community imposition of an absolute 1RR, all this says is "I will hold to 1RR unless I don't want to", which is not anything I would think enforceable by a block. In any event, Raul in part provoked the incident by using the admin rollback tool to revert GoRight's edits. Everyone knows that is considered to be an insult. If he were not an admin, it wouldn't even be controversial that his rollback privileges would be taken away. Blocking is to be used to prevent disruption, not to win a content dispute. Was there any real threat of imminent disruption here? I'm not seeing it and so no, the block was not a good block. --B (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He was not blocked for violating the 1rr he claims to adhere to. He was blocked for a continuing pattern of disruption, which is blockable, and for which there is a great deal of evidence, and not a single productive edit to balance it out. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor was I the one who provoked the incident. GoRight provoked it by making this series of inflammatory edits [18][19][20] which were rightfully reverted by Kim [21] as being disruptive. Goright reverted Kim [22]. I warned GoRight against any further disruption on GW articles, and afterwards I reverted the article back to the version that has been there for weeks prior to GoRight's editing. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive. --B (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. [23][24][25] Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you posted the wrong diff? Are you really providing comments by yourself and WMC as evidence that an uninvolved admin would find GoRight's edits disruptive? Also, of those 3 diffs, only yours makes any hint of the edits being disruptive. Because other editors disagree with something or revert it does not mean that the original edit was disruptive, and it certainly doesn't make the edit blockable. Oren0 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this another one of your "they should have used these these magic words" arguments? Kim, WMC, and I were the ones who responded to GoRight's edits, and no one else did. And all of us argued against them. Neither Kim or WMC called them disruptive in so many words, but if we were to ask them, I'm pretty sure they would call his edits disruptive.

And you're right, that reverting an edit is not, by itself, evidence of disruption. On the other hand, 94% (34 out of 36, according to the RFC) of GoRight's edits are revert warring. That's a pretty conclusive sign of disruption. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh...especially when I remember one of my comments from the past: "I don't think it's advisable for a block to be imposed by an admin who is considered involved - none of us want a very avoidable controversy and drama to follow...Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)" Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From a past interaction with Raul654 over a similar issue, I feel safe in saying that anyone who feels as User:B does would be wasting their time posting further here in the hope of persuading Raul654 to do anything differently in the future. Whether other avenues are likely to lead to other results is dubious, of course, but the method of behavioral modification by noticeboard harangue is even less likely to work here than for other admins. Thatcher 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What could Thatcher be referring to? Mike R (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. Nobody questions that Raul does very good work for Wikipedia and that his work over the years with featured articles is some of the finest service given to Wikipedia by anyone. But the blind eye that is turned to his use of the content tools in content disputes is more than troubling. Also troubling is the link Mike posted. Are you saying that one of the people in those examples is Raul or am I reading too much into this? Is there a checkuser who would be willing to answer the question for me of whether or not I have ever been checkusered? --B (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Raul654 per our standards "involved" on global warming articles?

That is the standard of whether or not he's allowed to act as anything but a regular editor on these, same as for any other admin, arb, checkuser, or whatever else. Same rules apply to every admin, of course. So, is Raul an "involved editor" on global warming, or has he just been acting as an admin? If the former, he shouldn't even block any GW-related things beyond blatant vandals. If the latter, he can block, Checkuser, etc. Which is it? rootology (C)(T) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the edit counter, here are his most-edited articles:

I certainly would not consider him uninvolved in the topic area. In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, he was in a discussion with GoRight at Talk:Global_warming#More_recognition_of_dismissive_reports_and_data, so even if you don't accept that Raul should never use his admin tools controversially in the global warming topic area, in this particular case it's pretty unquestionable that there was an active dispute with this particular user. --B (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For discussion purposes, I looked up all the Global Warming related blocks he's done (excluding the hundreds of User:Scibaby and Scibaby Checkuser blocks:

