Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

121.45.181.31 removes external references again

Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29 [1] (with comment There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion).
Is he playing dumb?
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages [2] on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. Kubura (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC

Please, ThuranX, if you're not an admin, nor an involved person in this case, don't interfere.
How can you give right to someone who deletes external links? Are you suggesting the support to trolling behaviour: ignoring of references, section blanking, deleting of references (sources with content that POV-izer don't want to see) that are opponents' arguments that you cannot beat? Where would Wikipedia end then? If you can't tell the difference between the scientific article and the book, please, don't mess into encyclopedic stuff. If you don't know the purpose of external links, don't mess. Read wiki-manuals. Don't burden WP:ANI with unnecessarily taken disk space. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "don't interfere"> Anyone can post here. Any editor can look into any section here, and offer an opinion. Often, that can help admins see their interpretation is supported, or disputed by others, making them give more reasoned explanations of their actions, or rework their actions to a more supported solution. It's a major check/balance on the AN/I. I've read the 'wiki-manuals'. Since all you've said is basic trolling, and no explanation for the change in citation, then move on. The edit was questionable, and I stand by that. ThuranX (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, deleted lines in the article were edited by me, but in that moment I didn't put a reference there, I've done it later, see history. Also deleted references were not connected to deleted text, but to other parts of the article which were not removed by this vandal user. I have rewritten this part of text according to the source, and now it's there: both text and reference - official scientific research and restored other deleted references. An user reported by Kubura is definitely a vandal - in this case removing 5,6 references! For other actions of this anon see previous report by Kubura. Blanking is his/her favourite hoby. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the lines removed by the IP didn't belong, as they were clear WP:SYNTH violations. Your rewrite is fully sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP made a good call. His actions elsewhere were not dicussed or brought up till now, and remain irrelevant to the eidt in question, which I would have done myself, were I monitoring such pages, which I don't. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IP user 121.45.181.31 has deleted whole section of external links, that gave info about these things. That's blanking.
ThuranX, if you have something to say about this, go to the talkpage, don't burden this page with the things that were supposed to be done on the talkpage. That IP user didn't give explanation. Don't disturb admins' procedure.
If he dislike one section of the text, he could have deleted only that part, but no, he deleted unwanted references, because they were proving him wrong. Finally, "uncited" part was later cited and referenced. Why are you stubbornly defending a troll, ThuranX? Kubura (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of 'trolling', it's what you're now doing. Let me say this one last time, then I'll just move for a block against you. The edit the IP made was a good one. The ELs he removed were redundant, and the text he removed was uncited SYNTH and OR. That somethign supposedly similar, in your opinion, was later added in a 'cited and referenced' form is irrelevant. What was removed should have been removed. Stop owning the article, and accept that the excuse laden section that was removed was bad, even awful writing, constituting the writer's own Original Research into why things just didn't count anayways so ignore them, and it was rightly removed. I don't know why you can't see that, other than you wrote it, but it was bad article writing, and the IP was right to remove it. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK people calm down please, no need to argue about such unimportant details. Thuranx please try to understand, maybe you're right - my first edit with no reference was a kind of original research, my intention was to cover it by a source but I simply forgot it - my guilt. However, reported user actually has very short history of undoubtful anti-Croatian contributions, short but very known to Kubura, me and several other users and administrators involved, possibly a sock or meatpuppet of a banned user (an Italian fascism/irredentism extremist) who made a lot of mess in numerous Dalmatia and Croatia related articles during last a year and half. He was always followed by bunch of anons and damage done is so huge that we need 1 year more to repair it this way, since we must constantly clean it, almost every day there is some anon vandalism around in mentioned articles, although "the brain" was banned. Maybe that's why some nervousness is present here. Kubura was just trying to get some help from admins, that's all. Once again, calm down please and happy New Year to both of you. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IN order to get the result you speak of, you'd need to provide evidence of ongoing troubles and harrassments. That has not been done here. As Iv'e said, ad nauseum, all that was brought here was one edit, which was perfectly valid and improved the project. That's it. that's all that was put up for review. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! An user blanked a group of references! That's vandalism! Zenanarh (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

Unresolved

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

User:Raggz

Unresolved

 – Moved thread over 50kb to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

slakr^\ talk /

Still ongoing via multiple pages. Disruption, wikilawyering, gaming the system, threats, mild trolling on talk pages, and now a new single-user account (User:Ryder Spearmann) has showed up as of a few days ago, writing in the same style as Raggz and making the same arguments. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just coincidence, I don't know. —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone inform User:Raggz that consensus on article talk pages does not override WP:NPOV. He just claimed that it does here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article subpage for on-topic discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I would like an administrator's advice on how to deal with Ghanadar galpa on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) talk page. I have tried to point out problems with the sources he is using to support his anti-CPM POV, which he regards as the "truth". However, his behaviour is quite aggressive, confrontational and uncompromising. He has now accused me of being a part of "a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia."[3] It is difficult to know what to do in such a situation. If he thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is hired by the CPM, then I don't think it bodes well for any meaningful mediation. I am unclear what the "referral for comment" procedure entails. Is this in addition or complementary to discussing it on this noticeboard? Is this noticeboard the first place to raise these issues?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might also want to look at the well-sourced [[4]] section that Conjoiner and his drive-by revert buddy Soman are desperately trying to remove

• [5]: mass blanking as a "minor change"
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

and then using numerous interesting epithets[9], right before making disparaging remarks] about peer-reviewed sources and trying to discredit them, even after their peer-reviewed status has been independently attested by the British Journal of Sociology.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I would like to make two points; [10] has a edit summary which reads 'rv, minor changes'. This should be understood as revert + minor changes. 2) regarding [11], the anon user has already been reported in a separate ANI. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'

I haven't been 'using numerous interesting epithets', I agreed with the anon user on the rejection of the way the 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' subsection was presented. The epithet raising was done by the anon user, this accusation is merely guilt by association. --Soman (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 'disparaging remarks' in [12]? Regarding the accusation of 'drive-by reverts', I began arguing at the talk page in early December for the removal of the controversies chapter. --Soman (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The climate of discussion has taken yet another step in a downward spiral, as conspiracy theories on Communist-Nazi connections by guilt by association arguments are levelled at the talk page. It is needed that more editors involve themselves in the discussion, so that the article can move forward. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I'm not so bothered by the accusations that I am a "Communist gangster", but there does need to be some mediation/arbitration involved by a neutral party and/or more editors from outside the discussion so we can move on. I don't know why the administrators noticeboard and the referral for comments mechanisms are not producing any results in terms of greater involvement from the Wikipedia community.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In what I would see as a related issue, User:Ghanadar galpa has begun to include the link to Nandigram violence in 'see also' sections of Great Purge, Victims of Communism Memorial, Criticisms of Communist party rule, etc., a completly ahistorical comparison for pov purposes. --Soman (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) See also, [13]. --Soman (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) User:Ghanadar galpa begins to use the term genocide for the Nandigram conflict; [14] --Soman (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This has now spilled over to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 9, with User:Ghanadar galpa claim that those who disagree with him as are 'CPI(M) members'. Moreover, launches the conspiracy theory that CPI(M) and CPI(Maoist) are allies, whilst disregarding the campaign of assassinations of CPI(M) cadres by Maoists. --Soman (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that writing anything on this noticeboard is farcical. Either administrators are indifferent or they are asleep. The referral for comment has also achieved no results. Can someone suggest any alternative solution which could avert an edit war that threatens to spill over into a vast range of articles? (for instance, the likening of the CPI(M) to an entirely unrelated Italian terrorist group Red Brigade [15] and the portrayal of the West Bengal state government as the Red Terror [16] - both of which are absurd POV-pushing) If no-one is prepared to say anything, then I guess the situation will have to deteriorate to a point where enough people are aggravated into doing something.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rouge Admin abuse by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise?

I want to report that I have been, what I perceive to be, the subject of long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia by self described WP:ROUGE admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise (also known as FPS). I had joined in June 19. Immediately, banned user user:NokhchiBorz had accuse me of being a sock of user:Buffadren to which FPS had said

Hi, yes, it might well be the guy is a new Buffadren/Mauco sock. I don't yet see enough evidence to go on for a block, but we'll keep an eye open.

At this point I had been posting for maybe 3 days the number of posts you could count on your fingers and already he was monitoring me and assuming bad faith in believing that I may be a "Buffadren/Mauco sock"!

I had tried to calm him down my posting to his talk page and introducing myself but no response from him.

A few weeks later, a sock of banned user and arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte vandalized my user space. FPS blocked him but did not revert the sock puppet tags that the vandal had put on my user page. Perhaps believing that they belonged.

A few weeks later still. An IP sock of arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte had started up a Request for Checkuser on me. FPS then helped this banned sockpuppetier complete the checkuser request. He also blamed me for sparking an edit war which I absolutely did not do.

At this point I had tried to reason with FPS numerous times to no avail so I decided to wait and let the dust settle and hope that he would chill and I went forward with adding content to the project. Most recently, I tried to make a peace offering and a request to put all of this behind us which FPS rejected in what I perceive as a terse response.

Part of the reason I bring this up is that everytime I have a minor dispute with another editor, that editor brings up the fact that an admin believes me to be a sockpuppet of William Mauco.

I demand that Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly state what he needs from me to end what I considered is this long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia. Under no circumstances will I give up my privacy. Once this is met, I demand that he apologize. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above section relates to the below subsection and the archiver incorrectly archived it so I am bringing it back for continuity sake. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of user:Britlawyer

When FPS had helped banned user user:Bonaparte file a checkuser against me. I had noticed another user user:Britlawyer which FPS had checkusered against user:William Mauco and had turned out unrelated and from different continents. Future Perfect had banned this user regardless of the checkuser results saying that he is a likely sock of William Mauco. I believe further scrutiny is required to look at his actions then and his continuing actions. This raised concerns by admin user:John_Kenney (read here). FPS responded to John_Kenney in that link:

This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all.

It looks like he is putting more faith in his sleuthing abilities than the checkuser. I for one can say that if his conduct towards me is any indication, his sleuthing skills need improvement. I recommend that this block as well as his actions be given more scrutiny.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the account creation and edit patterns just scream sockpuppet, and that a checkuser cannot be used as "proof of innocence" (editing from a proxy is trivial enough). I can't tell whether FPS is correct, but he certainly seems to have been reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so but did it warrant a block? I have posted a request on John Kenney's page and I await what he has to say about this. I also think that some of the principles from this arbcom descision might also apply here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, my reason for posting this block is that we know that false positives do occur and since FPS is wrong about me he could also be wrong about others. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time assuming good faith from anybody who comes here demanding anything. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty please with sugar on top, could everyone not get caught up on semantics and WP:AGF and also Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith on my part and address my concerns. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked in May. Am I missing something here? --B (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was in may. I posted it here in order to have a look at possible incorrect long term admin behaviour and possible overzealousness. Which I believe I have also been subjected to. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of admin FPS, he was one of the people who asked my ban during Transnistria arbitration (proposal rejected by arbcom), but I consider legitimate the checkuser he asked regarding possible conection between User:Pocopocopocopoco and topic-banned user User:William Mauco. Generally speaking, is nothing wrong to ask a checkuser if there are suspicions. Mauco was proved as an malicious sockpuppeteer and the checkuser didn't gave relevant answers regarding User:Pocopocopocopoco (the answer was "stale" - is bad that after the arbitration case the checkuser data regarding William Mauco were not kept). I wonder why this sudden demand of an apology for a checkuser asked long time ago and which had no relevant answers (that mean nobody can tell that the suspicions were wrong). To be mentioned that yesterday a ban evasion by User:Buffadren (banned in the same Transnistria arbitration like Mauco) was discovered, and FPS blocked the IP used for ban evasion, I wonder if it was not this fact who suddenly made Poco angry.--MariusM (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I care not about Buffadren or Markus Street or whatever other socks that person has used. If it was proven that he was an astroturfer then he deserves to be banned. I am not angry, just determine to put an end to this issue of FPS's suspicions against me. The reason I bring this up now is, as I stated, whenever I get into a minor dispute with another editor, FPS's beliefs that I may be Mauco are trotted out by that editor and I want this to end. This has been occuring on an ongoing basis and has occurred recently (diffs can be supplied if requested). The other reason that I bring this here is that I was not able to resolve this by communicated with FPS on his talk page recently. I clearly stated that I would try to address his concerns if he would communicate these concerns. He did not present me with any way to get to a resolution on this issue with him. I have no problem with the fact that he ran a checkuser but I have a problem with the entire pattern of suspicion that hasn't even been put to rest even now and I have a problem with the fact that he seems to be basing all of this from the allegations of banned users (NokhchiBorz and Bonaparte). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this was ages ago - I barely remember it. I remember that at the time I thought it was questionable to block a user when the check user suggested that they were not a sock puppet - and perhaps Future Perfect acted hastily. But I would imagine it's quite likely that s/he was right nonetheless. I'm not even sure what to say about this - there does seem to be a fair amount of Transnistrian sockpuppetry going on, but the Romanian side is hardly much better. It's all a fetid fever swamp, really. john k (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

if  Confirmed socks are very likely to be blocked regardless of behaviour, that doesn't mean that  Unrelated socks can't be blocked based on their behaviour. Sockpuppet is unfortunately not Magic Pixie Dust. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the indefinite block should come after incorrect or abusive behaviour no? John might not remember now, but in the link I posted John said that Britlawyer was broadly "civil and polite" and "highlighted legitmate sources". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my impression at the time that Britlawyer was not behaving in unacceptable ways, aside from the question of whether or not he was a sock puppet. This is worth clarifying. The black was entirely based on the supposition that Britlawyer was a sock puppet, not based on other disruptive behavior. That said, the non Checkuser evidence that Britlawyer was a sock seemed fairly strong to me at the time after Future Perfect explained it to me, which is why I didn't pursue it further. john k (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucasbfr, that statement is incorrect. Confirmed sockpuppets might not be blocked if there is a logical explanation (family members, roommates, coworkers) and unrelated users might still be sockpuppets even without technical evidence if the contributions make it obvious. Even in a simple case like only editing from work with one account and home with the other would make technical evidence improbable, but a case could be proven with contributions. I have no earthly idea if this person was socking or not, but "unrelated" doesn't necessarily mean "proven false". --B (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was no possible legit explanation for a  Confirmed (I saw one two days ago), just that most confirmed users are illegitimates socks. Checkusers are wary of that kind of possibilities. Anyway we are looking at the other case here :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying below the principles from the unrelated but somewhat similar arbcom case (linked above) that I also believe apply here:

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).

5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.

The questions that I now have are:

1. Why did FPS WP:BITE and assume bad faith and believe that I might be a sock after I had hardly made any edits and had only been a user for 3 days?
2. Why does FPS pay so much heed to the allegiations that banned users have against me?
3. Why can he not admit that he was wrong, apologize, and end all of this? Does he believe that I have made 7 months of contribution in a multitude of topics just to pull the wool over his eyes that I am a sockpuppet of one of the transnitrian astroturfers?
4. Why has he not responded to this section in WP:ANI about his conduct?
5. Why has he not responded to my query about his recall criteria? I still don't think it will be necessary but how can one claim to be an admin open to recall and yet not have a recall criteria?
6. As per the above arbcom principle #3, did Future Perfect at Sunrise bring the matter of Britlawyer to an Arbitration Committee before applying the indefinite block? He obviously didn't justify his actions in public.
7. As per the above arbom principle 8.1, was there no other means of dealing with the possible sockpuppetery of Britlawyer other than an indefinite block? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pejoratively written "questions" like this aren't actually questions (see Have you stopped beating your wife?). ANI can't really deal with this - perhaps you want dispute resolution or requests for comment? ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my questions can be thought of as loaded questions when I actually don't know the answers and I want the answers. For instance, I don't know why FPS thought I was a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer after hardly any edits and I want to know the answer. I don't know why he might still believe after 7 months of contribution to a wide variety of subjects that I still might be a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer and I want to know the answer. I have thought about an RFC but doesn't an RFC require two complainants? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe

User:Nihonjoe created the article Youmex, a now defunct anime and music production company. Another editor tagged it for CSD.[17]. Even though he was the creator of the article, Nihonjoe removed the CSD tag rather than letting another admin decide it. The editor who tagged it sent it to AfD instead. In the AfD discussion, Nihonjoe has shown some borderline uncivil behavior in his interactions with other editors. While the AfD is going towards a keep consensus, the sources themselves were questioned by the original nominator as well as other editors in the AfD. To address the issue, I checked all of the sources and found most were just the word Youmex appearing on a store page or as part of the catalog number, clearly not reliable sources. I cleaned up the article to fit what was verifiable through reliable sources, and added another reliable source for some additional titles. Nihonjoe reverted the redo, proclaiming his version had correct sources.[18] I reverted, because what was removed was unreferenced and said so in my edit summary. Nihonjoe removed again, with the edit summary of "What the hell are you talking about? You REMOVED several references, please stop doing that, I'm working on the article right now, and your reverting is making that difficult"[19]. I undid, again, and tagged his user page for adding unsourced material and to ask him to work from the revised version rather than an old version. He removed the warning with the edit summary of "You're full of it, as I said, and I'[m working on the article right now." and reverted again[20]. I reverted again (unintentionally as vandalism) as he continued to refuse to source the original research and personal views that he was adding back, or to explain how his "sources" were reliable.[21]. In response, he protected the article[22] with the note "To stop the stupid reverting by Collectonian [edit=sysop:move=sysop])."

