Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and ATS Medical: Difference between pages

Revision as of 12:39, 13 June 2005

Revision as of 15:15, 29 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox_Company |

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}

company_name = ATS Medical, Inc. |

company_type = Public ([[NASDAQ ATSI]]: [http://quotes.nasdaq.com/Quote.dll?page=multi&mode=stock&symbol=ATSI ATSI]) |

company_slogan = "Focused right on cardiac surgery"|

___location = [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]]|

key_people = [[Michael D. Dale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board|Michael D. Dale]], President and CEO|

industry = [[Medical Technology]]|

products = [[Mechanical Heart Valves]]|

foundation = 1992 |

homepage = [http://www.atsmedical.com/ www.atsmedical.com]|

}}

ATS Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATSI), based in Plymouth, Minnesota, is a worldwide leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of products and services for the cardiac surgery market. The publicly traded company was founded in 1992 by Manny Villafana, noted entrepreneur in the cardiology/cardiac surgery industry. The company’s goal was to advance the performance standard of artificial heart valves, specifically mechanical heart valves. The result was the ATS Open Pivot® Mechanical Heart Valve designed to be an evolutionary improvement on all other mechanical valves by incorporating a pivot mechanism consisting of protruding spheres on which the valve’s leaflets pivot to open and close. The unique open pivot was intended to eliminate the cavity created by the pivot of all other bileaflet valves and to improve blood flow through the valve, minimizing potential for blood clot formation. The ATS Open Pivot Heart Valve was first sold in international markets in 1992 and subsequently granted FDA clearance to sell in the United States in 2000. To date more than 140,000 valves have been implanted worldwide.

Under the leadership of Michael D. Dale, the company has become a more diversified cardiac surgery business through the offering of new technologies and services to cardiac surgeons in three distinct yet operationally synergistic categories:

<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->

• Heart Valve Therapy – artificial heart valves (mechanical heart valves and biological heart valves) for aortic valve replacement and mitral valve replacement, and heart valve repair products

• Surgical Cryoablation – cryoablation for the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia

• Surgical Tools and Accessories – surgical tools for the cardiac surgeon in day-to-day surgical procedures including robotic surgery tools and products to meet specific needs during robotic surgery.

The company continues to focus on improving surgical outcomes for patients and advancing the standard of care for physicians involved in the surgical treatment of cardiac disorders.

== [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] ==

[[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] acted in an extraordinary manner on [[Talk:Economic history of the Irish state]]. A controversial name change had been proposed. The proposal had not been highlighted so very few people participated. 5 took part. 3 supported the change. 2 opposed. Then [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] as an admin came to the page, cast their vote in favour of the change, and ''within seconds'' announced that there now was 66% support and moved the page.

It was a gross abuse of position for an admin to in effect cast a vote in a deadline free vote about which few people were aware, and about which the proposer of the motion had failed to draw people's attention to, and then immediately ''themselves'' move the page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_history_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=14797785&oldid=14794519] It broke every principal of neutrality, impartiality, fairness, etc. If they wanted to vote, they should have then left it to others to implement the decision. But for an admin, ''seconds'' after voting, to shut down the vote and make the move on the basis of a majority their vote had produced, was a disgrace. Yet the admin doesn't seem to think they did anything wrong. How can users trust admins is one admin thinks it ok in effect to use their position to be judge and jury in the making of the decision. If they had a least left it for day or so to see if others might want to vote, and ''then'' come back, it might have been tolerable behaviour. But what they in effect did was highjack the debate, produce a decision and enforce it in less than a minute. That is unacceptable behaviour for an admin. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 22:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I have fully explained my actions on that talk page and think that this is mostly down to Jtdirl being upset that the vote went against him. WP:RM is not a requirement for moving an article and this vote, while not publicised there, went for over two weeks before a decision was made. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Violetriga's actions seem perfectly reasonable. A more important issue is Jtdirl's general comportment. He is a valuable contributor, but he is far to fast to resort to insults and threats when other users disagree with him. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

:Might I add further that the proposed move was noted on [[Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board]]. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 23:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I disagreed with the decision, but that isn't the issue at all. I would be just as angry if someone on my side of the argument did that. ''No'' admin should intervene in a debate, cast a vote and in the same edit announce that there now was a consensus and make a change. No admin. Ever. The admin making the change should be neutral from the debate, or if a participant be returning to the page to implement ''whatever'' decision the participants had decided. They should not simultaneously be the person who casts a vote and ''in the very same edit'' then announce that their vote had now produced a decision and ''immediately implement it''. For all we know, 30 seconds later another voter could have come along and cast a vote a different way and meant the consensus wasn't there anymore in numerical terms. It is wrong for ''any'' admin to do that. It is disrespectful to wikipedians and should never ever be done that way by any admin in any debate on any debate at any time. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 23:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:And for all we know 30 days later nobody else might have voted - sorry, but that logic can't work when it's been over two weeks since the vote began. I find it more disrespectful to publicly berate a persons actions rather than dealing with it on their own talk page. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::30 days? I see votes in that poll going as far back as 22 May. What was the great rush, violetriga (and yes, that is a déjà vu on that question)? [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I didn't say the poll was going on for 30 days - I said "over two weeks". The "great rush" was the fact that it'd gone on for a long time and I was asked to look into it. What is the point in waiting for another week? Why make myself have to keep track of such things when I'm just going to be annoying those that want it moved (which, by the way, are in the majority)? [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 06:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::So what happened is:

::::* You were asked to look at the poll;

::::* You chose to vote;

::::* Your vote produced a (bare) two-thirds,

::::* You then ''instantly'' rename the page.

