Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive144

Flowcube indef blocked as sockpuppet of Homey

I've indefinitely blocked Flowcube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HOTR, you may be blocked from editing. Homey. I'm not very familiar with the case (see here), so if anyone who's more familiar with the case disagrees please don't hesitate to talk to me or reverse the block. Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There was never an arbitration case on user:Homey. The page you referred to was a subpage created for the case application comments which got very long; when the case was rejected the subpage should have been too.

Homey's current status is in doubt. Fred Bauder has argued that he should be given the chance to register an account and edit peacefully; so long as he edits peacefully he should not be "outed" or blocked. Jayjg has argued that Homey has used up his supply of second chances. Thatcher131 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should he be unblocked, then? Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, it was "rejected" on the naive presumption that Homey had gone the way of the buffalo. Granted, the chips are a bit stale now, but somebody should toss them back on the table and pursue the fabled persona non grata dentata remedy. —freak(talk) 10:01, Oct. 29, 2006 (UTC)

If that's what happened, that's unfortunate. Whenever something's left in limbo like that it's hard to get going again. I don't feel particularly inclined to pursue arbitration myself, but I certainly can agree with your sentiments. Snoutwood (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently per Fred Bauder's talk page, Homey, Fred, SlimVirgin and Jimbo are in negotiations regarding his status. I would probably leave things at status quo (neither unblock nor block any new suspected socks) until something is worked out and they let us know. Thatcher131 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that. Thanks a million for the help, I will follow that advice. Snoutwood (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish the arbcom would stop taking the easy way out of avoiding making a decision based on the usually faulty argument that the troublesome user has left the project, as they almost invariably come back and we have to start all over again. I seem to recall similar things having happened with Lir, Xed and Wik. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise, that the decision is made regardless of the person having left. However, that does seem to be changing (cf. Giano's ArbCom case and the remedies regarding Kelly Martin after her leaving the project). I'd love to see that continue. Snoutwood (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, what was the evidence that Flowcube was Homey? Feel free to e-mail me instead if it's sensitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear :) See Special:Undelete/User talk:Flowcube, particularly [1]. Snoutwood (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite see what it is. You mentioned the check user and RfAr pages; was it IP evidence or editing style or something else? Again, please e-mail anything that might be sensitive, if it's no trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Flowcube's most recent edit summary "FUCK OFF HOMEY IS BACK U WANKER", which you can see by scrolling down on the undelete page, as well as the contents of the entirely self-created talk page, which includes a number of sockpuppet templates in which Flowcube claims to be Homey. Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Snoutwood. By all means keep it blocked because it's clearly a troublemaker, but in fairness possibly not Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, in fact, the chances are probably fairly low. But agreed that either way it should remain blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip behind this, and several other prank accounts. Fred Bauder 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We'll do a checkuser to be sure, but my own guess is that this is a troll who is just trying to stir the pot with respect to Homey. It would be very odd for Homey to do this sort of thing at the very same time that we are having a big conversation about his future status.

This example shows quite nicely why good users should never sockpuppet. And especially by users who have been involved in conflicts should never sockpuppet. Once you sockpuppet and get caught, you are an easy target for trolls to pretend to be you sockpuppeting again, just to make more people mad at you. I have no actual evidence that this is or is not homey, other than his denial and that it would seem rather a bit strange for him to do this at this time.--Jimbo Wales 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:racism

saw the person recieve test4im on recent changes, looked at his contributions, and noticed he redirected idiot to jew. he also put {{hoax}} on the hindu article, which is why he got the warning.

links:racism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked. --InShaneee 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) sockpuppetry

Checkuser reveals that there is a lot of abusive sockpuppetry going on here. The following are all the same person:

• Nileena joseph (talk · contribs)
• Dr.khan (talk · contribs)
• Nooranadu mohan (talk · contribs)
• Joshygeorge (talk · contribs)
• Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran (talk · contribs)
• Meeracmusic (talk · contribs)

I hope an admin can look into this. Dmcdevit·t 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled the AfD, and Srikeit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indef'd all the socks. Presumably the socket can ask for one and only one to be unblocked if they wish to play nicely. -Splash - tk 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, they do not appear to have collaborated on any other AfDs. -Splash - tk 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but this is !@#!@# great. I had practically given up editing in articles related to Malayalam because of the sheer impossibility of getting nn articles deleted because of stray votes and "reverse-systemic bias". But stuff like this one and AfDs like this keeps me going.

I was active in the first AfD for Jitesh and a related one, but by the time I saw the second nomination, it was well on the way to keep and did not even bother to comment.