He also created a redirect for Futureland (record label) to go to Youmex. I CSDed it as an improbable typo (and his providing no reliable source that Futureland was, in fact, a part of Youmex. He removed the CSD even though he was the one who created the article, claiming that anyone can remove a CSD even the creator, even though the CSD notice specifically says otherwise.

To me, an admin who runs around un-CSDing his own articles and protecting as article he created so only he and other admins can edit it (even if he has, currently, kept it at the cleaned up version), is abusing his power. His attitudes with other editors in this case and seeming ownership issues with some articles is also appalling for someone with administrative powers. Collectonian (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your consern, and I am experiensing a similar situation with an admin in my category of expertise. But User:Nihonjoe has done a lot of work for the cumminity, why not give him a bit of latitude and see how things go? Igor Berger (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • His long experience and seemingly over all good edits are the main reason I brought here instead of RfC. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, anyone (including the creator of an article, whether or not they are an admin) can remove a legitimately invalid CSD notice (thought it's not recommended, but WP:IAR applies here, I think). If it is removed, then there's obviously a dispute over it and it should be taken to (in this case) TfD. Until Collectonian came along, all the concerns raised in the AfD discussion had been addressed (including my concerns that someone would AfD an article less than 24 hours after it was created when it was obvious someone was working on expanding it).

  Collectonian then proceded to remove all of the references for various items in the article without any legitimate reasoning, and without regard for the subject of the article being a very difficult one for which to find online resources. The only legitimate concern was a little bias I had included in the article based on my personal experience and knowledge of the company. After it was pointed out, I specifically reworded the article to remove that bias, but Collectonian abused Twinkle to revert my edit without any reason (nothing in the edit summary at all, other than the fact he'd used Twinkle to do it and that he considered my edit to be vandalism). Collectonian claims that the information in the article which he removed was unreferenced, though that is clearly untrue.

  I then protected the article (specifically at the version I did not want, and to prevent Collectonian from abusing Twinkle further) so that no one would edit it further as it was obvious that Collectonian was going to revert anyone else who edited the article to something other than what he wanted.

  The messages I removed from my talk page were rude and uncalled for (especially since they were obviously intended for people brand new at editing—Collectonian himself has only really been editing for the last 4-5 months despite having an account open since 2004).

  As for the Futureland redirect, it's a legitimate disambiguated redirect which is being used by several related articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I removed a bunch of references that didn't actually support anything in the article. You can't just throw in some links and try to call them references if they don't support anything. Anyone can remove a PROD, not a CSD. The removed information was not referenced. Most of the lists of titles you gave were not even mentioned in any of those references, and several of the "references" did nothing more than have the word youmex in a catalog number or somewhere on the page. Your references were invalid hence their removal.Collectonian (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All of the references you removed were either referencing a specific item or contained lists of Youmex titles. None of the lists contained all of the titles, but together they listed all or most of them. As I've pointed out over and over, the company has been defunct for almost ten years (an eternity on the web), and finding online references is difficult. It is very likely that one or more of the magazines I have has an article about Youmex, but I haven't yet catalogued all of them yet (it takes a lot of time to catalogue an entire magazine, let alone hundreds of them). All of the sources you removed were legitimate. Nothing I did was abusive (concerned, yes, and perhaps a little heated, but not abusive). You complete ignoring of legitimate sources, and use of Twinkle to enforce your opinion is abusive, however. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • All references don't have to be online. I added sources from one of several english language anime encyclopedias, and I suspect some of the other ones may also provide much better information as they do span multiple years. You did abuse your powers by removing a CSD from both an article you created and a redirect you created. A CSD is not a PROD and even if you felt it was not valid, as the article creator, you should never have removed them, but left it to an administrator who was not personally involved to make the decision. Regular editors who remove a CSD from their own articles are warned quick fast and in a hurry. Do you feel that because you are an admin you are somehow immune from the rules or being warned? Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Collectonian, anyone can remove a CSD tag, and it is really improper for you to have been using Twinkle to edit war with an administrator who was in the process of writing an article. There was no reason to revert when content was being added that had references. The last version seemed to have several sources, but you tacked on that the edits were vandalism. I'm not sure if this is something you have to work on, or something that needs to be removed from the Twinkle script, but I can see no improper activities by Nihonjoe here, other than protecting a page he was working on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Um, what? Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion pretty expressly prohibits an article's creator from removing its CSD tag. Of course, IAR wouldn't let that translate into preventing the removal of plainly invalid CSD tags, or are you explicitly disagreeing with written policy, in general? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
            • That is a relatively recent addition to the criteria. The edit summary where it was introduced said that it was restoration of policy. But I, for one, wasn't aware that it had been policy up to that point. It doesn't seem to match the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 19, certainly. Nor is it in any prior version of the page that I've seen. It's a rather wide blanket provision, for the simple reason that it is administrators that we expect to know what the speedy deletion criteria are, and whose judgement is supposed to be sound in whether a tag has been incorrectly applied. And yes, as the edit summary said, one cannot advertise for a company that no-longer exists. However, I note that the article gave no indication at that point that that was the case. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • If that is true, then the CSD template needs to be rewritten because it says very explicitly that the article creator should NOT remove a CSD, but put a {{hangon}} tag with an explanation of why they feel the article should not be deleted instead. Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, after reading that, it looks like I was mistaken in that one instance. However, it appears that I'm not the only one to be mistaken in this regard as Ryūlóng also wasn't aware of that. Regardless, it was an abusive use of the CSD system to nominate the redirect (and the article itself), and at least those who abusively used CSD are now actually discussing the issue rather than incorrectly nominating something for speedy deletion which obviously doesn't qualify. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Accusing your opponent of "abusive" use of the CSD system won't help your case - it's not abusive as long as it was made in good faith and based on a defensible interpretation of policy. And then there's still the protection issue, which is a very blatant case of misuse of admin tools indeed. I mean, come on, you surely can't plead ignorance about that one, can you? Protecting a page you are in an edit-war over is an absolute no-no, most basic of all admin behaviour rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
              • For what it's worth, he at least remembered to protect the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Point taken. But what's the point in such a protection then? If you've got an edit war between just two people, there's an easier way to ensure that the article stays on your opponent's ("wrong") version: just stop reverting yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
                • The problem being that the article is listed for AfD, and unless the article is improved, it will be deleted. Collectonian did nothing but destroy the work that had gone into sourcing the information found there (calling ALL references other than his own unreliable). Exactly how is that good faith, and exactly how does that help improve the article? As I indicated (several times now, including when I originally did it), I specifically protected the version of the page I did not want so I couldn't be accused of using my twiddled bit for my own purposes. I haven't tried to hide the fact that I protected it, and I didn't violate the spirit of the rule (which is in place to prevent what I specifically did not do). I also haven't edited the page since protecting it, either. There is no misuse here on my part, blatant or otherwise. A misunderstanding on my part of the policy, but I already admitted to that.

                  As for Collectonian marking the Futureland (record label) for deletion, that was absolutely an abuse of the CSD system. The only reason he marked it for deletion was because I created it. Period. It was an invalid tag as it was a legitimate redirect (which was in use by several articles). He claims that I have no proof that Futureland was a label belonging to Youmex, and that's why he marked it for deletion. I have a pile of CDs here that would like to argue that with him, and there are plenty of CD catalogs out there which would argue that with him, too. As I've told him multiple times, finding online resources discussing Youmex/Futureland as a business is very difficult due to the company about ten years ago becoming defunct due to being reabsorbed into its parent company. I have printed resources that may have such information, but it takes quite a while to go through more than 100 thick magazines and 50 or so large books. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first: a thread with a title involving "admin abuse" where there's actually a case to answer. Wow! I'm not going to comment on the admin issues, looks like some errors of judgement rather than malice. However: Joe, you know that new articles get patrolled and are under extra scrutiny. You know we need sources. You know that a deletion nomination isn't a personal issue and that you should remain calm. Most worrying to me is this continued mention of "online resources". Who gives a flying f*ck about online resources? We need references, not excuses. If the company's old, dig out your magazines and then write the article. At least get a few decent refs together first to establish notability. The world wasn't invented the day the web was switched on, nor is there any rush to document this company that probably isn't very notable anyway... --kingboyk (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Protecting the article means that no one can improve it, which seems silly since it's at afd and it's likely that people would want to improve it. Since the protection was illegitimate (Nihonjoe used page protection to prevent his opponent from editing it), shouldn't it be reversed? Seraphim ^Whipp 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the article history, I'm not exactly sure what grounds Collectonian has behind this complaint. First after Nihonjoe created the article, Superm401 (talk · contribs) tags the article as {{db-spam}}.[23] However, anyone who actually looks at the article at that point can tell that it wasn't blatant advertisement and that the {{db-spam}} was inappropriately applied and Nihonjo's removal stated that fact.[24] Superm401, then sent to article to AfD.[25] Ok, no real problem so far.

Nihonjo continues to expand the article and add sources[26] until Collectonian (talk · contribs) comes in and undoes most of the work and removes nearly all of the sources Nihonjo added.[27] At this point is when the edit war started between the two different versions with Collectonian eventually calling Nihonjoe's reverts "vandalism".[28][29] After Collctonian's last revert, Nihojoe locks the article to keep the edit war going further,[30] only to see this complaint here.

I also note that neither party attempted to discuss the dispute with each other on a talk page. Particularly, Collectonian didn't attempt to explain why he felt the sources that Nihonjoe was using weren't reliable. --Farix (Talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The questioning of the sources occurred in the AfD (in short, they didn't support what he said they did), and unlike Nihonjo, I've already taken my punishment for my inappropriate labeling of his bad edits as vandalism like a good girl and lost my Twinkle. He, however, abused his admin powers on this and other articles by removing a CSD from his own articles, then protecting an article he was personally involved in. Because he has admin powers, he just bypassed all the usually methods any other editor would have been expected to follow, which is an abuse of those powers to me. Whether his actions were right or wrong, he still decided to do them himself instead of letting an editor not personally involved in the article deal with the CSDs and evaluate the need for page protection. I've lost Twinkle access for 72 hours even though our minor edit war resulted in not a single warning left on my page, yet his misuse of his powers when he obviously had a COI in the situation seems to be considered just fine. Collectonian (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about this incident. However, I have noticed many times were Nihonjoe has been a poor admin/editor, particularly when it comes to references written in Japanese. Thats one outsiders point of view. 220.253.5.116 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Pmanderson

Due to an edit conflict on this talk page, in which User:Pmanderson was also incivil in discussions with User:Turgidson, he keeps to be disruptive and adding "alternate names" to Romania article. However, after he was reverted two times here and here because his claims were unsourced, he added a source which doesn't necessary have anything to do with alternate names of Romania/Romanian. I think such attitudes are clearly disruptive and should be properly treated. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Did those sources use the name Rumania or Roumania? Really though, until I was told that it "is" Romania, I personally spelt it Roumania. The Catholic Encyclopedia uses Rumania and frankly, I think people are a little too eager to make incident reports when someone disagrees with them or they disagree with someone else. When faced with people reverting these very common alternative names, I wouldn't be surprised with anyone having a less than favourable reaction. It seems to be a case of picking on someone and trust me, Pmanderson and I have had a lot of differences. He's a good editor though. Charles 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources are here: two recently published books (one from Oxford) which use Rumania and Roumania in their titles, and the reasonably well-known poem by Dorothy Parker. This appears to be vengeance for my supporting the move at Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive to the form actually used in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Eurocopter tigre, in past dealings with User:Pmanderson I have found him to be incredibly rude, insulting, and disruptive in many different edits to many different articles... and he has also been blocked at times for his disruptive behaviour (whether 3RR or otherwise) but this seems to surface from time to time and now continues unchecked. Rarelibra (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a reference to this dispute, and to the time we were both blocked because Rarelibra insisted on removing the name Scutari from Lake Scutari; see its talkpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem with PMA here from any of your diffs, but an edit summary such as you made: "any such additions will be considered vandalism and reported accordingly" is not acceptable during a content dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake we are talking about the oficial name of the country. I'm sure that nobody will agree if I'll post "Ingland" as an alternate name for "England", just because I found this error in a book. Also, see PMA's incivility here and here. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. And, while at it, can anyone explain why is it "imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage", as Pmanderson puts it? What exactly does it mean to be a "foreigner" here at WP? Not a citizen of which country? Pardon me if I sound thin-skinned, but I find such speech highly disturbing, and not in sync with WP policies. I made that clear to Pmanderson here, but no real apology has been offered, just more of the same. Turgidson (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be about alternate spellings of the name and their use on Wikipedia, not the official name, so far as I can see. Who disputes the official name of the country? To Turgidson, I would assume he means that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage. This seems reasonable at first glance, although perhaps not well-applied in your case as your English seems excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I insist on this point, but "foreigner", or "alien" (de:Ausländer, or l'Étranger, if you wish) means precisely "a person who is not a native or naturalized citizen of the land where they are found"—this has nothing to do with whether English is one's native language or not. (If we are to talk about the English language, let's be precise about it, shall we?) So I repeat my question: what is alleged or implied by this statement of Pmanderson, that I am a "foreigner"—in which land? US? UK? Canada? Ireland? Australia? NZ? And, if so, does it make me a second-class citizen here at WP? I thought English Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, with more-or-less equal rights, and that one is judged by the quality of one's edits (including, yes! one's command of the English language), and by the quality of one's demeanor, not by whether one is, or is not, a "foreigner" (again, with respect to which country?) Thank you for considering this point. I am very much interested in hearing your opinion on this, since it goes to the heart of how I view the Wiki. -- Turgidson (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see I'm not getting any answer to my question. Be that as it may, I would still dispute the planted assumption "that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage". Is there a reliable source stating that, or is this merely a nativist assumption? I've seen plenty of native speakers (including editors here at WP) who have a poor command of the English language, especially when it comes to grammar and spelling, and also some non-native speakers with a perfect command of the many nuances, alternate meanings, etymology, etc, not to say grammar and spelling. So I'd say that kind of dismissive attitude towards editors who may not be natives of an English-speaking country is misplaced (to use the mildest word I can use in this context), and not conducive to a good working atmosphere here at WP. -- Turgidson (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Silence talks... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is it saying? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a reaction by a handful of editors with an emotional commitment to the use of official names, as with this uncivil comment by Turgidson to Narson; they do not recognize, or do not accept, that our policy is to use what English usually does; it should not, I suppose, surprise me that they find mention of the other names actually used for Romania equally unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While my experience of PMA is that he can be abrasive at times in his pursuit of what he sees as correct or fixing what is incorrect, I do think that if there is 'action' taken against PMA for that talk page, certainly other users deserve administrative sanction as well (As Husond warned both, after which I believe PMA seemed to make an effort to keep his comments shorter and avoid commentry on other users, while Turgidson has continued to display disdain for the other users). Narson (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Law Lord homophobic attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blocks issued --slakr^\ talk / 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• here
• here

This whole circle of events related to Matt Sanchez is getting out of hand. Lawrence Cohen 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Law Lord has been blocked for 48 hours and a user subpage that contained another homophobic attack has been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked for 48 hours. Way over the line of unacceptability.--Doc^g 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User Law Lord is a 2-3 day old account. Does anyone know if he was blocked under the old one? and if so, the info was not transferred. R. Baley (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Law Lord is a 1 year old account. It's 2008 now, silly :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn year change. . .what was wrong with 2007? Sorry 'bout that, I saw the link to the "compromised account" and jumped the gun. R. Baley (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also blocked Allstarecho for 24 hours for this response [31].--Doc^g 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No way! seriously? R. Baley (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to all this. Lawrence Cohen 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Same insult going both ways, does it matter who is first? Probably should block them for the same duration. ^Avruchtalk 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good blocks, both, although I think they should both be extended to a week. Allstarecho's block should certainly be extended. --Coredesat 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to do that, it others agree. Certainly both users are moving towards banning. Now to bed.--Doc^g 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Given my previous involvement in a related dispute, I shouldn't do the extension. --Coredesat 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the blocks - both of them. I do not endorse extending Allstarecho's block. I think they're fine as they are. - Philippe | Talk 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly and am going to bring this forward for mediation.

Firstly, the first link was simply a restatement of the facts as they were stated on the user's page. He clearly did not think it was anything bad since he wrote: "Thank you. I saw it. It's information that is found on my user page so no biggie. He just used it to get back at me for my own comment I left there. :] ALLSTARecho 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" [32]

So the case was that administrators blocked people, who were in fact able to deal with their grievances themselves. The administrators were not part of the solution but rather the entire problem.

Secondly, deleting an entire user sub page is clearly a violation of policy, since the entire page did not need to be deleted – if anything, only the parts of it that were deemed violating.

Thirdly, several administrators have used a very condescending language, which is unfit for any editor in general and for any administrator in particular.

Finally, editing my user page is a policy violation and plainly and simply shows a lack of manners. --Law Lord (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What policies were violated in your second and third points? John Reaves 08:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own actions have been inappropriate here, Law Lord. There is absolutely no reason to ever call another user a pederast. Your user subpage was a policy violation, per WP:NOT and you later added hate speech to it. You also do not own your userpage. Anyone is free to edit it. Anyone is free to edit any page on Wikipedia. You must realize that you have also been wrong here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves: That would be the policy that states that administrators must act with basic manners indicative of good rearing. I am not a wikilawyer.