::::That is ''outrageous'' behaviour. Other admins would never dream of using their vote to produce a two-thirds majority that was not previous there, and then use the outcome ''produced by their own vote'' instantly to rename a page. What is even more astonishing is that you don't see anything wrong in that behaviour. In parliaments, speakers follow what is known as ''Speaker Denison's rule'', whereby if in a tied or indecisive vote their casting vote will result in either the maintenance of the status quo or the overturning of the status quo, they vote to maintain the status quo, on the basis that they would be breaching their independence if they used their casting vote to create a ''new'' decision. Instead they vote to leave ''as is'', allowing the issue to be revisited later, or if their decision to vote one way produces an irrevocative decision (eg, the fall of a government, the killing of a bill) they vote in a way that allows a future decision to be taken (eg, defeat for a government would force it out of office - an irrovocable decision - support for a government allows a later decision to be taken in parliament to defeat them later on). The way you intervened broke every concept of good practice, fairness, and respect for users. If you wanted to vote and it was clear that your vote would be decisive, then you should have left it to others to do the move. Frankly, if this is the standard of behaviour you think is acceptable, then you are unfit to be an admin. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::This isn't a parliamentary vote and no matter how many times you say that it was "outrageous" I will just not agree. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::V_r, as I said re: the previous page you used admin powers in (protected) even though you were involved in reverting (over BC/E), once you get involved in a dispute and adopt a side in it, it's best to leave it for another admin who is uninvolved, to implement whatever admin changes are deemed fit. As a universal rule. [[User:El C|El_C]] 19:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::::You're saying I shouldn't have a vote? Sorry but that is totally against the whole principal of this place. Anyway, that'd mean I wouldn't get to have my say on any WP:RM request as I'm the one that does them all. As for the other page, once again I'm sorry but you are simply wrong about what happened there. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In defense of violet/riga a recent vote was taken at [[Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland]] for movement to [[History of the Republic of Ireland]] and their were no decenting votes for that article. Several articles were moved from "...Republic of Ireland" to "...Irish states" without any vote or consultation been taken some months ago and on a basic level this moving back is simply housekeeping and realigning article titles to more appropriate titles. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not where the page was moved to (though there is a fundamental issue of accuracy in putting articles under names that did not exist for most of the timespan covered by the articles). The issue ''here'' is one admin's blatent abuse (clearly not for the first time) of her powers to push per personal viewpoint. Admins have been sacked in the past for doing so, in cases far less clearcut than here, where an admin used her vote to create a majority and then in the same edit announced she was moving the page on the basis of that majority. That is disgraceful behaviour. The fact that she does not see that admins should not act that way, suggests clearly that she is unfit to be an admin. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 19:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Hi, I'm [[User:Violetriga|Violet/riga]], have we met before? To comment on my suitability for being an admin without really knowing anything about me is hardly a sensible thing to do. Just because I disagree with you on this issue doesn't mean that I immediately assume that you're a problematic editor. I disagree with your point of view, and still think that it's coming out of annoyance from the decision rather than the action. You claim that the move shows bias? Well you know what? I really don't care about any Irish history and was only there because of a move request. My vote was based on opinion of the content of the article and naming of similar articles, and is very relevant. Now explain to me why I should've waited for other people to vote. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Because you blurred two incompatible roles simultaneously. You were perfectly entitled to vote. You were perfectly entitled to implement the decision of the vote. But what should ''never'' be done is to cast a vote that produces a decision, and then instantly turn from being a participant in the vote to the enforcer of that vote. That crossed a fundamental line. It would have been an abuse of my position as an admin if I had turned up on a page where one more vote was needed to get the required majority, used my vote to produce that majority, turned around in the edit and said in effect 'oh look. There is a majority here' and implemented it there and then. If you wanted to vote, you should have stood back and let someone else not involved in the debate implement the decision. At the very least, you should have left the page until other votes were cast and then, a day or two later, see if the consensus your vote had created was still there.

::The principle should be not merely to ''be'' neutral in your conduct on moving the page but to be ''seen'' to be neutral. All sides need to be able to trust your impartiality in implementing that decision. It is possible to do so even if you have expressed a vote, provided it is not ''your'' vote that created the decision ''you'' then are implementing. Your actions set yourself up ''simultaneously'' as ''judge'' (implementing a decision) and ''jury'' (the voter who created the majority). That is imcompatible with your role as an admin and should never be done by anyone. Admins try to avoid using their powers on pages where they are an active participant, because, even if they are neutral in their own eyes, they may not be perceived as neutral. I try where possible to avoid being an admin ''and'' a contributor. There may be occasions when an admin who is a participant in a debate has had to intervene using admin powers (such as protecting a page) but we do so only in emergencies, only when immediate action is needed and where no other admin is available to act. In every case a full explanation is put on the talk page. All sides usually agree in those cases that the action was justified in the case and had all been done openly, fairly and honestly.

::You simply have not have realised that what you did was fundamentally wrong, but it was. You ''personally'' created a decision which then you ''personally, immediately'' implemented. You should never do that. Having in effect sat on the jury there was no need for you in immediately leap on the bench, don the robes and assume the role of judge. Having voted, you should have left the implementation to someone else. Or at the very least given time to see whether others might vote to disagree with you, especially as your vote created the smallest conceivable percentage above two-thirds. Creating a majority and simultaneously implementing a decision you have been responsible for creating, is something no admin should ever do. You may not intended it that way, but it looked like an abuse of your role. In effect, what you did was to enter a page where there was no mathematical consensus for a move, used your vote to create that mathematical consensus, then enforced the consensus, and told the people on a page that would not have had a consensus without your consensus, that now ''they'' would have to build up a consensus to overrule you.