Many of us who work in the Malayalam articles "knew" that they were sockpuppets, but the way Checkuser terms are phrased, it was pretty difficult to get one done on mere suspicion. See User_talk:Ageo020/Archive_1#List_of_suspected_socks_of_User:S.Jithesh for some "new" users who appeared for the first AfD. Did Devapriya who voted in this Afd come clean ? User:Parayanali is another user who has showed a similar edit pattern (though he had made only two edits) Tintin (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems she followed my AfD votes. See her AFD votes vis-a-vis my AFD votes. I find the coincidence eerie.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And she even voted exactly as you did, even though your opinion was often in the minority. Looking at her editing pattern, you would have got a barnstar in a couple of days :) Tintin (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Well luckily I'm not a sock though my POV is generally keep except in cases of cruft or nonsense. On India-related articles, I "vote keep first, work on later". Barnstar would have been nice.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:70.141.125.22

70.141.125.22 (talk · contribs), an anonymous IP, keeps posting a dubious bunch of "trivia" to the Republic of Texas (group) article. This has been added by other users / anons earlier, and always removed by consensus. This time, the user included an attack on others who remove the section: "Anyone who removes this section is obviously little and knows nothing" *Dan T.* 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet/troll whatever

this user moves straight away (within 6 edits) to a RFA and makes replies like this --Charlesknight 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 193.251.135.126

Please block anon user [2] for blanking several article sections. Markussep 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaia Football Clubs Association

Many users at this discussion have come from the Greek Wikipedia to vote keep on Achaia Football Clubs Association. There have been many accusations of people being either meatpuppets or sockpuppets and it has gotten out of control. There have also been personal attacks on multiple users. It would help if an admin could sort this conflict out. T REX_speak 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See my vote on the almost deleted page to view my opinions on the subject. I will do more research, if necessary. If not necessary, please let me know.Billy i.e.The Billster 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, after reflecting on the matter I've had a change of heart. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Achaia_Football_Clubs_Association Billy i.e.The Billster 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing this, since I was interested in the subject exactly above. I think it is kinda unfair to treat a team like that, no matter how un-notable it may be. I'll go ahead and vote, but you must admit there's a huge fuss about nothing. I also noticed several accusations about sockpuppets of the other side... •NikoSilver• 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock of banned user WikiWoo (talk · contribs) being uncivil

Brampton 2006 (talk · contribs) is being uncivil, disruptive and engaging in personal attacks while editing two pages: Brampton, Ontario and Brampton municipal election, 2006. His pattern of edits and accusations that other editors (namely me) are corrupt and deliberately trying to deprive the public of information with our edits reminds me of banned used WikiWoo aka WikiRoo (talk · contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk · contribs) aka GST2006 (talk · contribs) aka 216.154.134.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Could an admin check into his behavior? Also, I plan on filing a checkuser request, but WikiWoo's talk page has been erased. Could someone make it available to me so I could find the diffs I need to file the reguest? Thanks. JChap2007 23:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol has taken care of this for me. JChap2007 04:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Is recruiting people to vote in a 'deletion review'. Is this appropriate? --Tbeatty 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be problematic if the recruiter is only enlisting people who agree with him. Usually that's fairly easily dealt with by assuring that those who voted in favor of the deletion are also contacted; maybe ask him to do that himself just for the sake of WP:AGF? Even if he doesn't comply, it's easy to do on one's own.

(I'm not an admin, so those who are, please correct me if I'm wrong!) --Masamage 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He is only recruiting "friends" as far as I can tell.--Tbeatty 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that many who originally voted for deletion are part of an organized group with an admitted agenda, and that this matter (deletion review) is noted on their noticeboard, as was the original AfD, and the subsequent DRV. 'Conspiracy' Noticeboard Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To some extent, it doesn't matter. AFD is not a vote. DVR isn't either. Repeating a weak argument doesn't make it stronger. But no, it's not appropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has also placed clearly inappropriate warnings on my talk page. See, for example, this {{npa3}} (referring, I believe, to posts on that deletion review), which may have warranted an {{agf}}, and this {{threat2}} which apparently refers to this post on his talk page. I cannot comment without escalating the issue, which I do not want to do. However, a block may be in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the warnings were a bit of stretch. I've reminded him that he is equally bound as you are to assume good faith. -- JLaTondre 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grace Note and User:Gracenotes

Grace Note has been a long time contributer here and it appears we have another long time contributor named Gracenotes here too. I think having two users with this similar a name and being as active as both are, there could be reason for one of them to change thier username. Do you think we should ask either of them to change it? semper fi — Moe 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it been a problem yet? If not, I wouldn't worry too much, but you're right that it could be confusing. Rather than ask either to abandon their name, maybe we could ask them to make a note on their userpages of being different people. (Just like article disambiguation in the mainspace.) --Masamage 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:Gracenotes. He probably ought to change his user name but doesn't absolutely need to; he could leave a note on his user page instead. I saw an edit by Gracenotes in my watchlist today and thought Grace Note had changed his username. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All right. I've put this message on the top of my userpage:

This user's name is "Gracenotes". If you're looking for the user "Grace Note" go here.