• October 2008 block of Logicus, 24 hours for "Disruption on the global warming article"
• September 2008 block of Dalej78, 24 hours for "Repeated disruption on global warming related articles; numerous talk page warnings (mostly blanked)"
• November 2007 block of Obedium, 1 week for Nov 16 vandalism of global warming article, and this edit was his only November 16 edit to Global Warming. Later indeffed by Raul as a sock of someone.
• October 2007 199.82.243.71 block for 1 week for Edits to Great Global Warming Swindle; overturned by Ryan Postlewaite. That would be these edits: [26][27]. The IP has no other edits to anything even related to Global Warming.
• July 2007 block of 70.144.68.148, 1 week for "POV pushing on Great Global Warming Swindle". Were the edits pushing a POV? Sure, but there wasn't even a warning (note his talk page doesn't even exist).
• July 2007 block of Brittania for edit warring on Global Warming. The edit warring was three total reverts on June 30 2007, July 3 2007, and July 4 2007.
• June 2007 block of 68.145.124.154 for 1 week for POV pushing on a global warming article. These edits: [28][29][30] the third of which was undoing Raul's undoing of the IP's edit
• Nov 2006 block of JonMosely twice, first 24 hours for POV pushing global warming, then 2 days later indefinitely for the same thing. His edits on his last day: [31][32][33][34]
• September 2006 block of 82.42.236.106 for 1 week for POV pushing on global warming article. These edits: [35][36][37], this one was clearly pushing actually unsourced POV content.
• September 2006 1 week block of 24.82.193.125 for POV pushing global warming.

Raul also has 199 edits to Talk:Global warming out of 19040 total edits there, and has been active on the talk page since 2006-05-17 according to this tool. For context. rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You've effectively answered your own question: I don't edit the global warming article all that much. My edit count relative to the total is low, most of my edits were made years ago when it was on the FAC, and my last edit there was 3 months ago. At the same time, as an admin, I deal with the many troublemakers that article attracts. (By the way, in your list above, Obedium is a scibaby sockpuppet; Britannia is an unmarked sockpuppet of Rameses; and the anons were part of an organized off-site attack on the TGGWS article). I participate in the talk pages occasionally, but much of that too is related to Scibaby. Since GoRight's return and prior to my warning to him, my only interaction with GoRight was initiated by him. (I made a comment to Jaimaster about the GW FAQ, and GoRight responded with a snarky comment, baiting people to reply) Raul654 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• ...No. A content dispute is a content dispute. If raul said "this paragraph stays" and GoRight says "this paragraph goes" and Raul says "I'll block you and keep the paragraph", that is a content dispute impacting his ability to judge a behavior problem. If I blocked someone editing a warhammer online article because I've edited Warhammer 40,000, that's not a content dispute. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Based on all this, despite being thought of probably by some people as associated with the GW articles, I don't think Raul can be today considered involved. I don't see a problem with him acting as an admin here for these articles. rootology (C)(T) 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if it were granted that Raul is not de facto involved in all global warming disputes, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that he is uninvolved with GoRight. Users who have longstanding disputes with one another should not use admin tools against one another. Oren0 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. That way we disqualify admins that first try to solve problems by warning and discussion, and those previously involved in admin actions against a user. These are exactly those that are most qualified to handle the case. Admins that are involved in substantial independent disputes with the user, or in a content dispute, should refrain from administrative action, yes. But all of Raul's interaction with GoRight was trying to get him to conform to our content and behavior policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz. There is no conflict here b/c Raul was trying to get GoRight to follow community guidelines and norms. Raul is also acting appropriately as admin in the Global Warming articles. GoRight should have a community ban and this witchhunt on Raul should stop.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-Identified Minor Young Adult

Can someone check User talk:Cutepiku and oversight as necessary. Child giving way too much personal info, IMHO, including name, birthday, height, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the DOB is accurate, she is 18. At that age, she has the right to post whether she likes, in my opinion, though it is fair to warn her about the potential negative consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking further, it seems the account has probably been abandoned more than a year ago. If you want to blank it, I wouldn't object. Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I typed roughly the same and got caught in an edit conflict. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I did my math wrong and put her at 17. As such I deleted the usertalk page. I left the user a message, and will leave her another one giving her the option to have the deleted content restored. She may actually want it deleted after learning of the reason for the deletion. But, like you I agree that at 18 she is old enough to make that choice for herself. Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...note to self, no doing math after 10 pm. She does still edit occasionally using her IP, and my brain was still thinking 2008 and miscalculating. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did. I still thought it was 2008. :P Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten seconds of Googling locates metros.xanga.com and crunchyroll.com/user/cutepiku, the latter of which helpfully converts the dob to an age! —Sladen (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry: Ohconfucius