::If you didn't understand the underlying principles behind the behaviour of admins ''as admins'' in using admin powers, perhaps they need to be spelt out more clearly. But please do not act this way again. Your actions, however well-meaning, turned a vote on a page into at best a farce, at worst the highjacking of the decision by one user. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 20:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::And as I said above I still disagree. The fact that you see this as an abuse of admin rights is totally illogical when, in most circumstances, a move can be performed without admin intervention. You may try to argue that I moved it too quickly but cannot say that it was an abuse of admin rights. Secondly, if it were any random person that voted and then moments later I made a decision, you could still claim that there could've been further votes that tipped the balance the other way. Indeed, if you look at it that way no vote would ever end. The fact that there was a majority without my vote totally seems to escape you, and some could argue that the move should've been done because of that &ndash; there have in fact been recent discussions at WP:RM about what constitutes an actionable majority. By my view it is ''you'' that has acted improperly and caused the situation to look a farce simply by your outbursts on that articles talk page. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 21:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:If you still cannot see the problem, then frankly, you should not be an admin, for your own sake as much as for everyone else's, because if this is your concept of what an admin is, you are going to get yourself into severe problems. And BTW decisions on wikipedia are not decided by majority but by surpassing a set percentage that can be said to be a consensus. A vote of three people out of five does not quality as a consensus. Numerically four out of six ''just about does''. So you created the numbers to justify the move, and then it looks like, rushed the implementation through in case another person might appear and reduce the total below the consensus threshhold. And that is an abuse of Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue>^{[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]}<font color=black> 21:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I understand entirely what you are saying, but I disagree. I can't believe that you claim I've made something into a farce when it is you making such statements as "you should not be an admin" based on one interaction (oh, wait - I'm still awaiting you response on [[talk:News anchor]]). Not all decisions on Wikipedia are not made by consensus - they should be where possible, but it simply cannot happen (VfD, for example). As per the rules of WP:RM the page should've been moved. But the page wasn't listed there, so it isn't even bound by those rules. Please show me the policy that states that a page can only be moved with full consensus. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 21:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed and appalled that we're having such an inflammatory debate over this incident filled with charges that an admin is abusing her position. '''May I remind everyone that you don't need to be an admin to move a page?''' This action might have been taken by anyone, and still can be again (not that I wish to incite a move war). Certainly discussion on the matter isn't and shouldn't be considered closed, and I can understand disagreeing with the action taken, but the problem is being blown utterly out of proportion. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Perhaps, but I agree with others in finding violet/riga's behaviour here questionable at best. When it's seen in light of the earlier issue to which El C referred (protecting a page in which he or she was editorially involved), I think that it indicates a certain lack of understanding of an admin's responsibilities. It's overheated (to say the least) to demand de-adminning or the like, but a re-reading of some of the documents on the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|Administrators' reading list]] mightn't be a bad idea. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 22:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::For clarity, I wasn't "editorially involved", but that's another issue. I fully understand the responsibilities. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 22:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, for clarity, you had edited the article in line with one side of the edit war. We've been through this. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 22:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Yet we still disagree. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I agree with Michael Snow above, but I think the criticism he makes needs to be more directional. It's not any "we" having an inflammatory debate that's to be seen above, it's Jtdirl flaming violet/riga. At least, I can't see anybody else being inflammatory. Jtdirl, I don't even understand how a page move--something anybody can do, and undo! housekeeping! a move only five people were interested in!--can have the capacity for deserving that much abuse. You're the one breaking the concepts of "good practice, fairness, and respect for users" here. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 02:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that any user could move pages; I have never moved a page. Still, I never claimed to be a compotent admin (or editor, for that matter!). It struck me as analogous of the past incident, which I do not think I'm wrong over, though I don't find it important enough to press on. [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's rather disingenuous to say that anyone can move pages; any user has the ability to do it (except anons and very new users), but when there's controversy, so that a poll is needed, there are accepted norms of behaviour. My view is that violet/riga behaved inadvisedly (at best) in this case, thought that's not because he/she's an admin &mdash; no editor should have done what she did. Nevertheless, as an admin, she should be more careful than other users (and the earlier incident ''was'' directly related to being an admin). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 10:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I am very aware of the way move polls work. As I am the one that makes the WP:RM decisions, I decided to move it. The fact that my vote tipped it over the edge of the (previously non-existant) 66% rule is not relevant. My vote and my decision were unrelated. The simple fact is that the vote had been going on for over two weeks and decision needed to be made. I still haven't seen any decent explanation why I should've waited any longer. And as I said previously, if I'd decided one minute after any other user made the decisive vote would that still make it the wrong thing to do? Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with what I did. People also seem to forget that it's hardly like it's a fixed decision and I explained what people could do if they disagreed with the move. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 11:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Wow. There have been a lot of electrons spilled over this topic, haven't there? I think that two weeks is plenty of time to consider a page move, so there's no problem there. There's no specific rule requiring a 66% majority for a move, so Violetriga hasn't overstepped or twisted a policy in that respect. Since she seems to be the only one who usually carries out pages moves, it seems unfair to bar her from ever having an opinion. In this case, I'd say she acted more like the chairperson at a meeting or the Speaker of the House in government. Normally those individuals don't vote on issues, but their judgement is called upon to break a tie. (Of course, this instance didn't even have a tie, violetriga was just adding a bit more weight to the preexisting majority.) What's the problem? --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] <small>([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades|contrib]])</small> 13:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I swore to myself (and at myself) that I would never, ever post on an/i. I might ''act'' on it, but I wouldn't post on it. Now I'll have to perform prayers of penitence. Folks very often follow the first red herring that swims by in these discussions, and so I'm doubly sorry that I'm about to release one into the stream, but for over a year I have thought that one of the most critical holes in the policy structure of Wikipedia is that lack of [[quorum]]. This is not to be on one or the other side of this particular page move, but rather to say that far too often people are claiming consensus in the dark. '''Again, this is not to take a position on this particular issue,''' only to say that, if anyone wishes to draft a quorum policy, I would be happy to lend whatever skills I have to the writing of it. One critical function of such a thing would be to establish where and when a quorum is needed. Page moves wouldn't need one, for the most part, so it wouldn't apply here, but it would at least relieve the concerns of folks to know that we have a quorum policy that says that it is not necessary for page moves. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

**A light of common sense, Geogre. We are very good at claiming that we act on a consensus basis, but have not even begun to define what we mean when we say this. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 15:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

***Indeed: when we say "consensus" we very rarely mean that everyone is happy with a position: at best, there is a plurality or supermajority. Just on a point of order, while VR executes most of the requests on [[WP:RM]], particularly the ones that need an exercise of judgement, VR is not the ''only'' one to make page moves; however, I have to say that I would trust VR to exercise any judgement required properly (this case included). -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 17:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Lyndon LaRouche and [[User:The Power of Reason]]==

*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche]]

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2]].