Ryulong: I am not saying that I have done nothing wrong. I am merely saying that Allstarecho and I were the only ones who were blocked for wrongs when in fact wrongs were committed by everyone involved. --Law Lord (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some air and also to focus on exams. I will try and stay away until 1 April 2008, unless my exams are finished before then. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consider the helpdesk for issues that do not require administrator attention. slakr^\ talk /

I have created this userbox. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes/Anarcho-primitivism1

What I need to do? I have listed it in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is. Do you need help from an administrator (as in, does something need deleting, restoring, blocking) or is this a general userbox help question? -- Ned Scott 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean that is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Solution=stop making userboxes and start editing the encyclopedia. John Reaves 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, John, what made you so cranky that you snapped at a good contributor like this. Though, seeing like this user has only 2000+ Articlespace edits (and a good deal more on Talk/WP/Userspace) he better start editing the encyclopedia... CharonX/talk 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to use this userbox. I want to know is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your userbox would create a problem. If it's been listed, you and others can start using it. The identifier appears legit, showing you as a member of a clearly defined class, it's not defamatory or uncivil, and others who share your beliefs may also want to use it. Looks like a thumbs up for the content. As to the technical merits (e.g. was it designed correctly, does it transclude correctly, etc.), I'm passing no judgment there as designing userboxes is outside my realm of knowledge. Gromlakh (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to know this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall categories for Wikipedians by political affiliation being deleted, but I'm not sure about the userboxes themselves. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First, there are categories which have political userboxes, seen here. Second, the userbox in question is listed on the page. Third, I think we can close this thread now. miranda 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Though seeing as how anarcho-primitivism rejects all forms of technology as a destructive and corrupting influence on human nature, I'm not sure how many will show up on Wikipedia and utilize the userbox. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm sure they're more likely to suffering from the Amish Virus, where you smash your abacus to pieces and then tell everyone you know to do the same with theirs. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism exactly not rejects technology, anarcho-primitivism rejects civilization as a whole, and technology is only part of civilization. Try to understand the subject very well before criticizing it. Anarcho-primitivism reject all the foundations of civilization, not only technology. Anarcho-primitivism rejects division of labor, social stratification everything which are part of civilization. Anarcho-primitivism rejects the entire civilization as a whole. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Okay guys. This is NOT the appropriate venue for an in-depth discussion on anarcho-primitivism. The issue of the userbox has been addressed, and I believe that we can call this one case closed. Edit Centric (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone double check this please?

This behavior makes no sense to me. Can someone double check this please? Is delete the default regardless of fair use justification? Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion? Why? Is it acceptable to robotically dismantle wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, did you try his talk page first? John Reaves 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears (from just looking at a couple) that images are being tagged that have no copyright status or fair use rationale. And yes, this is wikipedia policy. Images without a clear copyright tag or use as fair use without a fair use rationale are likely to be deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it you have a problem with? Since you didn't mention this to me and only linked to my contributions, its a bit difficult to see what you might be concerned with. Shell ^babelfish 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion. It is fair use to use the cover of a book on an article about that book. Images that say exactly that are being marked for deletion. Images with a fair use rationale are being marked for deletion. It appears that tags are being placed without actually reading the data about the image. In short it appears to be robot-like tagging. Or maybe someone has a vastly different idea of "fair use". I'm aware that the legal definition and the Wikipedia fair use criteria differ, but last I heard, book covers were allowed on articles about that book. Has this changed, or are these tags being placed inappropriately? One or the other is true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the image you were referring to [33]. It appears you also blindly reverted my tags without fixing the problem. You may wish to review WP:NFCC which discusses fair use rationales in detail. Per my understanding saying "Fair use is claimed for this low res image of the book cover for use in illustrating the article about the book at Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom." isn't sufficient as a fair use rationale. Specifically there is no mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used). Shell ^babelfish 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My question to the admins here is "Is it appropriate to demand mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used) in all cases?" I can't see it. It is a minimal size image of a cover that has no obvious commercial use other than illustrating the novel. What sort of discussion could I possibly provide on using say the top half or the bottom half of the image. This strikes me as absurd. This appears to me to simply be deleting images to make wikipedia worse. Wholesale deletion if people who loaded up book cover images years ago and are gone now don't magically show up and jump through absurd hoops. I see a lack of thought and effort and mere robotic labeling in preparation for robotic deletion. I object to this thoughtless trashing of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be looking at the wrong version of the rationale, but I was struck by these two sentences: "The book 'Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom' is copyrighted under a Creative Commons license. The copyright status of the cover art is unknown." Isn't this a justifiable case where we should ignore all rules, & assume a reasonable reproduction of the cover art is allowed on Wikipedia until proven otherwise? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm just puzzled over the need to dot i's & cross t's in this one case.)-- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some help

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They still are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to positively contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.

Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.

I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.

I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.

(Note that I did ask User:Daniel who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)

So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?

If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".

So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - jc37 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).

If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. Natalie (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. At what point do we just throw up our collective hands and give up? If it's clear that we really can't stop the problems, then why try? - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as for the request for more info, for the first example, here's a subpage with some information (User:roundhouse0 has quite a few more sub-pages): User:Jc37/Sandbox/Pastorwayne

And for the second example, here's a note that I placed on User talk:Coelacan [34]:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:PatPeter

I don't know if you're still currently involved with issues involving this user, but they've become rather disruptive. See User talk:Sox207 and rather specifically at User talk:The Big X for admissions of what they claim was/is going on. since then it's been a stream of IP addresses. See User talk:Gscshoyru for the most current set of disruptions. (Special:Contributions/Pagesock seems to be WP:DENY issues, and is probably the person as well.) I've been reading up on range blocking, as this may be what needs to be done as a "final" step. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and help). - jc37 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Of the two, (if I have to choose) I think I'd really like someone else to "take over" patrolling on the second. (Though, since I've now gone through nearly all the editor's edits, I have no problem being a "helpful resource".)

Thanks for any and all help/insight/etc. - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

This article has been a hotbed of nationalist edit-warring for years. There was a recent Arbcom case, but it resulted only in the ban of one editor and no sanctions on anybody else. I and a few other admins have instituted an experimential type of article probation with a zero-tolerance rule against edit warring. All to no avail.

Currently, the main problem is that the article keeps getting edited by people who, while not permanently revert-warring, are still clearly tendentious, insistent on making frequent high-volume edits trying to maximize the representation of their nation's point of view, and, at the same time, write abominably poor English. The whole article as well as the talk page have become utterly unreadably as a result.

I've pleaded with them asking them to recognise the limitations of their language skills and refrain from making further text additions until the mess has been cleared up, but to no avail. The moment one editor stops messing with it, another starts.

Can we block people for writing bad English? The whole situation is unbearable, and I'm losing my patience with these people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Can we block people for writing bad English?" I think we should if they're clearly making bad faith edits and are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, our problem is half the world's trolls speak English and WP:EN is a great place for POV-pushers of various factions and differing languages to meet for an "away match". We shouldn't be making life easy for non-anglophone disruptive users to come here too. I doubt the Icelandic WP has to put up with the levels of hassle we have to. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith. Their tendentiousness is also not dramatically above that of your average "nationally-focussed" editor. It's the combination of that tendentiousness with the poor English that makes it so bad. -- Actually, one of the recent main culprits, Opp2 (talk · contribs), has now stated he will give it a rest (good for him!), but could somebody look at Whatdamn (talk · contribs) and tell me if he is a certain sock? He is, but I can't quite work out whose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith". Sure, but judging purely by the effect they have on encyclopaedic content it's difficult to tell the difference between sincere but tendentious and ill-informed editors and bona fide bad faith trolls. Liancourt Rocks has a notorious reputation as one of the "nationalist hot spots". I've never examined it in much detail and I can't make head or tail of some of those comments either, probably because I don't know the linguistic substrates (Korean and Japanese). I think there is an ArbCom ruling on avoiding the use of foreign languages in talk page disputes which might be relevant. IIRC it was on one of the East European arbs. --Folantin (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of linguistic pedantry: bona fide means... "good faith". So I'm not entierly certain you meant "bona fide bad faith".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be what it originally meant, but many people use it to mean "the real thing" or something along those lines (e.g., "That guy's a bona fide cowboy.") Meanings change, and all that. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch! (Looks round for the entrance out of here...). --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm seriously tired of the grief that this article causes. I have deleted it. We are simply better off without it. The amount of time and effort it sucks up from productive users trying to mediate simply isn't worth it. No doubt someone will reverse me but, seriously, there has to be a mechanism to control articles like this that cause so much disproportionate trouble. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that once you start editing a Wikipedia that is not in your native language, then whether or not you are editing in good faith is moot if your writing quality is so poor that it degrades the article. If editors are being contacted specifically about their writing quality, and continue to make edits that create in a net degradation of the article, then they are effectively vandalizing the encyclopedia... I would have no issue with a short block for an editor who has been fully warned. That said, it is still important that we first reach out to such editors and offer to help them integrate information in order to differentiate poor writers from poor writers who are also tendentious. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's rouge, Spartaz! I'm tempted to recreate it with "Liancourt Rocks are just some boring rocks between Japan and Korea. Get over it". I suspect someone will try to haul you over the coals for "violating policy" but I wonder why we never seem to enforce our policy on WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way, perhaps, that a page could be fully protected so that only admins could edit it? Could that be a way forward with an article about a notable geographic feature that is frequently reported in news services worldwide, and which attracts controversy from a number of countries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoa, turning Liancourt Rocks into a rougelink? That's radical... :-)

I share your feelings. Although, of course, we should have an article on that topic. I was considering forcibly stubbing it down and having it rewritten from scratch. But who is to do it? Sigh. (And it just so happens that I've for a long time maintained another article on a disputed little islet, demonstrating that it is possible...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's gone blue again. Can't wait to see what's happened to it... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect to Dokdo. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it was a red link, heh. I know I'm not an admin or anything, but if it came down to it, I'd support Fut.Perf.'s thought of a full rewrite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks (section 2)

• How many versions of this article exist? I came across Dokdo while reviewing the deletion history of Liancourt. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Whatdamn has just recreated the page and redirected it to "Dokdo" (Korean POV and violation of WP:COMMONNAME). This must be actionable. --Folantin (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • {EC}Its just been recreated. I'm going to spend a few more rouge points and delete the redirecrt and the pov fork and protect them while we discuss this. DuncanHill's suggestion has a lot of merit Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, talk of cheekiness. Well, by doing that lightning-quick copy-and-paste move, Whatdamn has certainly demonstrated he's not a new user but some kind of sock. Indef-blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a pretty reliable rumour that there are noticeboards out there encouraging Korean and Japanese nationalists to come and edit this particular article. So I think it's perfectly fair we take measures to protect the encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. BTW, would anyone object if I tried my hand at a neutral stub replacement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to that. --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my support in creating a neutral stub replacement. In the mean time, what should be done with Dokdo?Hiberniantears (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't people just learn to get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Dokdo can be redirected to liancort rocks and full protected. Agree with fut perf rewriting this in neutral and then full protection thereafter. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts) A neutral, fully-protected stub would a) make sure we at least have something about these notable stones, and b) keep POV pushing (to some extent at least) off the mainspace. Go for it, I say! DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, give me half an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the above discussion yet. But I don't understand why the Liancourt rocks page has no content. I thought an editor who copied and pasted contents from the old article of Dokdo (now redirect page). And why is the edit history of Liancourt rocks deleted? -Appletrees (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wha? ^Avruchtalk 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was upset at the whole contents being deleted, so I wrote too quickly. --Appletrees (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I still think this is pathetic. Replacing the article with that sentence was downright childish and you have brought the administrators to the same level as the edit warmongers. A large systematic attack on the article as you've mentioned could very well warrant full protection, but not this, this is vandalism. Wha is what I want to know. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Restore the article quickly The administrator who protected the Liancourt rocks should've restored the page to the prior version after a banned user reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no content on either the redirect page, Dokdo, and Liancourt rocks. --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit too dramatic, actually. From cursory observation, I notice that intro has not come under dispute, or changed much for that matter, in a while. So why send readers away to answers.com (as much as I'm a fan!). And no, it isn't just some rocks, I reckon it is homework for thousands of Japanese and Korean students. So, I'm restoring the intro, which should not have a bearing in figuring out the rest. Good luck. El_C 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect is working on a stub, and if the stub is of quality then I think protecting it somewhat permanently from editing would be a fine idea. In the mean time, a protected article with little or no information is preferable to the constant edit-warring that this article is subject to. How many ArbCom cases, AN/I reports etc. need to happen before we decide that this piece of content isn't worth the trouble? ^Avruchtalk 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• It'd probably be best to restore the entire history as well though, to give an idea of why the article is a neutral stub. BLACKKITE 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at few version and the lead remains pretty much the same throughout and has no citation requests, so, at least we can provide the very basic inforamtion of what, when, whom, etc. El_C 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thinm Fut perf os doing a quick stubification/rewrite and material can be restored from them on in. Obviously we will have to restore the history for gfdl reasons once this is complete but at the moment shall we leave fut perf to work on this in peace? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how having the undisputed intro is preventing to work in peace. El_C 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the references on the existing stub. Let's see how FP's version looks. BLACKKITE 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page, I fail to understand the reason behind deletion, if the purpose is to blank (which I question, too). One can blank and protect and the effect is the same. Why was the page deleted if all it's revision are to be restored intact? The only difference between that and blanking is... what, the drain on our resources as thousands of revisions are restored? Paint me confused. El_C 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry El C, I see this has already been undeleted but the (admittedly out of process) deletion of the article seems to have helped towards creating some progress. Sorry for the confusion here. I was expecting to be immediately reverted but instead we did something constructive instead. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and in honour of this experiment of yours I shall dedicate this new entry in the Dictionary of Silly Wikipedia Jargon to you: "to rougelink (v., tr.): rougely turning sth. into a redlink temporarily to force a way out of an edit-warring impasse.". -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All credit to you for making something useful from it! Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the stub is to be protected (which I presume it is, or else this is all pointless) there is no harm in restoring the history, I'd guess. BLACKKITE 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the revisions we're trying to hide, which is why I'm confused. Oh well. No big deal. El_C 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the history of the Liancourt Rocks article. Writing a new version of the article and then protecting it is not a terrible idea, but there seems to be no useful purpose (or permissible reason) for deleting the history. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least the history could be useful in providing diffs. in assessing the behaviour of warring editors in future Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe best to protect the redirects at Takeshima and Tokto too if this has not been done already. --Folantin (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As an innocent bystander who saw a mention of this edit war on the Help Desk page, I must say I think that the new, neutral, stub-like article is far better than the 100k monster that's there in the history from only hours before. The old version is too long-winded to read and a POV-pushing nightmare, "Pro-Korea" and "Pro-Japan" sections in the external links, etc. Kudos to the admins for providing a neutral article so quickly that's about as long as anyone who doesn't really care about these rather dull rocks would want to read. ^_^ • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I could agree with deleting the actual rocks deleting the article has significant baby bathwater issues.Geni 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A motion to expand the remedies available from the prior arbitration case has been made at WP:RfAR#Liancourt Rocks article probation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I motion we leave the article fully protected forever and never let anyone edit it ever again unless something drastic happens (such as erosion or a Japanese invasion/liberation (which term depends, of course, on your POV). It's a small outcropping of rocks, and the article as it stands covers everything that could and should be said about them. The old version ([35]) was raddled with nationalist rubbish. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make lengthy comments regarding the article's content on Talk:Liancourt Rocks, not here. Neıl ☎ 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his pointing out is not that lengthy. The editors are invited to discuss the matter here. I prefer seeing comment regarding correcting information rather than the below scornful and unhelpful sarcasm.--Appletrees (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please propose any factual corrections on the article talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if I got things wrong, I know absolutely nothing about either Korea or Japan, other than what I could gather from the existing material. Any admin can fulfil requests for uncontroversial edits or merge uncontroversial material back in from the old versions. The article should be allowed to grow back to a natural size under some cautious scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Give them guns and let them kill each other over it. After all, they really are just a couple of rocks out in the ocean... what purpose or value would it really be? Set up a McDonald's there - and everyone will be happy, I say. Rarelibra (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (sponsored by sarcasm)

I like the deletion of all the "history of claims" and other stuff, it was too cluttered anyways. I like the article as it stands but it could do with more information regarding the dispute.

I don't think we should block (or you mean ban?) non-english users. They are biased and rude but because they don't understand english, I don't think they fully know how wikipedia is run and are probably doing what they think is ok. At least I hope that they are doing this unaware. I think you should just warn them about adding bias and being biased in discussions. I think they will pay attention more to administrators. Good friend100 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Even though the article has some incorrect information as an editor pointed out, I also prefer the current version than the past controversial editions including all mumble jumble. I think protecting the article from editing for good is a good idea because the nature of the article tends to be a consistent hot zone of editing warring. Regardless of the conflicts here, the actual situation is still same but readers can get a wrong information from the past badly written article. If someone wants to expand or add new information, first go to the talk page and then get a consensus at a discussion and administrators only add confirmed information to the article under the protection.