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

Could someone check on Ohconfucius. This user is continually getting into conflict and persists in a narrow application of editing style. The user has been suspended / banned in the past and still is a disruption. Ohconfucius is also embroiled in a delinking snafu as well. Leadingonward (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this account was created 24 hours ago.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one that seems to have only one purpose... either way (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything specifically you think needs to be looked at? So far, looking at the edits you've made, I don't see anything that's alarming about Ohconfucius' actions that require admin intervention. either way (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user not blind or partial only has to go back in Ohconfucius' archives to discover abuse. Goodmorningworld, did you read about this user's activities? Alerts have failed, other actions have not curbed the problems. Leadingonward (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins may want to consider WP:RFCU, which provides that "disruptive 'throwaway' account[s] used only for a few edits" may be "[b]lock[ed], no checkuser needed." --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some information about the identity of this account, but am not fully up to speed yet. I recommend applying an extension of WP:DOLT. Let's check the contributions of Ohconfucious and see if there is any merit to the complaint. Then we can decide where to go. The editor in hiding apparently is concerned about retaliation for filing this complaint. That concern may be valid or not, but we should gather the facts before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leadingonward, could you provide a few diffs of problematic behavior? I have noted that Ohconfusius was blocked recently for edit warring and exceptional incivility.[38] What else is going on? Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a request for arbitration pending. I recommend anybody who has something to add to this discussion makes a statement at WP:RFAR. It seems that there may be deeper behavioral issues that are preventing the resolution of whatever content disagreements are present. Editors are getting very upset, apparently. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing recent which is harmful. Pointers to specific problems would be good, and not just "any user not blind or partial" pseudo-allegations. Be specific. At the same time, it is rather disturbing that the complaint is made from a single purpose account. Leadingonward, have you previously edited wikipedia under another name? Tb (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, leadingonward seems to have tried to delete an RfC by ohconfucious, which is, AIUI, not allowed. Tb (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, this is the second SPA attack on me in recent weeks. The last one was from User:Comingattractions just two days ago. I do not believe I have victimised anybody for them to fear 'retaliation' from me. I may be blunt at times, but that's where it ends. Today, the sockpuppet created solely with the intention of harassment and vandalism (as seen here(1) and here(2) is well beyond what could be considered a reasonable breach of policy, and should stop forthwith. What's more, the garbled messages left on my talk page bordered on the incoherent, so I took the first on to be from a troll and deleted it immediately. If these actions continue from this or any other user which I suspect to be the same person, I will request these to be investigated. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• This same editor has now contacted me twice on the telephone, and I have very strongly encouraged them to keep all further discussions on wiki, or via email. I was not able to understand the nature of their complaint, but suggested that I would look at this thread with an open mind. We may be dealing with somebody who is assuming bad faith, perhaps not intentionally, but the effect may be highly disruptive. Registering multiple accounts to continue past disputes is not a good idea. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you made your telephone number publicly available? There's something a little creepy about him/her digging up your phone number and calling you multiple times. l'aquatique |✡| talk 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problems blocking this apparent single purpose account. Not sure where DOLT figures in. Is there some objection to blocking this account? Protonk (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking seems unobjectionable, but likely insufficient; it's very likely a sockpuppet, no? Tb (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know whose sock it is. Ohconfucius is a friend of mine, so I have a conflict of interest; however, I can confidently assure you that he is a hard-working and good-faith Wikipedian. He may have annoyed a few of the users who are loudly complaining about the community's move towards smart linking, but in this he has by no means exceeded what is normal and acceptable in a wiki environment.