An editor, {{user|The Power of Reason}} is making contributions to articles that portray [[Lyndon LaRouche]] as, among other things, an important economist. On two occasion the Arbitration Committee reviewed similar edits. They found that the material was harmful to the encyclopedia's integrity and also that the editor was using sockpuppets fraudulently. That editor, {{user|Herschelkrustofsky}}, had certain temporary limits placed upon his editing which are still in force. Other limits were placed on edits of this type, in particular: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." The current editor is working quickly and appears to have a familiarity with Wikipedia. If any admins would be willing to keep an eye on this editor's contributions I'd appreciate it. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

:[[User:The Power of Reason]] has made 32 edits, beginning June 6, all constituting original research and promotion of [[Lyndon LaRouche]], and all in violation of the September 2004 and February 2005 arbitration-committee rulings. The edits include the creation of two new articles [[LaRouche-Riemann Method]] and [[Triple Curve]], both aiming to show that LaRouche is an important economist, and promoting LaRouche and LaRouche original research, which is prohibited by the arbcom rulings. I've put a speedy-delete tag on the articles. I didn't want to delete them myself in case The Power of Reason is a reincarnation of [[User:Herschelkrustofsky]], as I've been conflict with the latter; and also because I'd like to hear from other admins as to whether these articles are speedy-delete candidates, or whether they should go through VfD.

:It would be helpful if David could run an IP check on The Power of Reason to determine whether the IP address matches any of those used by the Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets. These were listed in evidence during the second arbcom case; I'll find a link and post it here. (See below.) If The Power of Reason is Herschelkrustofsky, any admin may block the former indefinitely.

:The two relevant arbcom rulings related to LaRouche sockpuppetry are (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision]]):

::1) If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week. The IP should be blocked with due caution as to whether it is a dynamic IP or ISP proxy likely to have many users.

::2) If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

:The three relevant rulings regarding insertion of LaRouche material by any editor are (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision]]):

::1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

::2) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

::3) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 23:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

:::The IP addresses used by {{user|Herschelkrustofsky}}, {{User|Weed Harper}}, and {{User|C Colden}} were: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2/Evidence#January_22.2C_2005]

::::DSL connection {{User|64.30.208.48}}; it resolved to Los Angeles;

::::AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255, and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255; these also resolved to California;

::::Occasionally, they also used {{User|198.81.26.48}}, {{User|198.81.26.76}}, {{User|198.81.26.76}}, {{User|198.81.26.76}}, and {{User|198.81.26.73}}

:::Note: The Power of Reason has made edits to [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], and has claimed Lyndon LaRouche is a leading figure in California politics. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions. It may be Herschel, but there's more than one LaRouchite in the world. We should wait for an IP check and then, if it turns up positive, we can block without requiring any further discussion; if it's negative, then it will be a POV issue for article talk pages and not here. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 00:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Some of the ArbCom rulings apply to any editor promoting LaRouche and his theories, so even if this editor is not Herschel, he may still enage in behaviors which require administrator action. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 01:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

::I believe that's that LaRouchites can't insert references to LaRouche into articles otherwise unrelated to him? Worryingly, that leaves an enormous amount of room for interpretation. To those of us who aren't LaRouchites, the idea that LaRouche is worth mentioning in a general article on economics seems rather silly, but to LaRouchites it seems preposterous to have an article about economics without mentioning him. So how do you decide what articles are unrelated to him? You'd have to side with one POV or the other if you were going to make judgements about these kinds of cases. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::The strength of one's [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|sources]] is usually a fair indicator. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::That still requires a POV judgement, doesn't it? How are you going to decide which sources are strong and which are weak? I think something like this would have to decided through discussion on the talk pages; you couldn't have admins going around making unilateral decisions on which articles are and which aren't related to LaRouche. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, but I'm not prepared to entertain these epistemological (& rhetroical) questions at this time as the risk of elipticism appears great. Perhaps, then, you should direct these to the Arbirtration Committee in a request for clarification. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::The articles have to be "closely related" to LaRouche before LaRouche publications can be used as sources, and then only as primary sources, not secondary. "Closely related" refers to the pages on [[Template:LaRouche]]. This isn't a POV issue; it's about the insertion of original research in violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]; the insertion of tiny-minority views in violation of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]; and the arbcom's ruling that editors may not act as advocates for, or engage in the promotion of, Lyndon LaRouche. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Everyking, instead of trying to re-hear the cases, why don't you read the two arbcom rulings? These issues have all been dealt with. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Everyking is not of the habit of reading... No, wait, I'll keep it inside my mind. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Hey, I think I'm a mind reader. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 03:08, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, I practically said 80% of it, but good job! [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[[User:The Power of Reason]] appears to have set up a sockpuppet {{user|The Power of Human Reason}}, or someone else has done it in order to cause trouble. Also, the two articles The Power of Human Reason created are up for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve]] and [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 03:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Did you set blocktime to infinite or indefinite? Just curious. [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Ok, this is getting way out of hand. Obviously somebody blocked his original account for no known reason, compelling him to create this new account. If we are going to ban people for their views we should at least get a good pretext first so as not to embarrass ourselves. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 03:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::(Oh how) I wonder (wonder) who that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AThe%20Power%20of%20Reason somebody] could be ? ;p [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Sorry, when I wrote that The Power of Human Reason had been set up as a second account, I didn't realize that The Power of Reason had been blocked. If the latter's been judged to be a Herschel sockpuppet, it means the former can be blocked too. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 04:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