For example of User:Opp2, his adding has not got any consensus, but he just added very controversial paragraphs to the article. It is only advantageous for the party to which Opp2 belongs. Due to the new rouge rule, the other party can only revert the edit once per day, but Opp2 adds and adds more unconfirmed information. I also think the article needs more surveillance from administrator who can read Japanese and Korean because of the basic information regarding the history are Japanese or Korean sources. How do you guys think? --Appletrees (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is only an interim solution; eventually a consensus needs to emerge concerning the content of this article, & hopefully it will be unprotected. There are many reasons for this, but I will only mention one. Eventually, Wikipedians who have vested interest in the contents of this article will, one way or another, manage to become Admins, which will lead to a renewed round of pain over this article. No, I am not engaging in WP:BEANS by saying this, because anyone who can edit Wikipedia can figure this trick out for themselves (& from the prolonged nastiness over this article, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have already started "sleeper accounts" for this very purpose). However, a broad consensus about the content of this article could avert this result because its supporters would a reason to work off-Wiki to minimize a renewal of this conflict, & if they prove effective the protection could then be removed. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request attention to User talk:209.244.30.109 - Pre-block advisory

Recently, IP user 209.244.30.109 has been removing content without justification at the following article diffs:

1. Bootstrap Bill Turner 5 January

   POTC: AWE 6 January

   POTC:AWE 5 January

   POTC:AWE EARLY 5 January

   Will Turner 5 January

As these removals are not commented, and continue to occur, this constitutes disruptive editing, and needs to be addressed. This is a pre-block advisory, action is not being requested at this time, unless it is deemed by admin(s) to be required, per the record of edits. Thank you again for your time an attention to this incident report. Edit Centric (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Took a look at his edits - on "Will Turner" he's editing out what looks like POV (removing

POV is in keeping with our policies, in "Pirates of the Caribbea: At World's End" He's editing out a referenced to a forum, again, in keeping with policy regarding references. I don't see that this is vandalism. I don't think a block or a ban would be appropriate here, but that's just my .02 cents. :) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alfred Legrand: Disruption and sockpuppetry

User:MathStatWoman sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins Kelly Martin & Fred Bauder, see summary of behaviour here), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is now at AfD. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template Feb 07).

The most recent R. S. Wenocur article was created by User:Alfred Legrand. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by Alfred Legrand include Marion Cohen (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and Mark Pinsky.

A confirmed MathStatWoman (by Fred Bauder here) sock is User:Philly Student, and MathStatWoman has edited Philadelphia related articles such as the Philly suburb article Ardmore, Pennsylvania, example (problematic) edits: [36], [37]. Alfred Legrand's also displays an interest in Philadelphia topics, making some problematic edits: (e.g. [38] & [39]).

MathStatsWoman complained that Utz chips ought to be deleted [40], Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it ([41]). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as Sweet Muenster Cheese, the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail and Whole stuffed camel. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini [42], the harvest moon beer coctail [43]. In a similar edit User:Samuel Kotz attributes a recipie for Sweet Muenster cheese (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur [44].

Not only is User:Alfred Legrand a transparent User:MathStatWoman sockpuppet, but quite aside from the sockpuppetry, these edits are disruptive to the project. Off to file at SSP now. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These personal attacks [45] [46] and this suggestion for deletion of the BLP David Eppstein [47] (a WP admin involved in wikiproject mathematics) are reminiscent of User:MathStatWoman. In addition donations of $34-89 to MSRI at the Fibonacci level (the "Archimedes Society" of MSRI), mentioned in the BLP of R. S. Wenocur, are not made public. This unsourced private detail in the BLP of Wenocur plus a copy of Wenocur's CV in Alfred Legrand's user space (User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur) suggests that it could be one of her close associates, possibly even Wenocur herself, making these edits. Mathsci (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RDSW (Roberta S. Wenocur) has made a statement here [48]. Alfred Legrand is referred to as Dr. Legrand, contrary to [49] & [50]. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On Jimbo's talk page [51] User:Alfred Legrand wrote:

« I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. »

These odd statements about reversions and blocks are not reflected in his history or block log and could be further evidence of sockpuppetry. In addition this user vandalized Cave painting in the the most perverse way here [52]. All the sources are incorrect and the crazy additions seem typical of MathStatWoman. The edit refers to Cro-Magnon characters called "Me Ogg" and "Ugga"; the female "Ugga" counts in base thirty and moreover

«  Og and Ugga contributed to probability theory, especially empirical measures. Og say: How many buffolo we catch this moon? Ugga say: three. Og ask: How many we try to catch? Ugga say: thirty. So empitical measure of 3/30 = 0.1 was invented. »

It is very hard to assume good faith when editors behave as vandals like this. Or am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User Luke0101

• Luke0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Luke0101 is creating difficulties on at least two pages. Luke0101 appears to be editing without communicating. I am not certain why, but I suggest that you review this pattern. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To save time, it would be helpful if you could say what pages, and what the difficulties are. --Elonka 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues seems resolved, thank you. Raggz (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think I wrote all the changes I made on the discussion page, not the talk page. (I was under the impression that the talk page and the discussion page was the same. My sincere apologies. --Luke (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages

• User:TTN is still or again indiscriminately replacing hundreds of pages about episodes of fiction serials by redirects to their parent pages. Some have called this "soft-deleting". This has caused many user complaints in User talk:TTN (also see its archive pages). I feel that:
  • He should be warned to stop this practice. If he wants to "soft-delete" all the episode pages about serial or show X, there should be an AfD discussion for each serial or show X involved.
  • Someone or a bot should revert all his edits which are the last edit to a page and are replacing a text page by a redirect. Then we and he can start again, AfD-discussing for each serial or show.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

His behavior has been to ArbCom and they did not sanction him. Every time I have taken the time to politely request an AfD, I have been obliged. What administrative action do you require? RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is a normal editorial decision that doesn't require any more previous discussion than any other content edit. He is making mass edits because there is a mass of trash to clean up. How else would you do it? And why waste more time on the junk? Show me one page, just one, that TTN has redirected in this latest spat of his that even remotely resembles a legitimate encyclopedia page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He was instructed to seek consensus via discussion before pulling this crap. If he's failing that, he's not meeting the expectations of his arbcom case, as amazingly weak as the decision was. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undone Anthony's revert spree (great, more crap on my watchlist). Talk first next time. --Jack Merridew 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone consider doing the same for similar reversions of TTN by Mvuijlst (talk · contribs) on Gilmore Girls articles? / edg ☺ ☭ 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anthony Appleyard is attempting to discredit TTN by making sweeping generalisations; I would like to see evidence that his edits are in breach of any guidelines before this complaint is brought here. If these episodes have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, then I would suggest TNT's edits are bold.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. I am not trying to discredit anyone. For an example of the user complaints about this "soft deleting", see User talk:TTN#a happy little note from a frustrated editor. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that this further highlights the need for a fandom/pop culture Wiki, where secondary sources and notability aren't required. People wouldn't fight so hard over these articles if a good alternative was available. *** Crotalus *** 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it highlights the need to block people who pull crap like this without discussion. But that's just me. R. Baley (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed. It highlights the need to block people who reinstate crap like this, which is a violation of our non-free content policies and potentially violates copyright. Which is exactly what I intend to do from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Quite. While there is obviously some dispute with certain articles, why on earth people would want to re-instate articles which quite obviously violate WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:N and always will, is beyond me. BLACKKITE 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I can't see any problem with TTN's particular edits here. Unlike some pages, articles like the Shorty McShorts' Shorts episodes are never going to have enough to be standalone articles, and redirecting is the correct move here. I really don't see why this is controversial at all; if it was another editor than TTN doing it would there be the same problem? BLACKKITE 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone goes for another headhunt on TTN, perhaps they should look at the articles he is redirecting and see how they stand up to Wikipedia's existing policies. A took a snapshot of some of the articles and all of them fail WP:NOT#PLOT because they are just merely plot summaries. They also fail WP:SOURCES as not a single one of them contains a single independent reliable third-party source. As such, there is no way they can pass WP:NOTE or any of the other notability criteria. So rather then waist time and sending the articles to WP:AfD, he is redirecting/merging them into the appropriate list which stands a much better chance at establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It sorta would help to know if TTN's present behavior is objectionable or not. I agree that the ultimate result (merge individual eps to episode list) is appropriate for those that do not demonstrate notability, but as I'm trying to wrap up a rewrite of WP:FICT, TTN's name comes up nearly once a day, and so we're trying to make sure that there is an acceptable route of actions to dealing with non-notable articles.

I pulled out one at random from TTN's latest edits: A Family Matter (a Gilmore Girls episode). A user (not TTN) added the {{plot}} tag in September, a random IP added {{notability}} in late November. Outside of the bot edits for these tags, there were two changes made since and both only adding info to the plot. So TTN goes ahead and redirects the article without any additional discussion, neither on the article page or the main Gilmore Girls talk page. A month seems like a reasonable time to wait for notability to be demonstrated, but there's also the lack of notification (as best I can tell) that TTN was going to mass-run through all articles. My only argument against TTN's actions here is that he is not discussing them first with appropriate talk pages even though they were "notified" by the tags that cleanup was needed. --MASEM 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discussion should occur and consensus should be found as the arbcom bearing TTN's name urged. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the actions are controversial, I agree. Deleting (or redirecting in this case) articles which patently fail multiple Wikipedia policies is not controversial, however much heat and light it may generate. If these articles went to AfD they would be deleted. Having said that, it might be the best option in order that re-creations of similar articles fell under CSD criterion G4, whereas at the moment CSD is not available for use (and rightly, I think).BLACKKITE 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The pale fact that his behavior has spawned an arbcom case, multiple threads here and heated discussion at WP:FICT highlights that his efforts are indeed controversial. It is quite silly to say otherwise based on the mounds of evidence to the contrary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I use merge tags with series with more than thirteen episodes, those with high "traffic", or those that actually require info to be merged. In the case of the Gilmore Girls, only the pilot has more than fifty edits (and it still has less than one hundred), and it has been around since '05. There is no reason for discussion in that case. The only thing a discussion would lead to is the one user gaining the ability to wikilawyer by claiming that there is no consensus found in the local discussion. TTN (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that discussions on episode article Talk pages tend to rally editors whose interest in logging their fandom tends to exceed their concern for policy. Recently such articles, which by WP:EPISODE should have Merge discussions, have been discussed as Articles for deletion. Is something broken here? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Semantics only, I think. Merging and redirecting these episodes to the list article is above called "soft-deleting" (I don't like the phrase, but I see why it's used) as the actual redirects themselves will probably never be searched for. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why the pages themselves couldn't go to AfD as many are obviously unencyclopedic without hope of rescue; it's just that redirecting is less of a waste of everyone's time and effort. BLACKKITE 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that if you bring these types up for discussion, you are going to get the rallying cry. At the same time, when it is done "without warning" (e.g. the case of "A Family Matter"), WP:FICT gets hit with requests to drop that guideline (despite the fact that it's built on PLOT and NOTE), and what is partially behind the fact that it's been unstable for about 6 months now. Again, I agree with the general outcome of TTN's edits that the bulk of these articles are non-notable and should not have been created until notability is established, but if you look through WP:FICT's talk page and archives, you'll see that there's a lot of people that want to almost stop TTN from doing what he does, which is making trying to rewrite this more difficult. The best I've been able to add is that at best, merging or transwiking the info to an appropriate wiki is a better solution than AfD, but even these merge actions are being seen as aggressive. --MASEM 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Only by a vocal minority. TTN is doing some very useful work - these articles are all garbage. I have not yet seen him redirect a decent referenced episode article. And I have not once seen him refuse to civilly and politely accept any requests from dissenting editors for an article to go to AFD for further discussion. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who happily revert back to recreate articles that fail a laundry list of policies because "TTN did it" is the behavioural issue here, not TTN's actions. Neıl ☎ 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting other peoples' work. If you cannot avoid this, please instead avoid the topic. This is an obviously inflammatory matter where a number of people feel that they're not being trated fairly, and you're not helping. --Kizor 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The people that create plot-summary-only articles and revert legitimate redirects aren't helping either, and they are a far worse problem than TTN.Kww (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that's relevant to civility. --Kizor 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely echo Neil's comment above; this is cruft and TTN's efforts are not problematic. As this AN/I discussion is showing (as those before this one), there is general community consensus that our policies, principles and guidelines be enforced. Reference to the arbcom decision in the case where the content is in clear violation of those principles is cross-eyed wikilawyering. Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

...And neither is that, or is it? --Kizor 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil's right in the action increasingly becoming wrong just because "TTN did it" - a discussion two days ago was trying to get TTN's monobook blanked for reverting a user who was reverting them back against a unobjected wikiproject consensus. Will ^(talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a discussion on that very topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the mass-redirect (or soft delete if you will) of the Gilmore Girls episodes. I have no strongly held opinions whatsoever about those articles. I do doubt the way this was done, certainly in the light of the recent Arbitration Committee decision that urged for a degree of cooperation and consensus. I just checked in the mirror, and nope: neither wailing nor gnashing of teeth. No happily reverting either: regretfully reverting, twice even, because I think it's the right thing to do. As it's been said elsewhere: there's no hurry. Why not leave things up, and trust the community to come up with a good solution? Sweeping those episode articles under the rug does nobody a favour and only polarises the issue. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If (and that's a big if) there was any possibility that these articles could become encyclopedic at any point, I would agree with you. But (in these cases at least) there is not. They fail practically every article-related policy that Wikipedia has, as pointed out above. It doesn't matter what the community "consensus" is here - it will never trump policy. I'm sure there are episode articles for other series that are, or may at some point, become good articles - in those cases discussion is the correct way forward. BLACKKITE 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For some of the earlier discussions, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#A_big_campaign_against_articles_about_fictional_events and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TTN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for a clarification on the above, please see User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Caution. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• For each set of episode pages of one serial or show, start an AfD. If that AfD after due discussion says "delete", THEN redirect the episode pages to their main page, with the edit comment "Redirected per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/xxxxxx". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy does not require an editor to do that. It's why WP:MERGE and WP:BOLD exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I support fully TTN's actions. He'snot at all totalitarian about this, but completely open to reasonable discussion. To wit, I'm a member of WP:HEROES. I went to TTN and asked that he skip our project's domain, and let us sort it out. He agreed easily. I think TTN's contributions really do clean up Wikipedia. Do we really need that many Gilmore Girls articles? I just wish he'd take on Family Guy. There are WAY too many plot nad pop culture only episodes, and few with actual real-world relevant content. TTN provides Wikipedia with incrementally better credibility the more episode articles her turns into redirects, by helping us put the proper emphasis on the wide range of topics we cover. Should editors find his BOLD MERGEs inappropriate, then can easily revert them and improve the articles. ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that TTN is doing a good thing overall, he seems to be resorting to edit wars rather than let editors revert the redirects. A glance through the histories of Rabbot, Animal Farm (Oz), Cosmo and Wanda, Denzel Crocker, Francis (The Fairly OddParents), and any number of other articles shows repeated reverts to the desired redirect without any discussion on the relevant talk pages, a far cry from the recommended BRD pattern that generally works so well. If TTN is serious about making these redirects stick, discussions leading to consensus is the only way to do it. --jonny-mt 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. His edit summaries are clear, and people revert because they worked hard on that crap, instead of working hard to get it ABOVE the level of crap. If every time some idiot reverted to the full article with the 'well, a real person is an actor on the show, that's real world info, now we must discuss', TTN's intentions would totally fail. because each and every single article would require the same level of craptastical disputation. Why don't the various editors instead actually improve the articles? The BEST I can see being reasonable is if TTN used a bot to follow behind each redirect, posting a stock new section to the article talk, in which it stated something to the effect of 'due to a lack of Real World Context and Notability, the article has been redirected to the main list of articles. Until such citable information is added, do not restore the article. Please use this talk page to build up a good article, thank you, sincerely, TTN'. But to expect him to go through and explain, ten thousand times a week, that a fifteen paragraph plot summary and a holistic cast and crew section aren't real world context, and fight at it till all the editors understand, is NOT a realistic situation. He's cleaning up this project. Do we really need MORE articles about Gilmore Girls or Family Guy than we do about the statesmen of all the varied nations, or all the animals cataloged by scientists? What's REALLY mroe encyclopedic? ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think your tag-along bot proposal is pretty good, but I have to disagree with your assessment of "Redirect per WP:FICT. Do not bring this back without adding real world information." as a clear edit summary. WP:FICT is a disputed policy (the talk page currently lists no less than seven drafts), and WP:WAF is an accompanying guideline to WP:MOS. I'm of the opinion that until he can demonstrate some sort of broad-based consensus for redirecting and merging episodes and other similar articles, he should follow the slower procedures on WP:MERGE (including following through with discussion and refraining from edit warring when another editor objects to his actions). --jonny-mt 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are up here because of the VivianDarkbloom incident report. It's worthy of note that none of the articles involved there would pass any version of WP:FICT. They were only plot summaries.Kww (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You assume right :) While this doesn't excuse her actions and I have no intention of contesting your point that the redirects are a Good Thing, edit warring is edit warring even when you're warring for a good cause. Multiple reverts, recruiting other users to help with the reverts, refusing to take issues to the relevant talk pages--these actions do not adhere to the collegial spirit we try to create here.

While he certainly hasn't slipped into incivility and isn't trying to make a point with his edits as VivianDarkbloom did, he has also failed to demonstrate that his actions are based on consensus (with the possible exception of the redirects related to the Avatar Wikiproject). Wikipedia is a slow-cook project; I see no need to rush and take care of these articles before WP:FICT is settled (after all, an eleventh-hour proposal allowing these articles isn't outside the realm of possibility). Alternately, he could bring the issue up with the relevant WikiProject to ensure some level of consensus and community support before diving in to a given series. Or the simple act of moving it to the talk page could defuse a lot of tempers. There are any number of constructive ways to address the problems he wants to address, and those should be the first stop in undertaking a task of this magnitude. In fact, this is one of the remedies suggested in the oft-mentioned ArbCom case. As an aside, TTN mentioned there that he would refrain from edit warring and utilize AfDs more often.