On a slightly different issue, Jehochman, please take care to avoid any appearance that you are canvassing people of one opinion to go forth to the ArbCom page and comment, especially in the light of your accompanying comments "It seems that there may be deeper behavioral issues that are preventing the resolution of whatever content disagreements are present. Editors are getting very upset, apparently." You appear to be jumping the gun, making assumptions, and very possibly unwisely pre-empting what is ArbCom's right to come to conclusions about. Please read the WP:ADMIN policy requirements carefully. Tony (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's only an annoying buzzing in my ear right now, and I'll let you know if I want the sockpuppets and the puppetmaster blocked. In the meantime, I'd like to give him plenty of rope. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this same editor contacted me on my user talk page. I don't think there's anything that need be done if this concerns delinking as I'm currently seeking arbitration to resolve those issues. If there are other issues with Ohconfucius though, I am not aware of them. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. No need for an obvious throwaway account to be floating around stirring up drama. Protonk (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo's RfC

Hi

Can a mod/admin please close it off officially, the 30 days passed on 30th december and he has been banned due to continuous EW&vand and hasn't bothered to comment on the RfC.

Cheers, chocobogamer mine 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, didnt realise it was already done *blush* thanks guys, glad it appears to be over chocobogamer mine 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

talk:Soggy biscuit

Resolved

 – undeleted--Patton^t/c 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is back from DRV to AfD, could someone please undelete the talkpage? Thanks! -- Banjeboi 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of SPA template

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Closing admins at AfD are well enough able to judge the merit of opinions. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Users brewcrewer [39][40] and Ryan4314 [41] are repeatedly slapping the Single Purpose Account template on my vote even though I don't have an account. With this template, they are claiming that I have made few edits and I have only a single purpose. However, anyone with half a brain knows that IP addresses changes and are resigned, so the history that appears when clicking on my user contributions doesn't show all the edits I have made in the past years. The users are doing this to make my vote not legitimate. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably meant "half a brain", not "have". This edit does not support your claim of being a long-time editor. In any case, this might be another incentive to create a username. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the user you are targeting isn't the ideal wikipedian doesn't mean you have the green light to misuse and abuse Wiki policies without consquences. Yes anyone with half a brain would know an IP address is not a user account and thus doesn't record all their edits. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PediaPress

I just wanted to bring more eyeballs to this situation. It seems to have been handled hastily. I should add that I haven't talked to anyone at the Foundation about it. The user was indef blocked, and userpage deleted, on an accusation of "spamming". But in fact, this is a partnership with the Foundation, and he was only giving instructions of how to get a printed book of articles using the PediaPress system. The main thing that concerns me is that the javascript which is clearly opt-in was deleted. The javascript was not, itself, spam, and it seems premature to speedy it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also doubt if the user should have been blocked so hastily without some discussion, but on the other hand, perhaps I have overlooked something so I am not unblocking. I did undelete the javascript because I wanted to try it out, but it doesn't work for me so maybe there is something else going on here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A relevant few links (please add more if it's helpful):

• User:Pediapress
• User_talk:Pediapress

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#Pediapress appears to be the only discussion relating to this subject. Mind you, if someone who is affiliated with Wikia opens up a account then it might be worth mentioning it on said userpage!. This place is generally staffed by volunteers, not WikiaMedia savvy types and/or mindreaders... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (but then we knew that, already, didn't we?)