::::But there is no actual evidence that the user was a sockpuppet to begin with... [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I've unblocked the user. This is just not acceptable. Get an IP check. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::So, emboldened by the consensus you inevitably get when you blast admin actions left and right, you've gone ahead and unilaterally overturned the block? I'm reblocking. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::::It shouldn't really matter, these accounts have announced their departure. Let's not have a block war, please. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On sock checks: at present the query in question is timing out (it's an expensive query so the server happily lets it die if it takes too long). On But, in any case: Herschel sockpuppetry: he only got busted as Weed Harper by > < this much last time (he slipped up) and the AC declared C Colden might as well be a sock owing to the IDENTICAL EDIT PATTERN and stuff.Herschel is not stupid and I expect he'd do a better job of sockpuppetry another time around - it's not hard. Please keep in mind that IP-username matching is not Magical Truth Sauce, ''it only goes back a week or so anyway'', and that almost all socks are spotted the way they always have been, i.e. acting the bloody same. There are many banned users who have returned to Wikipedia under a new name and been left alone if they don't do something really dumb like make the same trouble again. And if someone imitates a blocked user sufficiently, they are liable to be blocked again. I ask all to get a grip - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:The huge problem here is that the guy did nothing but edit some articles with a LaRouche POV, and he was labeled a sockpuppet as if there is only one LaRouchite in the world. Beyond that, I didn't see any other similarities, did anyone else? He left a note on my talk page referring to the LaRouche Youth Movement and Herschel called himself "an old guy". This is dangerously close to blocking a person purely on account of his or her views. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Circularly, there's something to that, because it wasn't necessery. Edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=prev&oldid=14815258 this] are prohibited for all users, a rule you objected to, Everyking, and which I suggested to seek clarification on. There was no need to sock it if the (any) user was explained the policy as per blatant promotion/sanitation of LaRouche and yet argued he was going to circumvent it under the guise of npov and relevance. [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I expect this would all look pretty dismal from the outside. We justify it in our own way, which satisfies some of us, but in reality it's repression of a particular POV. Note that I was the first person to revert and caution this LaRouchite, yet I'm also the first to stand up against his mistreatment. Is it so difficult to have that balance, to disagree with the edits and yet also stand by policy and fairness? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 03:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Noted. But, circularly again, what you are charging in this case is that you don't find a piece of policy to be fair, which is why I suggested you seek clarification on or find ways to challenge that. I'm not sure what else to recommend, so I withdraw. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::What policy do I object to? I don't know of any. What I object to is the particular case of the blocking of this user by an individual admin, which as far as I can tell has no policy behind it. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::I don't see the point in your going on about this, except in pursuit of your vendetta against Snowspinner. The Power of Reason's edits violated the NPOV policy because they reported the views of a tiny-minority without making clear that that's what they were; they violated the NOR policy because they relied on LaRouche publications, which are not credible publications by any standard, and which the arbcom has ruled amount to original-research; and they violated two arbcom rulings, which said that LaRouche supporters must not promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche or engage in advocacy on his behalf. The second arbcom ruling also stated that "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." Arguing against this is perfectly valid so long as you've read it. But you're disagreeing for the hell of it, without knowing the subject matter, and without having read the relevant policies and rulings, as part of your campaign against Snowspinner, the arbcom, and all or most administrators. I wish you'd stop it, because it's incredibly time-consuming. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 05:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::None of that is grounds for blocking except the sockpuppet claim. But since there's no real evidence in favor of that, then that doesn't count either. Note also that I opposed this before I even knew it was Snowspinner who made the block. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 10:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] and [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]. You figure it out. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 08:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Ibrahim 'Ali Salman]] ==

Check out this page. Is this some sort of agenda-pushing? Original research? [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 20:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

*The comments on the talk page makes this seem like it is original research, but the actual article seems to be a fairly straighforward biography. I can't confirm any of it on Google, but Sudanese poetry doesn't have a big Internet presence. His name in Arabic gets a [http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%D8%A5%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85+%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A+%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86&btnG=Search&meta= bunch of Goolge hits] and his moniker "Genius Diwan of the Manasir" also gets [http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%B9%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%B1&btnG=Search&meta= some]. I can't read Arabic so I can't confirm if these hits are actually relevant. This user's other contributions (e.g. [[Manasir]]) seem good, if in need of some formatting. I am also loath to discourage anyone working in these areas since we have so few people working on such topics. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 21:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

== 403 = Blocked? ==

The wiki mirror at OmniKnow.com seems to be getting an HTTP 403 Forbidden in response to all calls to Wikipedia; the entire OmniKnow project is thus in jeopardy.

Could someone please email me a.s.a.p., at [e-mail] , to let me know what the problem is/was, so we can get back on the air as soon as is practicable? We have always striven mightily to scrupulously observe all terms of use, so we are mystified as to what might be the issue.

Thank you very much.

[[User:63.174.56.22|63.174.56.22]] 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: I believe the calling IP Address would be 209.68.29.47

== Request for a block. ==

The below was posted to my user page, by User:Idont. I'd say some kind of action should be taken, but I thought it prudent to ask for opinions here first. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 21:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

*Hi Radiant, I've been tangling a lot in VfD with [[User:198.234.224.6]]. This guy has engaged in quite a lot of vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=198.234.224.6&limit=100&offset=0 contributions]), multiple votes on several VfDs without signing into an account, personal attacks against me even though I've warned him several times, and creating nonsense vanity articles on purpose (and fighting me ridiculously to try to keep them). He's done all this even since he was blocked for 24 hours about 2-3 weeks ago. Anyways, I'd like you (or RickK, or any other admin who's on VfD a lot, so that he recognizes their name and gets the point) to block him indefinitely. I'd also like to let you know that he uses several sockpuppet accounts (I'm assuming [[User:Runner06]] is one, as are some others; see [[WP:VIP]] for my listing), so those can go on the block list as well in case they continue to cause trouble. Thanks (and thanks for the pie; it was good :-) ). --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 19:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

**#Don't block IPs indefinitely. They do get reassigned from time to time.

**#If you block the IP, the socks should also be blocked.

**I'd give a final, stern warning, then block for 40 days, myself. [[User:smoddy|smoddy]] 21:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*[[User:198.234.224.6]] has kept adding nonsense to the 'pedia after being repeatedly told not to. I've blocked him for 24 hours. It is alleged that he is the same person as [[User:Runner06]], [[User:24.93.170.246]] and [[User:152.163.100.197]]. The first two haven't done anything wrong (in fact, haven't done anything much at all), but their behavior suggests that they are the same user. Maybe a sock check would be appropriate. I'm presently investigating the last one, who has a somewhat longer edit record. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 11:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

**[[User:204.210.189.130]] is also alleged to be used by the same user. Again, behavior appears similar, but by itself that IP hasn't done much of anything. [[User:152.163.100.197]] had been given a 24-hour block earlier this month for adding nonsense to articles. However, it has also made legit contributions. Possibly it's a shared IP. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 11:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