Speaking of resolutions, has any need for administrative action been raised? --jonny-mt 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to wallow in a feel-good spirit of collegiality, good faith and the like, but don't willfully be an ingenu. The contours of the ongoing struggle over whether Wikipedia should be allowed to become a fansite are so vast that the kind of happy back and forth you envision is not only impractical, but serves those who tout such a recourse as a means of gaming the system. [[ThuranX's point above is extremely well put. I would add that Wikipedia's reputation is heavily unsettled by the fact that we permit 20,000 word articles on subjects like Optimus Prime, crammed with minutiae that reflect the overwhelmingly white American, 20-35 year old, computer literate, rather nerdy, anime-watching, single male that largely defines the content here. With Wikipedia's credibility already so shellacked by intensely detailed game guides, and veritably voluminous information on every single transformer to have been schlocked by Japanese marketing mandarins, I submit that removing the navel-gazing, in-universe, trivia laden fancrufty material that is slowly turning Wikipedia into TV.com is perhaps rather more urgent than your breezy and wide-armed Weltanschauung implies. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me towards a discussion about the extent that destruction of content, mass or otherwise, is suitable for defending our reputation? I've seen this used as a justification four times in a short period of time and am quite interested in it. Data on how and how much our reputation is affected would also be helpful. --Kizor 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than respond directly to your comment (incidentally, what exactly is an "ingenu"?), I'll simply point you to DGG's comment below, as he summarizes everything that I would say. Given that I've already contributed enough to the usurpation of AN/I to discuss something that does not seem to require administrative intervention, I'll refrain from further comments here and simply keep any eye on the more appropriate venues at WP:DR. --jonny-mt 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That depends on the definition of "crap". E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft and I skip over it; but I know that football is important to many people and I do not go round deleting or soft-deleting dozens of football-related pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly - to repeat myself again - because most football pages don't fail practically every article-related Wikipedia policy, which these episode pages (the ones in question) do. Of course, should you find football pages that have major issues, feel free to be WP:BOLD with them. BLACKKITE 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'I see some comments above that notice should be given because then editors involved with the topic may oppose the merge. this is a direct repudiation of the principle of community editing and transparency. If wider attention is needed, and a group cabal of some sort is suspected, AfD and dispute resolution is available, Even BRD requires the opportunity for R and D. The opinions above indicate that a number of contributors to this noticeboard think differently than the people at WT:FICTION. I didn't know we decided on article content here, or on the appropriateness of merges. WI did think that what we dealt with here were attempts to subvert the processes of article discussion and policy formation--and mass nomination of anything controversial is in my eyes an attempt to to do that. DGG (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that I personally dont care in the least about whatever may happen to articles on this subject--a subject in which I have no actual interest whatever. I became involved in the discussion when i say that repeated attempts were made in various forums here to affect consensus formation by attempting to overwhelm AfD--and similar projects. I accept the good faith of those wanting to purge the encyclopedia in one blow of everything they dislike--but it's not the way we work. at least, not the way we should be working. . DGG (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks these mass deletions do a service to Wikipedia is severly deluded. Two years ago, for example, there were detailed articles on individual characters within the Nickelodeon cartoon The Fairly OddParents, along. Now there's a single list of characters, and it alone has been tagged for deletion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; This is a sabotage mission! And if anybody objects to me saying that, well that's too damn bad! I'm still right about it! ----DanTD (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that TTN and Jack Merridew are still edit-warring over Fawlty Towers episodes even when editors are making efforts to improve articles. [53], [54]. Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above issues, I need to point out that TTN has twice nominated the episode Bells (Blackadder) for AFD in the space of less than 6 weeks. The first nomination (archived here) was made on Nov 24, 2007 and was closed on Nov. 29 as the result of a WP:SNOW keep vote. The same episode has been nominated again by the same editor on January 9, 2008 (see here). And at present it appears it'll SNOW again. Isn't there a policy prohibiting the repeated nomination of articles in such a short period of time after surviving an AFD challenge? If not, there should be. 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The first close wasn't a WP:SNOW closed. It also doesn't reflect a true consensue as most of the commenters were Blackadder fans. Therefore all of the keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT arguements and weren't based on policies or guidelines. So it was bound to be renominated sooner or later. --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, most of these complaints about TTN is getting down right silly. It's nothing more then a lot of huffing and puffing because TTN is taking on their precious wall gardens which already are in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies. --Farix (Talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK is the british goverment RS then?

OK, given Gavin's comments about secondary sources, how about this then? Isn't this shifting the goalposts?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the government document, you can see that it is a trivial mention. So as a bases of establishing notability, it isn't sufficient. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the last SIHULM thread

I am drafting an FAQ here and would appreciate any input or constructive edits the editors here could give on/to it. The page is currently semi-protected; I do not trust anons to edit it given the topic matter and their use of it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this semi-protection is justified under the protection policy. 72.193.221.88 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpages can be semi-protected on request, 72. As an administrator, I can simply cut out the middleman and semi-protect it myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamid Dabashi

Please check the neutrality of this article, see the history and read the talk page. It is full of peacock terms. I repeatedly tried to add the necessary tags. The article was locked for a month without any result. See also [55] and [56]. Thanks.Aparhizi (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and curse words in an edit summary

User:Piercetheorganist made a minor change to the Soloflex article and gave the following edit summary: [57]. This is Piercetheorganist's only edit on the article in the past 500 edits, and seems to be an out of the blue thing. As I'm posting this here because a quick glance at the user's talk page shows at least two prior blocks for incivility as well as numerous warnings. MrVibrating (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unacceptable (though perhaps he was just having a bad day) and I've left a warning. BLACKKITE 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Piercetheorganist is the bad hand of User:Republican given that both pages redirect to Republican's. --WebHamster 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was a little confused about what that meant. Does that mean that Piercetheorganist is a sockpuppet? MrVibrating (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eek - I'd left him a message and not even noticed that. I see that Ioeth is dealing with it now , though. BLACKKITE 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at another use of vulgar language in edit summaries by User:Piercetheorganist on Demarcation point. Here is the reference - 08:41, 7 January 2008 Piercetheorganist (Talk | contribs) (4,179 bytes) (A f&cking grammar fix, you f&cking idiot morons. Why the f&ck don't you know the f&cking difference betweent these f&cking SIMPLE words, you f&cking screw-ups?!!!!!!) I can't understand why he would become so angry over such a trivial matter. Thanks63.239.69.1 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit was made before BlackKite's warning, so additional action isn't necessary. However, if this happens again, I would suggest a longer term block (i.e. 1 week), as this is a recurring problem for this user. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that the user has been warned multiple times, and blocked twice for the exact same kind of issues I don't think a further warning will prevent future disruption. After looking through his contribution history, I think stronger measures are warranted right now rather than waiting for the next instance of incivility - I've instituted a one week block. If the user makes a commitment to improve his civility, I'd be happy for him to be unblocked earlier though. henrik•talk 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility block on Neutralhomer

I just blocked Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for increasing incivility and would like review from other admins. Here's my blocking reason to him:

You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your increasing incivility. Posts such as this where you suggest someone "gets a life" and other posts like this and this are completely inappropriate. In the past weeks you've been getting more and more testy and have showed no signs of stopping. You need to take some time to step away and calm down. Metros (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been ongoing behavior with him in the last weeks where he has, basically, stalked other users, instigated revert wars, and been somewhat unwilling to discuss with any civility. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Metros (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes for interesting reading. Neutralhomer seems to have been baiting JPG-GR nearly continually (JPG-GR has pretty much refused to reply, simply archiving all NeutralHomer's incessant provocative comments). Particularly trite considering NH had a banner on his talk page up until 4 days ago ([58]) stating posts from JPG-GR would be immediately deleted. 48 hours is entirely appropriate. Neıl ☎ 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support your decision and the duration here as well, Metros. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, support block. Given his previous history, a week off may not have been inappropriate either. henrik•talk 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats from Spammer

Biggilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this legal threat, "In accordance with the law I am making you aware of my intentions to persue legal action ..." to User:Xyzzyplugh and this to Admin User:Vsmith. I've blocked the account, however it appears this WP:SPA account was spamming related adsense sites (Adsense pub-4547357587573977)

• frankingmachines.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• howtobuydiamonds.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• vids-uk.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are theses sites genuine spam, and if so, have they been added to WP:SBL? Is there any other action that needs to be taken regarding this matter? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Biggilo also fails to understand that Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, not in Britain, and in the US, libel law does not function in the same way. Over here, the onus is on the accuser to prove libel, not on the defendant to prove that it was not. Horologium (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious they are all related (adsense confirmed) and promotional additions. In light of the threats, should we BL them? I see no reason wikipedia needs them, nor ever would. Doubt we need them reapearing under another username or anon IP..IMHO.--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BL'd all three, doubt anyone will dissagree, but if so, say so..;)--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

• Jasdhf1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klijh1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jasdhf1981 has just opened a sockpuppet case on RobJ1981, see here. However, this is the users first edit, see their contributions. Another editor, Klijh1986 notified RobJ1981 on his talkpage, see Klijh1986's contributions. He's also left a post on WT:AN about this. As RobJ1981 has been a good-faith user on Wikipedia since June 2006, I'm almost certain their is some sockpuppetry going on here involving Jasdhf1981 and Klijh1986. Could an admin look at this situation, and possibly block the offending users. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire SSP case was reposted to RobJ1981's talk page, in lieu of a briefer notice. In that context, I think both Jasdhf1981 and Klijh1986 are the same user. The SSP case indicates that the reporting user is a regular contributor who wishes to avoid stalking and harassment from socks and proxys, which would seem to confirm that both accounts are indeed socks - whether they would be permitted socks or not is unclear, and may be based on the merits of the case (i.e. whether it is spurious or not). I haven't checked all (or even many) of the diffs, but the AfD case appears to be circumstantial, in that Eyrian nominated Nanotechnology in fiction for deletion in July 2007, and RobJ1981 re-nominated it in November. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, RobJ's made a comment at the SSP page which you may which to see. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

some of the diffs do seem less than convincing, and I agree that the admitted sockpuppetmaster and desysopped admin Eyrian has the least to do with this business, but the general concentration on the wrestling seems to match the previous sockpuppet pattern. I can see why someone who think he's going against JB196 might want to use a different account, and that he said so straight-out is a sign of good faith. . But as UltraExact says, it will need a detailed look at the evidence, which I am not able to do this week. DGG (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening use of powers in content dispute

Let me begin this by saying I am not looking for a pound of flesh. I'm trying to help the administrator in question. I'm trying to head this off before it happens.

Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a newly minted administrator, has been involved in a content dispute on Minor Harry Potter characters. He has contributed in part to edit warring on that article over the removal/re-insertion of fair use images onto that article. This post here is NOT about that dispute, how rational it is, or anything of the kind, but rather Faithlessthewonderboy's threatened actions in the matter. In [59], he threatens to block an editor (me) with whom he is in dispute ("I will block you for incivility"). Whether the rationale for the block is valid or not (if you want to assume it is for the sake of this discussion, fine, it matters not), threatening to use his blocking powers is a breach of his responsibility as an administrator. Previously, administrators have been de-adminned by ArbCom for such actions.

Also, I requested and received page protection of the article (again, for the sake of discussion as it's irrelevant, let's assume it was in incredibly poor taste as Faithlessthewonderboy suggests). Subsequent to that, Faithlessthewonderboy indicated he was going to use his administrator powers to revert the article to his preferred version [60] "Therefore, I will revert to the previous version". Once again, this is the sort of action that administrators have been de-adminned for before.

Faithlessthewonderboy has been directly involved in this dispute and to use his powers in this way is exceptionally bad and likely to lead to his de-adminning if he takes such action. Please, would some experienced administrator give him some sort of wave-off before he abuses his powers in this way? If he wants to recommend I be blocked, or wants to request another administrator to revert, fine...but using his powers in this way is not what he should be doing. As an inexperienced administrator, I don't think he fully understands the ramifications of using his powers in thisd way. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think both of you need to have a nice cup of tea and sit down. I see there's a discussion going on the talk page; let's all use that and figure out what's going on.

You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version. That's clearly an abuse of the admin tools (squarely addressed in the protection policy) and he should know better. I'm not going to put a note on his talk page about it because I see he was already referred here, but the edit war needs to stop from both sides. Reach consensus first on the talk page; once that's done, the page can be changed (if need be) to reflect that consensus. Getting hot about it and reverting to your preferred version (even if you're correct, and even if Hammersoft was NOT correct in reverting then requesting page protection) is not the way to approach things during an edit war. Gromlakh (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is incredibly unfortunate. I encourage everyone to read the contents of Talk:Minor Harry Potter characters. The conversation was perfectly amicable at first by all parties (Hammersoft included), until out of the blue he threatens to have those who he disagreed with blocked. I repeatedly tried to diffuse the situation, but received only more threats from Hammersoft. I cautioned him repeatedly that our disagreement aside, his uncivil attitude was completely unacceptable, and would likely lead to a block if he persisted. For this caution, I was scoffed at and Hammersoft "dared" me to block him. As I said on said talk page, I was hesitant to take any action against him (even if it was justified), as I was involved in a content dispute with him at the time. I believe the discussion on the talk page more than speaks for itself. While I maintain that I am completely in the right here, I will for the time being recuse myself from editing that article, pending the result of this discussion. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to have people say I was right or wrong. This section was entirely to get an experienced administrator to head you off at the pass before you did something you could be de-adminned over. It was meant in good faith, was meant to help you in every respect. Every single editor on Wikipedia can assume I was absolutely in the wrong if they'd like. It has nothing to do with this attempt to save you from serious problems. If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong. But again, this has nothing to do with attempting to wave you off before you did something that would have caused you serious harm. Since that wave off has been achieved, this succeeded and I am happy for it. I wouldn't want you to lose your admin powers over this. That would be silly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Administrators are still free to act as ordinary editors. They are allowed to revert the same as anybody else, and they can request a block if another editor is acting disruptively on an article they are involved with. Before requesting a block, they can warn the other editor that a block may result if bad behavior continues (though it helps to clarify that they will not place the block themselves). I do not see any diffs here that show abuse of administrative powers, and I do not see any need for administrative action at this time. I hope both parties will take the above advice and head to dispute resolution and work out their differences in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's analysis of the situation and advice on how to proceed. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not with an admin being involved in a content dispute, it's about threatening to use his admin powers to continue the revert war after the page had been protected. That's a clear violation of the protection policy had he done it. Fortunately, it appears that he did not do it, so there was no violation. It still should not have been threatened. Gromlakh (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(multi-ec) The content dispute here involves images. If the page remains protected for a week with all the images orphaned, they get tagged and deleted, which would rather favour one side of this dispute. There was no allegation of actual admin abuse. Hammersoft's userbox is arguably divisive, though, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Our mission and noting same within the context of fair use is divisive? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've not tagged the orphaned images. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Though, five of the eight images removed from the page lack sufficient fair use rationales. Six of them are currently orphaned. Two of them are used improperly. 1: (Image:Viktor krum hpgf.jpg on Stanislav Ianevski (living person,replaceable) and on a gallery at Bulgarians#Bulgarians._Faces_through_history). 2: Image:Maxime.jpg on Frances de la Tour (living person, replaceable). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your new userbox is more divisive. Regarding the former userbox, "I support X" is not the same as what you had, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• My new userbox is exactly what I've been recommending on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and what many people have been advocating. I hope you're not suggesting that appeasing the huge masses of people who feel fair use should be used liberally is somehow divisive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm can easily be divisive given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't sarcasm. It's how I feel. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy should not threaten to use admin powers in a dispute he's involved in. That's all I have to say, it'd be fine if he was uninvolved though, now let's forget it and move on--Phoenix-wiki 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Hang on. It seems that Faithlessthewonderboy may have reverted a protected page to his preferred version. Is that what happened? If so, you need to use {{editprotected}} in the future, and make sure not to use any sort of sysop tools nor threaten to do so, if you are involved in a content dispute. The diffs provided do not establish what exactly happened, so I am reading between the lines. If anyone can clarify, that will help. In any case, one mistake does not require any action other than acknowledgement and an understanding how to proceed in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing actually happened, other than threats to use his admin powers in the way I said above (and cited). The only action I was looking for was to wave Faithlessthewonderboy off from performing an action he could lose his admin status over. That's been done, thankfully, and Faithlessthewonderboy heeded the advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, which is why I hope he sees this thread and remembers not to use his powers in a dispute he's involved in, akknowledgement is all that's needed here, so I'll be bold and mark this as resolved.--Phoenix-wiki 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conveniently, the first 3 images I checked have been tagged as orphaned, and so are up for deletion in 7 days [61] [62] [63]. But I guess anything goes in a "war". R. Baley (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did not tag them. I've never worked or even spoken with Addhoc. It was his doing on his own. He's never edited the article they were removed from, nor commented on the talk page of that article. His action was entirely separate from anyone else's. A little good faith please? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that Faithlessthewonderboy did not threat, he gave a warning after Hammersoft himself threated with blocks for users that were in disagreement with him. We asked Hammersoft not to re-introduce his edits until we reached consensus in the Talk page of the Minor HP characters article. Everything is in the Talk page, take a look at that before accusing Faithless of taking any action. He was asked not to revert the protected article to a previous version, and he has not do so. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy did make statements (perhaps you like that wording better) of intent to use his powers on me and on the article, when he has been directly involved in a dispute with me and on the article. That's what I was hoping to avoid. You should be happy that I brought this problem here for an experienced administrator to head him off. I could have chosen to step back and let him use his powers in that way and then *really* nail him to the wall with abuse of his administrator powers and quite probably have his admin status forcibly removed. I'm not sure what it is you're expecting of me, but what I did was for his benefit, not against. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, after your threats about blocks and warnings and stuff, I do not know what to expect. But I will AGF. --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Opeth, thank you for your comments here. If anyone is still reading this, Opeth was the third editor involved in the dispute, so he is aware of what transpired. As for Hammersoft, please let this end. You have repeatedly on this page spoke about me like I am an inexperienced or unknowledgeable editor, and that you were doing me some big favor. I have shrugged it off before now, but I am tired of having my name dragged through the mud, so to speak. I am an admin with roughly fourteen times as many edits as you; while I am far from perfect and, like most people, still have plenty to learn, I do have a pretty solid grasp of how things work around here. I could probably even learn something from you, but do not talk about me like I just registered my account and don't know anything. Remember, I have done nothing wrong here, and I'm getting tired of you implying that I did, or that you somehow prevented me from doing so. You had been asked several times to remain civil, yet you continued to threaten other editors. Like I've said, if I had blocked you, it would have been for your consistent incivility; it had nothing whatsoever to do with the content dispute. You're trying you're best here to portray me as someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and needs help. This isn't the case, and it's quite offensive that you would misrepresent the situation the way you have. All you've done is wasted the time of a bunch of people and made me look bad, when all I did was try to keep our discussion civil. In your future dealings with editors, I encourage you to not make baseless threats towards people and respect your fellow editors. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, for me that is, it would be easier if Faithlessthewonderboy could sign his posts with his full handle. Also, perhaps it is a bit confusing that he refers to himself in the third person? ("You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version.") --Law Lord (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is actually Gromlakh's comment. They are just indented the same amount one after the other.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. My mistake. In that case, the only thing is with the handle signing, though since the matter is resolved, it does not really matter. --Law Lord (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithless, I've no idea what it is you want from me. You accuse me of incivility, and I ask you to provide evidence. All I get from the talk page is "look above". Yet, I've made no insults towards anyone, ever. You threaten me with blocks, as I've cited above, when taking such actions could cause you to lose your powers. Knowing that you would not listen to me, I came here to get an experienced administrator to caution you. You apparently heeded that advice, which is great. Further above, I cow tow to you in every respect noting "If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong." What is it you want from me? What more could you possibly want from me? Do you want me to request a permanent block of myself? Do you want me to advertise to every forum on Wikipedia that you were right and I was wrong? What? You go to the extreme of accusing me of having contempt for my fellow editors because I use an asterisk in my comments for formatting. On even that count I must accede to your every wish and desire. There's no quarter with you. I tried to do you a favor, and you accuse me of dragging your name through the mud. Just tell me what it is I can do to restore your good name to angelic status so you will leave me the hell alone! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want you, Hammersoft, not to forget that you threaten us with blocks before...