If Grace Note wants to put something like that at the top of his userpage, he should feel free, or someone else could do it. Interesting, this is not an "Incident" per se. I really don't want to change my username, because it's in my e-mail adress, AIM name, Slashdot account, account on other Wikimedia things... so, the above should work. By the way, Idont Havaname, what edit did you see of mine? It's remarkable that out of this many active users you've "matched" just two. --Gracenotes ^T § 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Nice edit summary, Gracenotes. Classy. I almost heard film-noir music play. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several other pairs of well-known users on Wikipedia who have had similar user names: User:Essjay and User:Sj, User:RedWolf and User:Redwolf24, and User:RickK and User:RK. I think all of them, at some point or another, have posted messages at the top of their user pages saying that they're not the other one. The original AN/I post about Grace Note / Gracenotes came before my message did.

The edit I saw on my watchlist was to the Esperanza Members page. Most of the pages that I edit end up on my watchlist almost by default. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ral315 felt a need to add a dablink so people wouldn't confuse him with Raul654 [3] Hbdragon88 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive continuous editing in... Malakas

Sorry, to post that here, but it's just over the top with this anon! He/she repeatedly reverts all involved users, introducing their own personal etymology theory, based on an amateur unofficial site, while removing the citations from acknowledged Greek dictionaries. The edits are obvious vandalism to any Greek speaker, but this is just one point. Here are the rest:

• He/she refuses to use talk, despite multiple requests: [4], [5], [6], [7]
• He/she uses multiple accounts/IP's, obviously the same user:
  • Kour40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Soll313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 70.121.189.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 66.162.30.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• He/she uses misleading edit summaries: [8], [9], [10], [11]
• He/she has developed WP:OWN syndrome, and admits being related to the site he keeps using as a 'reference': [12], [13], [14], [15]

Sorry for taking up your time with what appears to be a ...malakia of a debate, but can someone help relieve 5 or 6 users constantly reverting that obvious vandal? •NikoSilver• 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: New sock User:Openware2007, broke WP:3RR, made a racial slur ("Malaka Ellina" = "You *#$%@&% Greek") and declared he WP:OWNS the article ("I created this wiki entry. So piss off, look it up" -partly in Greek).[16] •NikoSilver• 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He has also been trolling the talk page [17]. In that last edit, "Poutses" is extremely vulgar language.--Tekleni 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And has created yet one more sock: User:TaMyalaStaKaggela (="brains on cage-bars" - Greek hooligan motto). [18] •NikoSilver• 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article. As an aside, I don't think we should have this article in the first place. Everything that isn't original research could fit at Wiktionary. Jkelly 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Talk:Alexander the Great

I'm expanding on a comment I made above. I believe several sockpuppets are participating in a mediation on Talk:Alexander the Great. In addition to the possible troll/sockpuppet Wissahickon Creek, we have:

• Mallaccaos/Apro. Already reported at WP:SSP, but no one seems to be home over there. Both users are clearly using the same IPs, and admit to this, and both advocate similar positions. For more, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mallaccaos.

• Takidis (talk ·  contribs), who I think is a sock of the banned user Cretanpride (talk ·  contribs). A Checkuser came back inconclusive, because Cretanpride's edits are too old. However, I think it's pretty clear just from looking at the contributions: Takidis has posted to Alexander the Great and Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, taking positions similar to Cretanpride's. For instance, on Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Takidis argues that the views of Bruce Thornton, Mary Lefkowitz, Victor Davis Hanson and Robert Flaceliere must be included in the article; in the past, Cretanpride's socks have said similar things.