Is it a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation or a partnership with Wikia? rootology (C)(T) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing do with with Wikia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This appeared in the now deleted userpage, "This page is related to the Mediawiki Collection Extension." Now, I am a complete duffer when it comes to technical aspects of the Wiki(a) world, but it seems to suggest a link - but at no point is there any mention of an affiliation or endorsement or something, so I do not think that it was deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It simply appears to be an article, created in userspace, that denotes a function that can run with Wikipedia (which, being a wiki, means anyone can write some script and use the 'pedia and sell it). Again, I ask how humble sysops were supposed to be able to tell that this came with an "official" stamp of approval simply by looking at the content..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes it sound like some "technical" think within MediaWiki was involved, but I was just curious if this was some official thing the actual WMF signed off on from San Francisco, if this was some 3rd party Wikia or independent project thing? If it's WMF, it probably doesn't need our approval. If it's Wikia or some 3rd party thing it would need local support. I'm lost on what it actually is, as is apparently everyone else. I.e, did the WMF say, "You can do stuff on en.wp for this," or did they say, "You can use the content like the recent 3rd party DVD project"? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer you, since I don't understand the question (and I read it real slow, too...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Useful relevant link Press releases/Wikis Go Printable From the Wikimedia Foundation DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Said useful link is not included in the two or three versions of the deleted page I reviewed - might have been even more useful if it had. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed. Maybe they made the mistake of assuming that Wikipedians would have heard about it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you. My concern is that blocking the user and deleting the javascript (thus breaking this for anyone who may have been using it) seemed a very extreme response to someone who is clearly working in good faith with the Foundation. I should add for repeat emphasis: this has nothing to do with Wikia. No one from PediaPress has asked me about this (I was randomly asked on my user talk page and someone not related to the company asked me about this in email). Why was the user blocked without (as far as I can see) a chance to respond to a warning? That seems extreme. I am not hollering at anyone. If someone didn't know, no big deal. I'm a big fan of blocking... and of unblocking. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Some admins are quicker to block than others over perceived COIs. Anyway, looks like an interesting idea, and I think an unblock would be nice, maybe with a suggestion that they link to the press release from their userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Unblocked, per this discussion. They could have used the {{unblock|''reason''}} function - but it appears that they are about as savvy regarding WP practice and custom as I am with whatever it is that they do. I will drop a notice on the deleting/blocking admins talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't think we can fault them for not using the unblock template, I have no idea if they even knew they were blocked! They didn't contact me, I just came across this when others called it to my attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Their website at [42] has a link to User:Pediapress as having instructions on how to make collections. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps their user page could also be restored ...so they can go about amending it to establish their credentials (such as referencing the Foundations support of their activities) and demonstrating this role account is one of the six explicitly allowed role accounts listed on meta:Role account (which it is not presently). —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted the page and removed the speedy template, with a hidden request not to place any more. If anyone who understands what it is that the page is being used for can edit it, or place a notice, so this doesn't occur again then hopefully the matter will be resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added a link to the Foundation's press release on both the userpage and the talk page. The userpage just gives instructions on how to create a selection of articles from Wikipedia, and then have them output as a pdf or OpenDocument file, or have them printed and bound as a book. I will add that it seems like a useful service, and I do know that other users have asked about such a service before. One more thing - maybe the Foundation could look at ways of communicating more effectively with Wikipedia editors, so that misunderstandings like this are less likely in the future! DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is a bit disturbing for me to see someone involing Speedy Deletion criteria G11 on a opt-in MediaWiki user skin extension far far outside the articles. Even if there was no cooperation between WMF and Pediapress, why should we forbid users to customize their user interface with neat features on the web? For about 2 years now, I have a customized search box at en.wp in my user skin that allows me to search the web with google along with wikipedia. Its a small tool for convenience, a search function provided by a company (google) that probably doesn't even know this extension exists. Roughly speaking: It should be of no-ones business what I do with my user skin at Wikipedia as long as I don't interfere with anyone else. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I wish someone would have responded to my ANI thread in the first place so this all could have been avoided. UAA blew me off (which was reasonable) and directed me to ANI, which blew me off (except for User:Neurolysis), so I took it to Jimbo's talk page. What's even more frustrating is that I gave all of the necessary links in the ANI thread, only to have above users say it would have been nice to know them. ARRGGGHHH! Their monobook was deleted after I posted on UAA, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. Their userpage was tagged after I posted on Jimbo's talk page, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. And to top it off, none of this was even what I was asking about. But I digress. I did what I should have done in the first place, and left a note on their friggin' talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, that the lack of response was likely because the situation was not understood at the time (I don't understand it now, FWIW) rather than being "blown off". I did look at the links, but it meant - and means - nothing to me. I don't know if there is a more technical board where you could have posted this, but generally if you don't get a response here it is because folks don't know and are content to let someone who does respond. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tombstone, didn't see the original ANI post. Anyway, as User:Pediapress hasn't edited since October, it is quite likely that they are unaware of all the shenanigans, so I have emailed their support to let them know about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fact they hadn't edited since October was why I went to ANI instead of their talk page in the first place. Anyway, Pediapress should be loving all of the free press I've generated for them and should send me a free gift — and take my templates off of their blacklist. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A few very old AfD discussions still open