"If the edit warring continues to attempt to force these images back onto the article, I will recommend blocks." --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"If they (some images) are re-instated against policy, I will remove them and recommend blocks." --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We asked you to wait a couple of days to get consensus and, if your edits proved to be right, then obviously the images should be removed, but you instead threaten with blocks only because we were in disagreement with you. And then you come here accussing Faithless of warning you? --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will quite gladly threaten blocks when warranted, and will continue to do so. In fact, warning of potential blocks is pretty much required, rather than just going ahead and having someone blocked. What I wanted to achieve was to have an experienced administrator wave him off from using his powers against someone with whom he was in dispute. As I noted, if he wanted to recommend I be blocked to another admin, fine. Mission accomplished. Faithless was warned off, and the abuse of power didn't happen. That's a good thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good thing. The bad thing is the way you threaten everyone that is in disagreement with you. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I use threats of blocking as appropriate to the circumstances as they arise. If a person were to vandalize something for example, you do not just move to block the person. You warn them. That's the way it's supposed to be handled. I handled this entirely appropriately. Policy was being violated. People were edit warring against policy. I warned of potential blocks should that continue. You can debate the application of policy all you like (feel free to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content). Debating a policy does not mean it no longer applies. And before you say policy didn't apply, you're quite in the wrong. Per character images have been removed from hundreds of articles over the last many months by far more people than myself and Betacommand. The difference is that the recent crescendo of acrimony over the removals has effectively suspended the application of policy. I fully intend on continuing to warn and threaten people with blocks when their actions work against policy. If you think this is wrong, your best bet is to request I be blocked since I do fully intend on continuing this pattern. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When an article is nominated for deletion, it is because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria (notability, tone, style, etc.), but if CONSENSUS says that it should be kept, then it should be kept. The same happens with this images, you did not manage to fully prove you were right, you just provided some link and say you were acting on policy. Acting against consensus is also acting against a policy, so in the end you were wrong anyway. I have nothing more to say, good luck. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Hammersoft, neither Lord Opeth nor myself did anything even approaching being worthy of a block. Neither of us broke 3RR, we were exceedingly civil in the face of your threats, we tried to work toward consensus while you were making your contempt for consensus abundantly clear, etc. Your threats were not in the least "appropriate," as you claim. On the other hand, the warnings I gave you were warranted, as your incivility and ignoring of several appeals to your better judgment to mind what you were saying are indeed block-worthy; if I had threatened to block you because we were disagreeing, obviously I would deserve to have my admin tools revoked immediately. Of course, this did not happen. Indeed, there was another editor who commented in the discussion who disagreed with me, but she was civil and didn't threaten other users. And you want me to "leave you the hell alone?" I'll remind you that you started this discussion, and now you object to me defending myself? I don't want anything from you; I am simply trying to convey what has really transpired here to anyone who is reading this, lest some stigma remain attached to me from having an utterly unnecessary and unwarranted report of me posted at the admin noticeboard. You have completely misrepresented and then overblown everything that has happened, and I want to stress to everyone reading that I did nothing wrong here, kept a very cool head in the face of repeated threats and sought consensus instead of edit warring. I was then portrayed as being incompetent and overwhelmed by a user with a fraction of my experience. The very title of this discussion (Admin threatening use of powers in content dispute) is inaccurate; I warned you that you might be blocked because of your incivility, nothing at all to do with a content dispute. Your claiming that you were only trying to 'help me' is similarly misleading. When someone is accused of a misdeed, it very often is irrelevant whether or not the charge is accurate, their reputation is damaged either way. I beseech anyone reading this to peruse Talk:Minor Harry Potter characters to see what actually occurred. As far as I'm concerned, the two of us have to agree to disagree and move on. This could go on forever, but nothing positive is going to come from our continued arguing. faithless (^speak) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without reading anything but the last sentence since my last diff, agree. Bye, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Vampire Hunter D light novels‎

I removed a copyvio from this page per WP:CP, and User:BladeRN keeps on reinserting it, this last time past a last warning (he used his IP). People, please watchlist this page and I would request that someone would block BladeRN for 24 hours for reinserting a copyvio past a warning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The copyvio claim was overly vague to begin with. So vague that it didn't cite specific source of the alleged copyright violation. So it's reasonable for BladeRN to question the claim and reverted the article. You also didn't help by blanking almost the entire article, regardless of whether it contained material that was a copyvio or material that was clearly not a copyvio. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TODAY / WP:5AD

Apologies for the spam, but there hadn't been a proper Look At This post on AN or ANI. It was on VPP and the CENT template, however, and spawned out of a thread on AN last week. Please review and help out at:

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Posting here, as it would obviously require some administrative support, as it involves protected pages. Basic initial idea work is now done, and the (surprisingly basic) technical Mediawiki work as well. Please review it, and weigh in on Talk there, so we can see if the idea has proper legs. Thanks! :) Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Cardiff edits

90.203.45.168 shows strong indication of anti-Cardiff point of view and reflects it in his/her edits to Cardiff (such as removal of information in the Media section which he/she ironically summarises the edit as POV), Cardiff Central railway station where he/she removed yet more information and also in Swansea railway station. User was warned by me but removed the message from his/her user page before making the above edits. Would like administration intervention please. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, when you have to accuse everyone else of "anti-Cardiff POV", you need to stop and consider whether it's actually you engaging in "pro-Cardiff POV". 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: WP:AN/I#User:Welshleprechaun. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spunga

Earlier today Spunga was deleted as a result of an AfD. In has subsequently been recreated in identical form and the {{db-repost}} has been repeatedly removed by what appear to be single-purpose accounts. As the CSD tag will not stay on the article for longer than 5 seconds please could someone delete the article and if possible salt it too as I think it is going to be some time before these people get bored of the game. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Was about to mention this myself. An alternative to salting would be a fully-protected redirect to Squeegee#Squeegee for floor, as the word is genuine. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree - there was some consensus for a redirect in the AfD. nancy ^(talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect's there at the moment - let's see how long it holds. :) Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi'd it after looking at the deletion log. If semi won't work, I'll call Fort Knox for the gold padlock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there consensus for a redirect? I removed the sponga material from the squeegee article and changed the redirect to just squeegee. Anyways, --Tom 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The official closure statement included "A subsequent redirect to squeegee or mop might be appropriate, but as for which, I leave to editor discretion." There certainly wasn't a consensus for a simple deletion, but if anyone wants to redirect to Mop instead, I'm sure it won't be controversial. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun

This user is consistently trying to own articles relating to the Cardiff area, editing articles to conform to their own POV, and accusing anyone that disagrees of editing with an "anti-Cardiff POV". They then have the audacity to warn other users for vandalism when an article is edited in a way that they do not agree with [64]-[65] AIV when trying to insert their POV failed. A browse through the edit history of Cardiff will demonstrate this nicely. Evidence of branding good edits as vandalism: wording change, restoring own POV, introducing an inaccuracy, branding the edit that removed it "unnecessary", fabricated a claim as to population rank. Evidence of POV editing: [66] [67] [68] [69] (note use of "belittlement") [70] [71] (inflating the position of the city) [72] [73] [74] (an audacious attempt to change the MoS) [75] [76] (yet more insistence on adding Cardiff everywhere) [77]. Evidence of inaccuracies: [78] [79] [80]

In all, the user has been warned for seeming ownership, fabrication, attacking users, and POV editing. Despite all of this, the user continues to behave disruptively, placing bogus warnings on other users' talk pages, and then chastising said users for removing them, claiming that "you shall not remove vandalism warnings", when it is clearly established that users and anons are entitled to do just that (removing comments from user talk IIRC is generally regarded as a sign that said user has read those comments). This user clearly shows no sign of changing their behaviour, and no intention of adhering to our policies and guidelines. I ask that something be done. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: WP:AN/I#Anti-Cardiff edits. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandal account

• TheOnlyJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent vandal. Final warning given. User talk page blanking obscures previous warnings. Latest example [81] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, you'll want WP:AIV for this. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to act if it's not occuring within minutes of the time of reporting. Please can admins on AIV and ANI reach a consensus on this and publish it in the instructions for using both boards. Thanks. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was 5 days ago. If he does it again, you can warn him one more time, or report him. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just report it on the AIV page the next time it happens, and tell the admins who review it that there has already been a final warning issued and to review the history of the Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Political spam links ?

Piquant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just about every edit involves adding a link to an article in the International Socialism journal. I don't know if this contravenes anything, but it looks like undue politicisation of articles to me. User talk page blanked, obscures one warning. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating some discussion on this Talk:Happiness#Proposed_link, User_talk:Piquant, User_talk:Edgarde#Your_comments_on_citation_and_external_links, User_talk:Orangemike#Spamming_and_POV, User_talk:Irishguy#Spamming.3F, User_talk:Daytona2#Removal_of_link_from_subprime_article

Is this an ANI issue ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Help at DRV

Can someone close this bad faith DRV discussion before it goes on too far? This is the second request by the user in the last 5 days...I'm not aware of what the IP did, but this is obviously related to it..--Smashville^BONK! 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has requested me to delete and/or undeleted this user talk page... any help would be appreciated.[82] --W.marsh 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been through DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User_talk:202.76.162.34_.28closed.29. Pastordavid (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IgorBlucher on Gavin Newsom

IgorBlucher‎ appears to be a single purpose account that only desires to attack Gavin Newsom‎. As per the article talk page, he continued to assert that Newsom couldn't be Catholic anymore because...well, because Igor doesn't think he should be. When pressed, he provided "sources" that in no way stated what he claimed they did. He asked for more input. More input was provided...and every single other editor who contributed claimed that he was wrong. He is edit warring and ignoring every other editor. I am tired of trying to deal with him. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irishguy if you tired take a wikibreak, go see a movie or do something else. Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to make valid contributions to the Gavin Newsom article in good faith. There is evident controversy concerning the issue of Newsom's religious standing, with valid sources discussing his excommunication and separation from the Church. These contributions are being deleted without cause. Further, no consensus has been reached, contrary to any such claims. I would like to make additional contributions but am spending my time on with this matter. I also find at least one of these "editors" on the article talk page to be suspicious and uncivil. I need help dealing with this problem. Thank you in advance. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility on the Talk page. You make claims that IrishGuy is being uncivil on the page, but I don't see it. What I do see is your unsubstantiated POV. (I'm non-Catholic and don't care one way or the other, so I don't have an axe to grind on this issue) Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, as noted on the article talk page the only "source" you have is an article from October 2005 which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. The other "sources" don't even remotely state what you claim they do...and others have pointed this out on the talk page and when reverting you. Yet you continue to act as thought there is "controversy" about this person when there clearly isn't. If you cannot come up with something better than a two year old article it is obviously a non-issue. Which editor do you find "suspicious"? You keep making this claim but you don't elaborate. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact)." Repeatedly deleting my valid contributions and commanding others' behaviour is most certainly uncivil. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of Gavin Newsom before this exchange, but a reading shows your contributions are being deleted because they obviously don't belong in the article. Thus, it's not uncivil to delete them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of the man either. I caught the edit summary of you can't marry, divorce and remarry; excommunicate in the recent changes and looked into the edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new sub-section, under "Controversies," on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy. There are years old articles that clearly led to nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow another Igor, how many Igors does it take to make you listen? Igor Berger (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It would only take one with convincing arguments. In any case, IgorBlucher (talk · contribs) is violating several policies, including WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, not to mention edit-warring in an attempt to insert this material against consensus. Either come up with reliable, independent secondary sources demonstrating this is actually a current, notable controversy or stop inserting it. If you continue, you're going to be blocked for tendentious editing, edit-warring, WP:BLP violations, etc. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided valid sources regarding the existence of the controversy. IgorBlucher (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no one else agrees. I would encourage you to engage on the article talk page, make your case, and try to achieve consensus. But in the interim, if you continue edit-warring, you're going to end up blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor I strongly recommend to listen to User:MastCell he speaks words of Wisdom and Jurisprudence. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that "no one else agrees", especially since discussions are newly underway. As for MestCell, I see he speaks words of Overpowerment, not of wisdom. As for Jurisprudence, i.e., a philosophy of law, either natural or officiated by an institution-- that would be WP:LEGAL violation or threat. I'll WP:AGF you didn't mean that. IgorBlucher (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering, its not gonna win you any support. The sources you have to support the inclusion of a controversy section appear to be invalid. Go get proper ones and no one will dispute the section, if they're valid--Jac16888 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would agree that there is controversy, but that's not what IgorBlucher was originally placing in the article, and the conclusions he is reaching are not supported by the sources used. The most recent attempt, a new section, is closer to a solution, but the claims were so far from factually accurate that they had to be removed per WP:BLP. Pairadox (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Like http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. The section is valid and shouldn't have been deleted.

Oh, come on, if that's your type of source, then there's no argument here at all. Nowhere does that even mention his having been excommunicated, nor does it call him an ex-Catholic or any other type of Catholic. That's not a source for any of your claims. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? Oh, you must mean the other Igor. Stop-- a command? Couldn't be-- that's a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]. I'll WP:AGF on that one, too. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. IgorBlucher, if you want to make a claim in an article, you must be ready to present a source that explicitly covers said claim. Implicit claims are inappropriate, especially involving living person biographies; you can't put multiple sources together to make a new claim. A controversy section is an appropriate section for this article (and there is a modest one, in this case), and specific cited statements may be appropriate to add to such a section, but please do not continue edit warring, tendentious editing, or being otherwise discourteous. — Scientizzle 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And i was telling you, IgorBlucher, to stop wikilawyering, not anyone else--Jac16888 (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. You are Wikilawyering. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now looked in detail at IgorBlucher's contributions and... good grief. Igor, you must read WP:BLP which details Wikipedia policy on biographical material for living persons. I gather you don't like Gavin Newsom but that's all the more reason you must scrupulously adhere to Wikipedia policy in this regard. By now you've repeatedly been warned; next time you do something like this, you'll be blocked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You gather incorrectly. please WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL.