== Edit War at [[Khmer Rouge]] ==

There is a very nasty edit war going on over at [[Khmer Rouge]]. the page might need to protected. It all seems to be coming from one person using abbreviations in place of the words "Khmer Rouge". A lot of people are reverting the abbreivation changes and then teh opposing party will wait just outside the window of 24 hours so as not to be in violation of the three revert rule. The history page is no full of nothing but reverts and coutner-reverts. A protection might be in order. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 03:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I've protected it for the time being. --[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Looks like someone has once again tried bring a little bit of real neutrality to this article and met with the usual opposition. At least we got protection and not a block here; this will hopefully push matters toward discussion and workable solutions on talk (ever notice how when you block somebody, they are rendered incapable of discussion?). [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Maybe I'm looking at a different version than Everyking, but replacing mentions of the Khmer Rouge with "FUNK" or "CPNLAF" isn't exactly my idea of neutral. If the article is about the Khmer Rouge it should say so, plain and simple. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 20:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

*Oh dear, if only anything in this life were plain and simple. Having someone's putative political beliefs used as a snarl word to try to discredit their edits without discussing them may or may not be helpful. That person's "communist" additions may or may not be accurate. The only thing that I can see here that approaches the condition of "plain and simple" is that mud has beeen flung in advance of any attempt to arrive at mutual understanding, never mind consensus. DIsputes like this can too easily become a question of who can win, rather than what's best for the project (i.e. Wikipedia, a hopefully accurate encyclopaedia). [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 12:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

== Using Wikipedia to astroturf? ==

Take a look at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/06/09/wikipedia_authority_and_astroturf.php and [[Talk:Symphony OS]]. I have real misgivings about this, but what if anything can be done? ''Should'' anything be done? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: Why is something that is in ''alpha'' get it's own article in the first place? The software is in alpha-test according to the site. Should every Sourceforge project that might get somewhere get their own page without having released a major version of some kind? I'm tempted to VfD it. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font>} 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Ugh. Does EliasAlucard really have to go toe-to-toe with Clay Shirky? The content is not Shirky's to dictate, but he is a pretty influential blogger. I wish editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack well known web personalities on talk pages. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

:::I just posted to Shirky's blog strongly suggesting his homework for the evening was [[WP:VFD]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I'd be pleased if editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack ''anyone'' on talk pages. Alas.... --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 01:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the solution to undesirable speech may really be more speech. If somebody wants to piggyback off Wikipedia (and Slashdot) like this, they should remember that they no longer control where they're getting carried off to. See [[Symphony OS#Promotion efforts]]. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 05:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Honestly speaking: I don't have anything to do with Slashdot, never have, and most likely never will. This is the entire reason I'm pissed off at Clay Shirky. I don't care if he's an influential blogger. What he posted on his blog is a complete lie. Whilst it might be true that the slashdot article editor was trying to promote Symphony OS, I was '''not'''. I created the Wikipedia article, simply because I wanted facts about the OS, without having to post on various Linux forums and get answers that very well might not be true. That's it. Clay Shirky comes long, posts a contrived story about me and the article, as if he knew me in person, and my thoughts. So why am I pissed off at Clay? Because if anyone actually believed him, they'd probably delete my account for advertisement. Not that it would make any difference, since I can always edit without an account, or just register another nickname, but still, I don't want to loose my entire edit history which I've put a lot of time and effort into. Either way, if anyone looks at my edit history, you can all see that I've been on Wikipedia for just about a year, I've learnt a lot from Wikipedia, and I want to improve it in every way I can. Creating an article about an OS isn't advertising, if it were, then put a VfD tag on [[Windows XP]] and [[Linux]] because they've probably given more advertising than this tiny article. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 16:56, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

::Nobody's going to delete your account. I'm hard-pressed to find anything on Shirky's blog that resembles a lie &mdash; please don't make inflammatory accusations without evidence. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 17:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I say the same about Clay Shirky. He's making accusations without evidence. I dare anyone to prove that I was advertising. If you cannot prove it, then don't buy into his crap. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 19:54, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

::::I've never said anything about you advertising; what the article says is that some (unidentified) person took advantage of Slashdot for that purpose. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 17:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== User:Anglius ==

I've been seeing the conflict around this one and looking through the contributions. Almost everything the user has added is blatant trolling and fostering of conflict, deliberate NPOV violations or adding unreferenced and apparently spurious information to articles. Remonstrations on his talk page are like water off a duck's back. Is there any evidence this user is anything other than a trolling account? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I think we should avoid overuse of the label "troll"...a user can be very wrong and very obnoxious without being a troll. The troll label seems to be intended to put someone on the fast track to banning. I haven't seen anything from this user (except the laughable vote on RfA&mdash;I think I would sooner say we should only vote women into the job), but in any case I think the distinction has to be made, and caution applied. Perhaps someone could conduct a private e-mail discussion with him, which might be more productive. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Good suggestion - I think you should contact him. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::My suggestion concerning Anglius would be to just ignore him for right now. He hasn't done anything "wrong"; yes, he's eccentric and his point of view/behavior is obsolete by about a century, but he isn't breaking any rules. I will keep an eye on him, and I will correct him if needed. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] | [[User:Linuxbeak/Desk|Desk]] 01:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

::::Per the [[User:Anglius|user page]] note saying "Anglius previously appeared 'under' many other 'names'" plus the pattern of behaviour, this is not a newbie who happens to be eccentric. I'd recommend keeping that in mind while watching him and trying not to feed the troll. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 01:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

:::What do I know about any of this? I'm not going to contact him, I don't even know the basis of the dispute. I was just outlining some general ideas about this kind of thing. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Unlike just about everyone else, you haven't pre-judged him. If there is any chance of getting some good out of him via dialogue it shouldn't be someone who has already declared him guilty. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 02:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Now Moves are failing? ==

I was trying to move [[Felis Concolor]] back to [[Puma]] just before the database was locked, but kept getting the usual ERROR message. Now I've just tried five times and keep getting the ERROR. This is the same problem we were having with Deletes earlier in the week. Is anybody else having problems with moves? [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 04:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

:I've periodically had this problem with quite a few operations (edits, deletes, moves, just about everything but simply viewing a page). It comes and goes, perhaps depending on the load the servers are under. But it doesn't seem to be consistently impossible, the way deletions were earlier. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 04:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Finally got the move to work, after about 25 tries off and on. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 06:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