Resolved

 – All done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Something appears to have gone amiss in the relisting of these AfD discussions. What is the correct course of action now?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-frame
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius Masalar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination)

Do they get closed outright, or do we need to relist them on a new daily page, to ensure proper process is followed? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed three of them. I defer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis to another admin to close, as I'm split between delete and no consensus. Btw, relisting again would not be "proper process" for any of these; in fact, "proper process" is against double relisting unless there is insufficient comment. —kurykh 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The reason I questioned the process here, though, was because even though {{relist}} had been added to each of these, none of them actually were relisted on a new daily page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IP editor claiming spoilers are copyright infringements

We are in need of an administrator to resolve an issue about copyright infringement regarding List of Soul Eater characters. 67.42.98.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has tagged[43] the article a {{Copyvio}} claiming that the spoilers on the article constitute copyright infringement.[44][45] We like to get the issue resolved as quickly as possible. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, someone needs to kill the in-universe style very quickly. Eliminating that and all the unsourced information would probably clear up most of the issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make it a copyvio issue though... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That's a separate point. I guess my hatchet is considered too much. It's too bad because the in-universe notice has been there for a few months with nothing changed. I still think a 95k article with a four paragraph introduction is a mess but it seems I'm in the minority. I'm not going to fight it though. It seems like there is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of Soul Eater characters, so is this resolved or is there something else needed? I'll leave the content to the editors there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this has nothing to do with the original topic, I'll mention it anyway. I'm the one who tagged the article and watch it, but I do not activity participate in its editing. I do believe the four paragraph lead is over-the-top. But I guess Ricky's latest edits to the article will get me axing some of the more unneeded details right away. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discriptions of fictional work can run into copyright issues if they are extensive enough but since I know nothing about the subject of the article I'm not really in a position to judge if this is a problem in this case.Geni 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Aitias#Sennen_goroshi.27s_3RR_vioation_at_Lee_Myung-bak_and_gaming

Hello all. I'd appreciate some help/comments here — I'm honestly not quite sure how to act and what action to take. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me while I try to work out why exactly this report is here. I was blocked for those edits, I was blocked for one week by Aitias for those specific edits, why would any action need to be taken for something I have already served a one week block for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASennen_goroshi 17:02, 2 January 2009 Aitias (Talk | contribs) blocked Sennen goroshi (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=261478510&oldid=261247929)

I have blocked you due to extremely persistent edit warring on Lee Myung-bak. Given the previous blocks and the nature of this edit war, 1 week seems to be needed and appropriate to prevent the project from further disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The above 3RR report was made initially on Aitias talk page by user Caspian Blue, directly after I reported him to Aitias for what I considered to be edit warring - I will not comment on the motivation behind the report made by Caspian Blue, as good faith is important, and more importantly I am not a mind-reader.

Unless I am missing something, I am being reported twice for something I have already been blocked for - or have I just gone insane and imagined that I was blocked for a week? have I misread the report and this is another incident? or is the user who reported me to Aitias involved in a touch of not so friendly revenge and gaming?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And on the subject of gaming, I made a report to the above admin due to my belief that Caspian Blue was edit-warring, Caspian Blue responded by reporting me for something that he was aware that I had already been blocked for - who is gaming? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Coordinator announcement

Note: Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.

As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role is to carries no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks.

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies (talk · contribs) will serve as his Deputy.

Additionally, as previously announced, former arbitrator Deskana (talk · contribs) will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)