Stop complaining about incivility, wikilawyering, and bad faith. When there isn't a single other person who supports your contentions, you might want to look at yourself. You're being disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I am asking you and other users, at present a small group acting uncivilly and creating disruptions, to please remain WP:CIVIL, while I am making valuable contributions. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Counting myself, NINE other Wiki-editors find that you are NOT making a valuable contribution, but instead violating numerous policies. Please stop. I support a preventative 72 hour cool-down block for this editor, who can't understand, or won't understand, the problems. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A small group, who others may disagree with, myself included. Please WP:AGF. My contributions are valuable. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not valuable if you have to flat-out disregard our bio policy and our verifiability policies to make them, and assuming good faith only stretches so far. I count 10 now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said before, a small group. I have not disregarded policies, and am making valuable contributions in good faith. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we oferd help, but it looks like you are not interested, so untill you can figure out what to do, stay hear and argue with each other. Nobody is getting banned or blocked! Enjoy, have fun, and learn..:) Igor Berger (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Igor Berger! Your help is appreciated. Onward and upward! IgorBlucher (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So far your "valuable contributions" amount to two references for the infobox that merely confirm what was never in doubt - Gavin Newsom is Catholic. On the other hand, there are now a lot of editors who are aware of your editing style. Pairadox (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to work with other editors interested in working with me. IgorBlucher (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Translated to "I am happy to work with other editors who agree with me". Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

Asgardian (talk · contribs) - Made 2 reverts in less than a week [83], [84], (with the original edit that was a revert of over a weeks time [85]). This is violation of the user restriction agreement RfA:Asgardian-Tenebrae. This may or may not be a moot point as the use is currently blocked due to the agreement for similar edits on another page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

It is indeed pretty moot. Our ArbCom Enforcement page is usually the best place to report potential breaches of RFAr rulings. Neıl ☎ 09:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about administrator Nat

Hi, I've been having some difficulties with Nat, and could use feedback. A little while ago Nat blocked Armon [86] after an erroneous report was filed on the 3RR board by Timeshifter. Armon was blocked not for violating 3rr but for edit-warring. I didn't think this was the right call; the person Armon was edit-warring with (if was edit-warring), Tiamut, had made 5 reversions in 29 hours (And Tiamut, if you're reading this, please know I'm not asking for anyone to block you ;)), quite a bit more than Armon. So I asked for Nat to reconsider the block on his talk page [87] Nat's response? To whisk my post away without comment. [88]

I thought he must have seen the message, but wasn't completely sure, so I posted again. [89] Again, whisked off to an archive without explanation. [90]

I found this all pretty distressing, but thought it might just be best to let the thing die down. I felt Armon had really been shafted for no good reason, but Armon himself seemed to take it with a great deal of equanimity, so I followed his example and dropped it.

Then, recently, I noticed that Nat had unblocked Pedro Gonnet (NB: because I had the page Pedro was editing watch-listed, not because I was looking at Nat's actions). Pedro had been blocked for a clear violation of 3rr, see [91], and in fact, after being unblocked by Nat, Pedro continued right along with the reversion he'd been blocked for making [92].

Given that these blocks concerned Israel/Palestine issues, which are fraught with friction already, and that Nat had blocked a user (who might be on the pro-Israeli side) when he'd not clearly committed a blockable offense, then unblocked a user (who might be on the pro-Palestinian side) when he indisputably had done so, I felt I had to say something. So, with some trepidation, I left a message on Nat's talk page again. [93]. No bonus points for guessing what Nat's response was: [94].

I don't know how others feel, but if this were a regular editor who was responding to concerns from a user in good-standing, I would be concerned. That an admin would do so—would remove posts from his talk page without a single comment—makes it alarming. I would also point to this arbitration case, [95], a case which Nat I think initiated, wherein this very issue was raised and voted on by arbcom:

3) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes…using accurate and descriptive edit and log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Indeed, User:Alkivar was desysopped, in part, for this very practice. I am not calling for Nat to be desysopped, but I do think he absolutely must respond to messages left on his talk page about his admin actions, and I also believe that the admin actions in question have been applied by Nat inconsistently, even erratically, which exacerbates an already tense atmosphere. I would have been much happier to take this up with Nat on his talk page, but obviously couldn't do that in this case. Input is welcome. IronDuke 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, I apologize for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions as you have listed above. I agree, "proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues", and I am sorry if you felt that I had ignored your posts. In regards to the case of Armon, I admit I might have overlooked the actions of Tiamut. I agree it was a bit unfair that Armon had been blocked and not Tiamut, for as you said, 5 rvs in 29 hours. In the case of Pedro Gonnet, i did write in the unblock message: "After re-reviewing the request, the block appeared to be a punitive measure rather than a preventive measure. As that is the case, I have reversed my previous decline of the request and I have granted the request for unblocking for Pedro Gonnet. That being said, Pedro Gonnet had indeed violated 3RR, and as a warning, next time a 3RR violation occurs on PG's part, blocking may be issued without warning.". Reading through this thread, it seems that you are implying that I have taken a side in this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have not. When I make my decisions, I do not notice or pay attention to their political views or affiliations. As that is the case, it is pure coincidence that I blocked a "pro-Isreali" editor and unblocked a "pro-Palestinian" editor. I would like to apologize again for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions, and I would also like to apologize for the fact that it took an ANI thread for me to respond to your concerns. nat.utoronto 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nat. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. First off, please feel free to move this discussion to your talk page (or mine). I don’t believe it requires admin intervention now, if it ever did. And I appreciate the apology—these are often grudgingly given through gritted teeth, when they come at all, and yours clearly wasn’t.

A few minor-ish points. I wasn’t saying that you are pro or anti anything, FWIW, just that you made two admin actions in a row that could plausibly be said to favor one “side”, which cause for concern, nothing more.

As for the Pedro block, I must respectfully take issue with your characterizing admin B’s block as “punitive.” I can’t think of a more by-the-book kind of block, can you? Pedro was edit-warring, went past the electric fence, was rightly blocked, not-so-rightly-unblocked by you, went back to making the same edit he was blocked for, and some people are now saying his block was “overturned,” implying it had not been merited. Do you really think Pedro’s block was any more punitive than any other run of the mill 3rr block? I’d be interested to know why, if you do. IronDuke 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VivianDarkbloom

Quite a rampage today. She has taken part in edit warring on at least 24 articles, and gone on her own personal antiporn crusade, putting false "db-bio" tags on numerous articles, including articles that included such statements as "In 2007, she was named Directrix of the Year at the Adam Film World Guide Awards", "94 listed works in the Adult Film database", "worked in over 150 pornographic movies with some of the biggest names in porn". Maybe not the most savory of occupations, but clearly assertions of notability, making it hard to believe that these are good faith A7 candidates. After some of these got removed, she proceeded to go on a tirade against Epbr123, with what can only be politely called an uncivil note.Kww (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She's been warned by LaMenta3, and the tagging seems to have died down for the time being. I've removed the last two remaining CSD tags noting that the articles make some claim of importance--although she needs to work on her civility a bit (WP:WQA might be a first step in dealing with that issue), she does show signs of working within the system. Unless others have a different take on this or the disruptive tagging starts up again, it seems to me that this issue can be considered closed. --jonny-mt 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that warning is probably appropriate, but, digging through her contribution history, a specific warning about the misapplication of A7 tags in addition to the one she has received about incivility seems in order to me.Kww (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me--I added one here. I also looked a little closer at her contributions, and it seems she has a bit of a penchant for edit warring over discussion (particularly against redirects), although to be honest responsibility for a number of these edit wars seems also to lie with TTN and Eusebeus, as they seem equally reluctant to take the issue to the talk page or even explain their reasons for redirecting in the edit summary (with a couple of exceptions). This, however, is a separate issue that would probably be better dealt with at WP:RFC or another stage of the dispute resolution process. --jonny-mt 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Or one of those issues could be brought up above instead. Remind me to look up in the future >.< --jonny-mt 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called wikistalking because he violently disagrees with our fiction redirects and has animus against TTN and me, which I reciprocate at this point. Vivian is a self-admitted sock and a highly disruptive editor who in my view should be blocked. The recent "edit war" consisted of going through my contribution history and undoing - in exact order, I mean you have to admire the gall - my wantonly vandalising efforts in backing up TTN's redirection of fiction related articles. Eusebeus (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree that that is where her warring tendencies lie. I suspect the porn crusade is an application of WP:POINT -> "If they are going to delete my teen fiction articles, I'll delete their porn stars." I actually wouldn't mind if she treated most of the porn articles the way TTN treats the badly written fiction pieces, but that involves following rules to the letter.Kww (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones

Smith Jones (talk · contribs) Something probably needs done about this user - a cursory review of his contributions will show them to be full of attacks on other editors for being too "skeptical", and edit summaries like "reverting vandalism -- next time it happens I will submit this user to an arbitration committee" - during him edit-warring to add a npov tag because he objects that the article mentions the controversy over Uri Geller. A warning might suffice, but the chances of him becoming a productive editor seem very low. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

you have no diea of my motives and the gall taht is require dfor you to automatically design why i aded that nPOV tag is unbelievalble. as i explained in the talk page, i percieved a disconect between the stated policies fo neutrlaity and letting readers coming up with their own conclusion from he evidence and the statments made on the Uri geller article, which made definiteive statements based on the opiions of sketpics. i have no problem with the mentioning of the controversy, only that the aritlce should NEVER have stated conclusively that uri geller was a fraud since that tshould be somethign that is either videncet to the reader or not. i have read all the regulations that hav ebenn submitted to me and never have i read that wikipedias job was to make decisions for readers, and in fact it seems to be the oposite. perhaps i am wrong, butr i will not concede m mistake until this is explain rationally to me. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been interacting with him for a few days now, and I concur with Adam's suggestion that the chance of him becoming a productive editor is very low. My first direct interaction with him was to inform him that the this threat to SineBot was both against policy and ridiculous, as the Arbitration Committee is not about to hear a case against SineBot (my message to him). This conversation ended in him referring to my explanation of talk page signatures as "harassment" and opting out of SineBot, also calling it "harassment". But he didn't threaten to tattle on me, so I guess this is the best conversation I've had with him ever. A subsequent message informing him, very politely, that his indiscriminate use of all-caps was rude, was also apparently harassment. After that I told him I'd stop trying to help him if it was bothersome.

However, the problematic behavior has continued, as has his constant threats to "report [whomever] to an arbitration committee." I've repeatedly explained what ArbCom is and what it does, and why threatening other users with reporting them to ArbCom is inappropriate, but he has continued. Following the last threat, which Adam links above, I've left him a final warning in regards to his threats and his characterizing good faith edits as vandalism, and will block for a length of time if he continues in that manner.

i have apologized erepatedly for my initlial mistakes as to the purpose of an ARbitration committee, and yet my past mistakes continue to be dragged out of the closet to be used agianst me in unrelated disputes. i submit that this is an entirely unfair way of treating me since i have noticed that very few others poeople are subject to such an intense amoutn of scrutiny and judgment as well as to my intentions. i have always taken it under assumption that i am supposed to be judged as acting under good faith unless proven otherswise but so far i have been treated like a criminal or a vandal sfor any disgarement i may have with a fellow editor or any mistakes that i have made regarding the rules and the ways thing soperate on wikipedia. i am not an experience duser and i freely amdit that I have made many mistakes and not been the best editor i could be and I would like to apologize fot to all the people who tried to help me such as user: natalie erin but I also must rmeidn you that even though i make mistakes i am still a human being and a fellow editor sand i would like to be treated iwth respct and my feelings considered before i am submitted to the degree of harassment and mockery that i have been submitted to during my career trying to imrpove this encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is progressing beyond a strictly admin matter, I'm going to continue this discussion on the user's talk page. Natalie (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This user does seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both how the Wikipedia community interacts and what Wikipedia as a whole is for. Perhaps a half-dozen users have attempted to explain some of these fundamentals to him, but he invariably blanks his talk page and continues in the same manner. The various points he needs to be aware of have also been explained on various talk pages, including Talk:Uri Geller, Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Talk:Homeopathy, and others. A quick perusal of his contributions shows a dedicated single-issue editor, who has apparently take it on himself to champion psychics and quackery. Natalie (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't see a notification of this discussion on his talk page or its history, so I have notified him. Natalie (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

tha nk you for notifying me it is very rare that i am actual giveen an opportunity to explain myself and i appreciate taht this was brought to my attention by you instead of me having to find about thismuch later. i have already addressed your decision to label me as a psychic and a quacker on the numberous other article talk pages that this has been done to me. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This recent edit summary stuck out on a quick review of his recent contribs. As did this one: "correcting retatard spelling errors" (sic). Or [96]. In general, I'm not getting the picture of an especially constructive editor. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he was warned about personal attacks shortly after those edits, and hasn't made the same types of statements since. This sort of jibes with the impression I've been getting that there's some sort of real communication hurdle here, short of his soapboxing and misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. I initially thought screen reader and bad computer transcribing because of the numerous spelling and formatting errors, but since then I've noticed other issues that wouldn't be explained by being blind. Smith Jones takes most things incredibly literally, including policy suggestions. The best conversations I've had with him consisted of him suggesting some sources, and myself or someone else explaining exactly what was wrong or right with those particular sources. We may be being trolled, but it's also possible that this is a non-native English speaker, someone with a learning disorder, or a very young person. Natalie (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i am not a troll. i am a Native English speaker, i do not have a learning disorder, and i am over 18 years of age. I am not blidn either. i have been suggested to get firefox because it has a spellchecker but this is evidently not the case because i am Having severe difficulties atually finding the spellchecker. i amdit that sumtimes my spelling is not very clear but that is becuase i have ahrd time keeping my thoughts straight at time sand i should problemably slow down while i Am typing to make sure that spelling errors. i would appreciate it if someone would explain to me how the spellcchecker is supposed to work because i have not noticed on even though i took advice from someonere here to get a spellchecker which i have not until yet been able to operate. i know firefox has one and it used to work for me but ti have not been able to activat eit since. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also notice the mess that this user made on talk:Homeopathy with absurd claims regarding a pharmaceutics company. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i thank you for your politeness and respect towards my work and i hope that you are treated with the same dignity tin turn in the future. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User 757-223ET threats and vandalism

Resolved

 – 757-223ET phone hoooooooome..... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has made a veiled threat on my talk page. I believe this user was banned as User:767-249ER for vandalising a number of pages and making threats to me and a number of other users. The following message appeared on my talk page:

>>>>== Message: ==

Hack is BACK!

--757-223ET (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)<<<<

I would like to request that the matter be handled by an administrator because if I issue another warning, I will just be continually harassed by this user and from other IP addresses, as has happened in the past. Thank you. J Bar (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial userbox

This userbox, located in User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist, supporting Iraqi insurgency. Please delete this userbox. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it's worse than a number of other boxes on this page. Though of course a better answer would be to delete the whole lot of them so people could concentrate on, uh, building an encyclopedia. BLACKKITE 09:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• The text of this userbox is "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation."
• This userbox is supporting Iraqi insurgency, in other words supporting terrorism.

This userbox cannot be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Deleted as unhelpful. Although "terrorism" is subjective - that's what we called "George Washington" a few years back. But, looking long and hard at this user's contributions, I find it hard to assume other than a deliberate attempt to provoke drama. In a more rounded user's own space, I'd allow more latitude.--Doc^g 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please consider templates for deletion or criteria for speedy deletion instead of reporting here. --slakr^\ talk / 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we've had several UBX issues of late, it might be worth leaving a reference to this here in case anyone's forgotten it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another controversial userbox

I started a discussion about one I saw subst'ed on a userpage here:

User talk:Piercetheorganist#A userbox to which some may take offense

It may not exist elsewhere.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one problem with this user's conduct. [97] (Edit: I didn't see it before but this user was just blocked for a week [98] so that may or may not have anything to do with this users judgement) — Save_Us_229 09:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now made a response to my attempts to get him to mitigate his activities basically to the tune of "no". Should we remove the userbox for him? Can I get some administrator attention on this matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message informing him that it has to go, and reminding him that his userspace does not belong to him. If he doesn't remove it himself I'll take it down. Natalie (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Kubigula and I removed these [99] [100] charming sentiments twice last week. Acroterion _(talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the user's request, I am deleting the whole userpage and usertalk. Pastordavid (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The freeprs have once again made an official declaration of war against wikipedia, and have announced a "freep in" of the Barack Obama article. This time there is no way for wikipedia users to go to their site and appeal their "action alert", as the thread was already deleted. Despite it being a short lived thread, I fear the damage is already done.--ανωνυμία 14:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about Free Republic trolls, right? The article's already semi-protected, and any established accounts effing around with the Obama article can be blocked. It's no big deal. Neıl ☎ 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just block on sight. The end. Natalie (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just block on sight? This is proof of bias. The Barack Obama article has some POV and incivility to those who try to correct the POV. It's too much trouble to fight so I haven't looked at the article in a long time. BTW, I am an admin but don't want trouble. Notrouble (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have a bridge over the East River that you may wish to purchase. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want proof, I can block you. However, I do not fulfil "please block me" request. If you vandalize some user pages and immediately fix them, I can block you for vandalism. Do you want to be blocked for 31 hours? Or indefinitely? Notrouble (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to be blocked. I'm addicted to this place... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)How about proving it by signing into your admin account and posting here? And blocking Freepers on sight isn't bias if they're starting another one of their campaigns to vandalize around the encyclopedia. They've already given up whatever assumption of good faith they deserve by trying to convince people to vandalize. If a new accounts adds sourced, balanced content to an article, they won't be blocked. Simple as that. Natalie (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mordechai Gafni

User:Fructify, the subject of the article (presumably) is blanking the page and replacing it with an unedited essay about how great he is, how "though he is imperfect, he is just as imperfect as ML King and Jack Kennedy", and is indeed so perfect that everyone is jealous of him and wants to be like him. I have reverted him 3 times now. Does 3rr apply in this kind of case? Lobojo (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I have blocked Fructify (talk · contribs) for 24 hours to prevent further edit-warring, and will try and explain to him why on his talk page. If he continues when the block expires, he will probably be indefinitely blocked. Neıl ☎ 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've passed this onto WP:BLP/N for a more indepth look. Neıl ☎ 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodney_mayes