: I've been seeing this error message on and off with all sorts of operations: edits, histories, what-links, etc. I had a case a couple of days ago with an undelete operation - I just couldn't get it to go through, even though I kept trying. It's definitely load-related (i.e. happens more when the system is loaded), but it seems to occur even at times of low load (e.g. I saw it at 3AM East Coast time). It's strange, because it seems like operations either finish quickly, or take forever and timeout, and they are intermixed like that - a failure is followed right away by an instant success. Which makes it seem like what's happening is the Apaches are losing the request, or perhaps the Squids are sending the request to an Apache which is hung, or busy, or something. We should try and get a better characterization of the symptoms, and let the developers know. Anyone know if a bug report has been filed on this? [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 08:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== [[User:Awais141]] ==

{{user|Awais141}} is uploading a large number of images and labeling them as Public Domain without explaining why they are PD. Does not respond to requests for provenance. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 06:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

== Rogue Administrator RickK ==

Rogue administrator "RickK" has reverted [[homonazi]] to his preferred version (maybe 3 times) and used his administrative power of blocking to ensure that his preferred version stays. His claim is that he was "blocking a vandal", but he has not disclosed what he finds "vandalistic" or in fact involved himself in any communication. Is this sort of maverick administrator allowed to block at will, with no one ensuring that he doesn't run roughshod in this way over "ordinary" users? - [[User:Bella Donna|Bella Donna]] 07:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:No, admins are essentially allowed to do whatever they like regarding this sort of thing, we don't have checks and balances or anything like that. That said, I'm not quite sure what you're fighting over. You believe this should not be an article? Why not simply wait for the VfD process? Also you shouldn't have "Hitler" in your user name (some admins would consider this prohibited, I would prefer to merely discourage it strongly), so there's another strike against you. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 07:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Judging by the edits he was reverting, he was reverting [[Wikipedia:vandalism|simple vandalism]], which is hardly "rogue" or "maverick" behavior. I see nothing wrong with it. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 07:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Not quite vandalism, but certainly very POV commentary of a kind which is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 09:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::That article will undoubtedly deleted soon, but it's still in the name space. In adhering to some semblence of professional standards, RickK was right to revert it, as vandalism, which it clearly is: the additions tunred it into a narrative that editorializes ''itself'' (POV is one thing; commentary is another). Even answers.com, which I love, would not pay us money for that. Unimportant tidings, at any rate. [[User:El C|El_C]] 10:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It always makes me feel good to know that the vandals and trolls hate what I do. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 19:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

:Don't be too proud of this editorial terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a vandal is insignificant next to the power of the Wiki. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

::Sorry for that one. And I'm not even a fan. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

:::Not a fan of answers.com? Wau. [[User:El C|El_C]] 01:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== [[User:IlluSionS667]] ==

{{user| IlluSionS667}} has suddenly appeared making edits to a range of article concerned with "Supremacism" ([[David Duke]], [[Black supremacy]], [[White supremacy]], etc.), including creating [[Jewish supremacism]]. When I VfDed the latter, he moved the contents to "Jewish supremacy", and made the original article into a redirect. I doubt that he's a newcomer; could someone do an IP check to see if he's one of our old friends? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:After meeting opposition to his attempt to delete external links from [[Supremacism]], he went straight to [[Wikipedia:Third opinion ]] &mdash; again, not the action of a newcomer to Wikipedia. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I will look into the situation right now. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] | [[User:Linuxbeak/Desk|Desk]] 00:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

== [[User:Wragge]] ==

Someone seems to have taken over this account and changed the password. Is it OK if I block it from editing, leaving a message for the real User to contact an admin when he turns up, so that he can regain control of it? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:How do you know what the account's password was? [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 15:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Taken over? Yeah, maybe s/he was having a party and someone drunkingly typed that in jest, hard to tell. [[User:El C|El_C]] 01:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Could be that Wragge was drunk. I can't see any dodgy edits apart from to the user page. It would do no harm to block just in case: he can always contact Mel to get unblocked. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::Strom in [[green tea]] cup, me thinks. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::Storm in a glass of vodka, more like. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 03:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::See, I really don't like this attitude towards blocking, I don't think it's something to be done so lightly. If no account takeover has happened, then this will cause a lot of annoying trouble for Wragge. So it would do some harm. A block isn't something you just throw around with thinking. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are explanations for this besides that his account has been taken over. Of course that is one possibility. I think the block was a bit excessive; nothing extreme was going on, like article vandalism. For all we know it was Wragge having a little fun on his own user page, which I think we would agree is harmless. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Everyking, I don't think the user was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWragge actually blocked]. I agree that one shouldn't block without thinking; that's why Mel Etitis brought it up here for our advice instead of just blocking Wragge. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 04:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Oh, OK, my mistake. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::No problem! &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I've seen a number of people making fun of themselves on their userpages. I always revert such things just to be safe and have been contacted by the users in question, it was them having fun. Let's watch out and make sure the user doesn't start any serious disruptive actions and only block when he starts disrupting processes or articles. (Maybe reverting the userpage is a good idea too if it can be offensive to Wragge). [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 09:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

*The edit was not only out of character, but was stylistically wrong. I still doubt very mucch that it was Wragge. I protected the page against editing, until Wragge returns; of course I didn't block him (as my message above indicates, I was asking for advice, not reporting my action). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 14:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

**I doubt there's one person here, who, while drunk, can correctly distinguish between ''your'' and ''you're''. :) [[User:El C|El_C]] 14:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

***You're replying to him. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 16:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

**** Your reply is noted! [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 18:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

***** There, now that everybody has demonstrated their grammatical skills, will they agree that they're not going to do this again? -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 23:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== [[Letter writing]] ==

Recently I saw this article had been transwikied and now consisted of only an interwiki link (grounds for speedy delete, by [[WP:CSD]], article, #3). In fact there had been a [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Letter writing|VfD ruling]] to the effect of transwiki and delete. Only after the I put the tag on and it ''was'' speedied did I realize what I had gotten myself into, when Woohookitty informed me of the previous conflict with the article's creator, and the vandalism that ensued. He wrote to me:

"''I will keep the speedy deletion intact, but if the guy who kept trying to recreate the original article comes back...have fun. :) He literally put every article I've ever written up for deletion in retaliation. In early February, I put the article up for vfd as a way of stopping this guy and the solution was to keep it as a wiki interlink. is the vfd discussion on it. If you still want to speedy delete it, go ahead, but as I said, if Richard pulls this crap again, have fun. And see, Richardr443 wrote on the talk page about it and is now threatening to recreate the entire article. So I'm going to take the speedy delete off. I know it should be deleted, but this moron is going make my life hell (again) if it's speedy deleted. And actually as I typed this, the article just got deleted. So here we go again. Thanks.''"