This user's page and talk page should be deleted, per WP:MYSPACE. The user and talk page contains personal information (telephone #). Can some one do this? miranda 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject, someone please delete this and this. miranda 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, second door on the right. Argyriou (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Argyriou, I e-mailed them almost a week ago concerning this information with the Example page. Nothing was done. miranda 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the user page and talk page. I'm assuming deleted pages don't need to be oversighted (oversought?) because regular users can't see them in the edit history, right? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, only admins can see deleted pages. miranda 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they could still be oversight-ed if the user whose personal information is there doesn't want admins to view that information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The two links in Miranda's second sentence probably ought to be oversighted, though I don't know the policy on oversighting spammers. One wants to submit the email address of the spammer to other spammers, but one isn't sure what to do with the phone numbers. Perhaps put them down on a drawing for a time-share? Argyriou (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

user:tell the trooth

This user should be blocked as he/she has been vandalising several pages for the past few days. The user enters the same content coming from the same unreliable source [101] to all of the articles he gets a hand on (see his contributions) [102]. He's even been warned by an admin. not to add commentary or his own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, but seems like he's going to continue to do so.--Harout72 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A block can not be put upon this user, the user has only been told two times for adding unreferenced information. Sure you have the diffs, but the user has not been properly warned. The user needs to be given a full set of warnings for a block to be placed. The only thing that can really get them block is if they start threatening people or are proven to be a puppet or master. Rgoodermote  21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reisio ignoring consensus on Flag of Italy

This user repeatedly refused and ignored the consensus found on Talk:Flag of Italy against his own depiction of the Italian flag, featuring a grayer shade of white. I am noticing him here due to his latest revertion of his own version, so I am asking for an intervention from another admin as soon as possible. (I am an admin as well, but I already tried to deal with him with little success) Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article reverted as user is clearly ignoring consensus. I will monitor situation further. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As can clearly be determined via Talk:Flag of Italy and User talk:Reisio#Your_edits_in_Flag_of_Italy, Angelo.romano does not have a particularly good understanding of Wikipedia policy, including that of Wikipedia:Consensus, which states, among other things, "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." He had little success "dealing" with me because he kept presenting fallacies that I called him on. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::REISIO i HAVE red the debate on teht talk page and you are clearly in the wrong. i recomemnd that you back off, remember to keep a cool head, and comeback to wiipedia when you are ready t o cooperate you with your felow editors. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, look who's talking — nice formatting. If anyone can present a logically sound argument as to why I shouldn't include that image, I'll happily not. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

the reason why you should not add that article is becuase the re is CLEAR ocnsensus on User:angelo romano's talk page stating than the sum of editors who were working on that article agre that it should be included. NOONE on that article aggress with you, and while i will assume good faith is looks very bad for you. if you dont go back to the flag of italy talk page and try to work things out WITHOUT edit warring you could ned up on the administrators noticeboard again, which would make me ver angry with you and your work. Smith Jones (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My posit stands. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to work on this, but Reisio remains recalcitrant at the Commons, the Italian Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia (I also found the image added at the Dutch Wikipedia by an IP). From what I can see, he is ignoring the consensus, or simply interpreting the consensus the way he sees fit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[103] ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it's enough. I am going to warn this user per WP:NPA. --Angelo (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WB/UPN Intrastate Template Deletion resulting in inadvertent CW Intrastate Templates deletion

Resolved

 – undeleted —Random832 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Brought up again from Sunday, has not been looked at yet.)

A group of since-confirmed "clean-up" sockpuppets brought up a discussion on TfD on December 25 about deleting the intrastate templates used in articles relating to affiliates of the now-defunct UPN and WB networks. Even if the deletion was suspicious, the vote went to deleting all the templates since they were hardly being used in any articles now and cleanup would have ensued eventually, since The CW network took over many of those station affiliations and CW state templates were added to every CW affiliate station article after its September 2006 launch.

However a side effect of the deletion going through was that unknowingly, all of the WB and UPN intrastate templates were redirected by the cleanup sockpuppets to those of the CW intrastate templates, which weren't under any discussion at all. Because they were RD'ed, most of the intrastate CW templates were then deleted accidently, leaving only ten remaining according to Category:Intrastate CW Templates. I do not contest the WB/UPN deletions (I voted yes within the discussion), but would like the other 40 or so CW templates restored as soon as possible. WP:TVS, of which I'm a member of is concerned about it, and I mean no harm in bringing this up; I suspect the deleting admin at the end of discussion didn't even know about the redirects to CW templates, but since this affects at least around 150 pages, needs to be rectified. Thank you. Nate · (chatter) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted them - I think I got them all, I was going based on the deletion log—Random832 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni for ArbCom enforcement

I have blocked User:Giovanni33 for 24 hours for "fail[ing] to discuss a content reversion" at New antisemitism per ArbCom enforcement here. Details are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith's#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

65.121.24.98 indefinite block nomination

Please check 65.121.24.98 's talk page. As you can see the person has been blocked (temp) 4 times and is still vandalizing pages. I do request that this person get an indefinite block to help keep the pages of Wikipedia vandal-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilm (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can not indef an anon unless they are static, just report to WP:AIV. Rgoodermote  22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the whois search is right, this IP belongs to Lowell Observatory. Rgoodermote  22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for six months; after reviewing its contributions at length, I was generally inclined to do the same (albeit with account creation enabled). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also IP's can be blocked indefinitely if they are open proxies. Oysterguitarist 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about open proxies, been a long time since I read anything on them. Rgoodermote  13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought open proxies were only supposed to be blocked for long periods of time, rather than indef, since they occasionally are reassigned. But that obviously might have changed - I don't keep up on OP blocking protocol. Natalie (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in ever indef blocking an IP. Even if an IP is a long term problem then block of up to 6 months can be used. It is not hard to deal with a problem IP every 6 months. 1 != 2 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef-blocks of open proxies are generally deprecated. There is currently a discussion about indef-blocks and open proxy (Tor) block lengths at Wikipedia talk:Blocking/TOR nodes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: User:IlIlIlI0's deleted contributions - possible security breach

Without saying too much, you need to take a look at this (now blocked) user's deleted contribs.

I have already requested oversight for these deleted edits - but I feel that the affected users need to be made aware of this. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I checked the two admin accounts that i recognised, and neither password worked. It may not be as urgent as thought. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the top three, didn't work. Woody (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be because I just scrambled them. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted the cat one! Phaedriel doesn't even have a cat. El_C 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth running a checkuser to try find out who was behind that? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Babelious keeps editing my user page

Resolved

I'm not sure if he's clueless or a sock trying to bug me. Could someone intervene? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your user page contained some misplaced <noinclude> sections that you'd apparently manually cut and pasted from various userbox templates. Those sections caused your user page to appear in a couple of categories meant only for templates. Babelious was apparently trying to fix that, but his/her edits seem to have included other, unnecessary, changes. I have edited your user page to remove those misplaced <noinclude> sections, but have left it otherwise unchanged. I hope we can now declare this issue resolved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine. I tried to get him to tell me exactly what the problem was but perhaps there was a language barrier. I forgot to mention above that he also edited my page as User_talk:67.163.33.214. Thanks for your trouble.Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still editing it [104]. Could you at least put a note on his talk page to get him to stop? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did edit your user talk page, and there is a language barrier. You didn't tell me the issue was resolved but rather threatened to block me. -Babelious 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stress that I am only trying to help Tstrobaugh, and that he needs to take his userpage out of Category:User templates, and Category:Intelligence user templates. -Babelious 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no longer any need for me to edit hhis userpage, and therefore I shall not, just as I said on his userpage. -Babelious 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

death threat made by IP 69.124.121.251

Resolved

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Adams&diff=prev&oldid=183081562 this edit], an IP (69.124.121.251) made death threats against a named person. Can one of the admins follow up on this? -- Why Not A Duck 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked & edits deleted. Thanks for reporting it, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by 209.152.67.222

This user's contributions are purely vandalism and he needs to be blocked to prevent further blatant vandalism. Unreal128 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, and you can report vandals to WP:AIV. Oysterguitarist 05:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User John Celona

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

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. [105],[106],[107] Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BillCJ

Resolved

Hello. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BillCJ was created recently. It is malformed, and BillCJ has declined. One strange thing is the nom on the RFA. His only edit outside the RFA was notifying BillCJ. Anyway, could someone please close it? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As there was no follow-through after this, I'm being bold and considering this an odd form of vandalism and simply deleted the malformed page. If there's a serious nomination, it'd be welcome - done correctly. SkierRMH (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is warming, however, to be niminated. User should be grateful, as he could have been nominated. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the nominator is a long-term stalker and troll of BillCJ, given the note at the top of the latter's talk page. Hence the brusque treatment. -- RG² 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email.[108] That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison ^❤ 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Wikipedia, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in the articles on BDSM and pedophilia) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated here. Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them in this user's contributions. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was an IP check ever done here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} , but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on WP:RFCU. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. Hut 8.5 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for anybody to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz is issuing threats

User:Raggz appeared a week or so ago on the State Terrorism by the United States page and began making massive deletions. At one and the same time he claimed to be a new user, while also justifying his deletions with wiki-policy notes -- "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", and so on. Regardless, today he issued a clear threat on my talk page, saying that if i did not allow his deletions then he would "pursue other means". In light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire, i consider this threat to be a grave and actionable matter. While it may be the case that Raggz is unaffiliated with this group, his recent behavior follows the same modus operandi and line of argument that has characterized this group over the last few years. I am here formally drawing attention to it; any feedback would appreciated. Thank you. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone, perhaps you should read WP:NOT and WP:NOR, it would be a good start for you of what the project is all about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV pushing of fringe views. While we have articles on fringe views in the world, we do not ramrod them into mainstream articles to suit our fancy. Interesting you should comment on other user's behavior, ie: making comments like this as an SPA. It looks like Raggz is trying to work with others here. I suggest you do the same. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That "threat" looks innocent enough; "We may debate these issues on TALK and there strive for Consensus, or I will need to seek an alternative solution." Looks like he's threatening you with Dispute Resolution. Pairadox (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And also note the assumption of bad faith by Stone put to sky, "[i]n light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire." Um, citation needed anyone? Like A Rainbow (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, Ragzz and Stone put to sky are currently engaged in a content dispute in the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, which, as no doubt most of you regulars know, has a long and checkered history. The thing really ought to be scrubbed out with a mop as it is STILL full of WP:SYNT violations. But anyways, with regards to these two users, well, look at the article's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

Main page: Talk:Adult-child_sex § Deletion_.26_Redirecting_of_an_Article_Without_Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

Half-dozen hours since unblock request

Resolved

 – slakr^\ talk /

Hello. I'd like to point out that a request for unblock was made on User talk:5dsddddd at 21:35 on January 8. It has remained unanswered for a while, so could an admin please answer it? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock was declined by User:Luna Santin. Nakon 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether WP:EPISODE should exist as a guideline or be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by User:Ursasapien [109]. Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides.[110] Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect WP:EPISODE to the MOS with the edit summary of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP."[111]. It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours[112], but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus[113]. His redirect was undone by a different editor[114] and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced WP:EPISODE with a "disambigutation" page[115]. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.[116]. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes[117], and a different editor reverted moments later[118].

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft"[119]. He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: talk page discussions and his post on the Fiction MOS talk page.

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by Ursasapien

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not WP:EPISODE violated WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, they liked it or needed it and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite Collectonian's contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to bad faith, and have been treated uncivilly. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that WP:EPISODE violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a WP:POINT more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Wikipedia guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an "interesting editor list" that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet, edits despite COI warnings, biased article

I have been trying to 'clean up' the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance article and have encountered lots of problems in trying to do so by user Ghagele (talk · contribs). I have recently created a descriptive paragraph on the talk page to describe the issues I see thus far: Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele

All in all, Ghagele (talk · contribs) has received two warnings about editing the CRSQA article and has continued to do so with no administrator intervention, to my great, great surprise. He has also now unknowingly admitted to using his IP as a sock-puppet to circumvent the warnings to edit the CRSQA article by editing the talk page without logging in as Ghagele.

I am desperately looking for some logical administration on the subject, as I believe the information I have provided on the talk provides provides premises for some pretty obvious actions. --SirDecius (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see implicit threats of legal action from Ghaegel by extensive references to legal action against web site operators elsewhere, and a discussion by both him and SirDecius about the true identity of Wikipedia users. 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) With respect to the article itself, attention is being paid to it by another admin. DGG (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Primetime

Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back. Or more precisely, he never left. Recently-discovered sock puppets included one that started editing the day after his last socks were discovered, back in May '07. Under his new name, Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs), he was engaged in contentious editing, several noticeboard disputes, and even aspired to become an admin. Now that he's been discovered again he's going on a rampage. He's been vandalizing my user talk page, such as user:Differing_views. He's also been reverting every edit I make, going back 50 edits at a time using popups and possibly a tabbed browser, such as user:Ourshalf_ourshalf. It turns out that he's been creating dozens of sleeper sock accounts dating back months. The history is mostly in Checkuser #13 and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. A number of admins and editors have been helpful in fixing the recent damage. Thanks to Irishguy, Pairadox, Kurt Shaped Box, MBK004, SqueakBox, SirFozzie, Random832, Durova, Bielle, Lcarscad, Bongwarrior, Jersyko, Luna Santin, Slakr, 12 Noon, and everyone else. I've moved my talk page archives and history so that there's nothing left to vandalize. I'm not sure what else we can do about this guy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

On 3rd January I suggested here and here the deletion of this section on the Khazars page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated WP:NPOV and was WP:Fork but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a WP:RFC would not be reliable due to WP:COI and asked for reasons for relevance instead. At this point Jayjg posted basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “interests”:

• I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11[120].

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this this one, this one and this one.

• Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. [121].

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

• David Irving is a legitimate historian [122].

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

• I ”Passionately” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page [123].

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "an idiot with ridiculous ideas" which supports this.

• Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. Neutral Good (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a permanent neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --Tom 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne appears to be referring to this edit. Thatcher 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Resumption of IP vandalism after block

217.38.127.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [124] Non current. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

persistent posting of personal/unsourced information on a BLP

a block of user Lewinsky and IP 60.242.9.146 is requested for repeatedly posting personal and unsourced information on the page of Evan Thomas.

77.185.56.213 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP complaining here should list both User:Lewinksky and User:Lewinsky in this complaint. both are SPA accounts. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And maybe they should be informed as to why the info is being removed? So far there hasn't been so much as an edit summary explaining why, much less a comment on the article talk page or to any of the offenders. AN/I should not be the first recourse. Pairadox (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

Resolved

 – user blocked slakr^\ talk /

Please see these edits of Jmm6f488 (talk · contribs) here and here. These are totally unacceptable and even after being warned of the first, he did the second. Also this one before the 2 above: [125]. -- ALLSTARecho 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, that was disgraceful. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

48 hours? Feeling generous Ryan?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd call Ryan downright stingy; if it'd been me, I would have indeffed the guy. Stuff like this[126] is 100% unacceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I would have indef-ed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this here after I left a final warning. Strange thing is, seems to have had a long period of inactivity and then had a couple of edits before flipping. Would agree with an indefinite. Woody (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user had never edited in relation to those topics before, then I would almost suspect a compromised account. But that doesn't appear to be the case. An indef block seems appropriate, but - given reasonable contributions in the past and sincere contrition now and in the future - 48 hours may be acceptable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, he has given some good contributions in the past - we shouldn't banish people for a couple of bad things in the space of one day. No real problems with an indef if someone wants to adjust it, but this could easily be done if he were to step out of line again. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how CU works, but would it be possible to run it on some of his "good" edits and these "bad" edits to see if they're at least from the same location? If the 48 hour block wears off and he comes back with the same attitude, I'd say it's safe to indefinitely block. If it's a compromised account, when they come back, they can make their case for an unblock (which I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to; as has been pointed out, there were good edits in the past). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's curious. This diff shows a considerably different style of approach to these controversial topics. It definitely smells like a compromised account... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it'll be compromised - it looks more like the user got bored with Wikipedia, left for a bit and decided to come back to have a little "fun" - hopefully 48 hours should help him realise that he won't be able to get away with that in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is willing to extend the block, let's see what the user does next. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone sort out this page?

Resolved

 – archived what could be archived in that run, brought back the rest to here. —Random832 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The ANI formatting seems to have gone haywire. Entire sections, such as Liancourt Rocks pert one have disappeared. Can somebody have a look and see where the problem started? Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, been like that for 2 days now, kinda bugging me. Seem on my side the sections are replaced by a black line, this occurs through 4 browsers I have tested. Dureo (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just now deleted what seemed like a rogue discussion close tag. It's also possible that due to the tremendous article size, your browser was having trouble rendering it. We seriously need to more aggressively keep this issue at bay to maintain accessibility. --slakr^\ talk / 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks like it was the archive bot that was to blame. It archived the "==" sections of debates but not the related "===" subsections (if that makes sense). See report at AN here [127]. --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. ——Random832 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete User:8thstar/ubx/Dead Marxist

Resolved

 – Deleted

This userbox was deleted at MFD recently, was recreated and deleted again per CSD G4, and has been recreated yet again. Please delete it again and prevent recreation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Already deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and salt it; since its deletion via WP:MfD it's been recreated twice. I also warned its creator to stop remaking it and visit deletion review if s/he disagrees with the verdict from MfD. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good call, that. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial userbox

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

I just wonder that how after deletion this userbox can be restored. This userbox is clearly supporting Iraqi insurgency. How this userbox is being tolerated? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox was restored following the deletion review. Whitstable (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can still take it to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)