Now the original content of the article, not just the redirect, has been recreated by an anon, but it must be that original author/vandal ([[User:Richardr443]]), judging by the fact it was than exact copy. Do you think someone could take a look at this situation? And to be clear, it ''is'' a how-to, and not an encyclopedic article, and exists on Wikibooks. --[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] 06:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Incidentally, the anon that recreated the article did vandalize Woohookitty's page in the past, and both the anon and Richard have RickK's vandalism warnings on the same day. They must be the same person. --[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] 06:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the person that Dmcdevit is referring to...the one who has been vandalized by Richard several times. Admins, if there is any way to stop this from reoccuring again and again, please do so because frankly, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this jerk. I would suggest banning him myself. This is the third time he's recreated this article since January. The article is not encyclopedic in the least. We have already tried making the article a interwiki link and then we tried to make it a speedy delete...and both times, he came back. For now, I will leave the article as it is until you guys come up with some way of stopping this. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 07:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I think, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Letter_writing&diff=prev&oldid=9954876 this], all this editor needs is a bit of explaining why it belongs on Wikibooks and why it didn't show up in a search immediately. Also, it may be a good idea to tell them how to make the page more visible. Wikibooks isn't just some obscure "other site", it's a Wikimedia project for textbooks. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 09:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

*I wish it was that simple, Mgm, but this guy has been unyielding...no compromise whatsoever. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 19:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==VfD trolls==

We have had three brand new accounts created in the last two days who have all headed immediately to the VfD pages and began casting votes with no prior Wikipedia edits. You have to wonder if they're doing so to build up their Wikipedia edits in order to qualify for page moves. One of them has already been blocked for finally succumbing to vandalism after their VfD vote spree. They are {{user|ShureMicGuy}}, {{user|ConeyCyclone}} and {{user|Jinkleberries}}. Jinkleberries is the one who was blocked. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 23:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Might want to add {{user|Chubby Chicken}} to that list. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels&diff=prev&oldid=15081653 this edit] by Jinkleberries makes me a little worried because this user adds xys name to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels]]. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* I would also suggest taking a look at [[User:Melvis]], [[User:Hohokus]], and [[User:Toasthaven]]. Although they have (a few) other edits, those accounts appear to have been created primarily to vote on VfDs. Toasthaven headed straight to the VfD pages for his/her first edit, a majority of the others' edits are VfD votes. All have few edits and accounts were created within the last three weeks. [[User:Kaibabsquirrel|Kaibabsquirrel]] 23:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Interestingly enough, both Melvis and Hohokus deleted the welcome messages other Users put on their Talk pages, without a thank you or any other comment. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, we finally have it coming. I've seen quite a few even smarter new users, who, when a particular VfD starts, sit and make cosmetic edits, and then proceed to VfD. Still other accounst are dormant, but periodically reactivate during some VfD. Something must be done with the policy. It worked so far, since so far vandals are not consolidated. But I smell massive attacks coming. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think this is much of a problem, personally: if someone has made only a small quantity of edits someone will be sure to point that out (because the opposition is always looking for any way to disqualify a vote), and that vote will either not be counted or given reduced weight&mdash;particularly if the account's edits are only very minor ones. On the other hand, if someone wants a vote and they are willing to do a reasonable about of wiki-work so that their vote will be counted, that's fine by me; even if I don't like the vote I'd still say we're better off to have someone making good edits, even if they are opportunistic. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::But as I said above, and as I think Mikkalai is trying to say, these users seem to be collecting edits to give them enough valid edits to be eligible to make page moves. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 04:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder if it would be worth having a minimum edit requirement before you can vote on the various -fd pages (even if it's low, say 100 edits). The only groups that head straight there with little prior wiki-ing experience seem to be the creators of the pages, vandals, and sockpuppets. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I wouldn't mind if the author of an article on VFD would vote there. So I oppose a minimum edit requirement. When they can provide proof their page is factually correct and belongs to wikipedia in a detailed rationale, I'm all for it. It's the people that vote keep without explanation (or those who stuff votes) when all others vote delete that annoys me. (forgot to sign earlier - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 11:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC))

**Well, there can be an explicit exception that the creator of the article gets to vote unconditionally, but for others they need to have some edits on record to show that they have some substantial interest in editing besides just that one article on VfD. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

***I think we might not even need an exception for the creator, if we were to state that anyone is allowed to ''discuss'' on VFD, but only established users can ''vote''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

*Anyway. The usage of role or sock accounts for *FD voting has been alleged to in the past, and I can see it becoming a substantial problem (because if not stopped somehow, some people might react by doing the same thing to counter opposing socks). I think the only feasible way of stopping it is sockchecking. Immediate banning of suspected role accounts is too harsh since some of them would be legit, but calling for an IP check would solve that problem. I realize sockchecking is somewhat controversial because of privacy issues, but maybe we should discuss that anyway. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

*: I cannot see it becoming a substantial problem. We've had the problem (and the discussion) for quite some time now. The worst that can happen (has happened) is that a VfD vote gets stuffed with nonsense votes. But keep in mind it's not really a vote; the administrator who closes the discussion is who decides what happens to the article, based on the ''legitimate'' input of the community. A blanket "keep" or "delete" counts for very little (nothing if not from an established account), and "me, too" votes are usually only as strong as the original argument. IP checks are still no match for common sense. I think it would be too much to hope that we can identify a small number of people who consistently ruin votes, and ban them. Of course, if people ''want'' to spend time and effort on checking this, good for them; I think no essential solution to the problem exists, however, other than trusting in the good sense of administrators. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 12:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)