Could someone please investigate further? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the checkuser came back inconclusive because I am not Cretanpride and actually innocent. Akhilleus, just because certain editors oppose your views doesn't mean you have to find ways to get rid of them. Do I share similar views as Cretanpride on this issue? Sure, but then again the vast majority of Greeks do, and I am not the only one who opposes undue weight of homosexuality injected into Greco-Roman articles. Takidis 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Whether Takidis is Cretanpride or not (and he does take some extremely similar positions), he certainly appears to be a single-purpose account, which should be taken into consideration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you gave me a chance to edit on other articles before labeling me a single purpose account. I don't think this is fair. Also, as I noted above, it doesn't matter if Cretanpride and I share similar views on this subject because so do most Greeks and so do other editors who have posted. Takidis 06:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I call 'em as I see 'em. Your first edit after creating your user page, on October 13, was about the issue of homosexuality and Alexander the Great.[19] Since then, you have edited only two articles unrelated to the issue of homosexuality in ancient Greece: Tarpon Springs, Florida and, tonight, a minor edit to Cyprus. That's several weeks of editing, with essentially all edits on a single topic. Sounds like a single-purpose account to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You've ignored the fact that so far I have only edited on four articles total. You've also ignored the fact that I've added three paragraphs to Alexander the Great which have nothing to do with homosexuality. If it's anyone whose violated wiki policy it's those who have assumed bad faith against me by ignoring me and accusing me of sockpuppetry even after I went checkuser and even after I requested one, and we know who those are. Takidis 06:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs you added to Alexander the Great were about his relationships with women — a response to what you argued was the undue weight being placed on his relationships with men. That's absolutely related. You jumped right into the discussion at Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece with a long screed decrying the article's POV-ness and offensiveness to modern Greeks. You are correct that you have edited only four articles — and the vast majority of those edits have been to two articles with related debates. I'm not assuming bad faith here, just using my judgment as a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator. If other adminstrators disagree with my assessment, I will re-evaluate it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm mediator in this case. I was suggested to make a statement here that I'm not a sock of anyone. You may see very well this, just be checking with CheckUser. I have no relation whatsoever with anyone from that page. My simple purpose is to have an NPOV solution to that page. Thank you. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 07:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek's status as assistant mediator in this case is questioned by several editors. See here and [[#Requested block for User:Wissahickon Creek for disruption|here] on this page, and here at the Mediation Cabal's coordination page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither all users supporting Cretanpride's arguments are Cretanpride's socks, nor is it permitted to WP:BITE new users simply because one doesn't agree with them. I support most of Cretanpride's argumentation (excluding ofcourse threats etc) and find it very sound and logical; am I Cretanpride? Also, Alexander the Great is one of the first articles a Greek would obviously visit in WP. Checkuser being inconclusive is one more argument. Takidis is an apparent fresh user, and his non-one-purposeness will definitely emerge in his following edits. I would appreciate if accusing users would have real evidence to his allegged sockiness to a permabanned user, which if not substantiated, constitutes a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:BITE. Otherwise please clear this new user's name. So, any "diffs", please? •NikoSilver• 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave diffs in the initial post. Aside from this "fresh user"s familiarity with processes like Checkuser, there's also the small fact that he's edited two of Cretanpride's favorite articles. On Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece he insists that the views of Robert Flaceliere and Bruce Thornton must be included; in the past Cretanpride and his many socks have argued the same thing. Somehow I don't think there are many users that would start posting long passages from these particular scholars within a few weeks of joining WP; I doubt most new users even know that Flaceliere and Thornton exist. Takidis also insists that the views of Mary Lefkowitz and Victor Davis Hanson must be included in the article; thing is, these views come from blurbs on the back of Thornton's book, which a sock of Cretanpride has quoted before. (Diffs are above in the initial post of this thread.) The stuff about Vrissimtzis is also a continuation of argument that was already in process. (see, for instance, this diff and this diff). Takidis has added a few new wrinkles like the quote from David Cohen, but this is largely a rehash of material already posted by Cretanpride's socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It sure is suspect - while I find the Apro - Malaccoas farfetched, the only thing that can be said of Takidis that if he's not Cretanpride he must be his clone, because he doesn't only imitate his pov, but also his editing style. Also, it's hard not to remember that C. is certainly still editing, and has edited less than a month ago the article Alexander the Greece through a sockpuppet.--Aldux 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, none of the above is conclusive. Anybody having enough patience to read the archives and edit history could see those things. As per his non-newbeeness, that doesn't necessarily make him CP either. Many legit users have dissappeared and reappeared under a different username. That may well be the case here, and it is not objectionable. Also, keep in mind that people may not wish to use their real username for such issues, in order not to be called 'homophobic'. I suggest we watch this user's edits (as we obviously already do) and try to find anything that really connects him to CP. Other than that, and until proven otherwise, and unless violating a policy, he cannot be "ignored" in talk-pages. So go ahead and block him for something, or I'll be seconding every single edit of his, as if it were mine. PS. Now-now, Aldux, what are our friends from FYROM going to say with your "slip-of-the-tongue..." ("...speaking the truth") in wikilinking G.A. above? :-) •NikoSilver• 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Arghh - a Freudian lapsus!!! I've been discovered as a covert agent for Greece in the Mocedonist Cabal! Oh well, I can always hope they won't read this thread. ;-))))--Aldux 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, who performed several earlier checkusers on Cretanpride and his sockpuppets, has now confirmed that Takidis is another Cretanpride sockpuppet, and has blocked him. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

strange message

I got a message on my PDA phone stating that I edited something that I've never even heard of. Here is the link to the message I got: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.220.208.238&redirect=no

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks. You can reply to me at [e-mail address removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.241.233.201 (talk • contribs) .

That lists several messages. Best to register a username if you do not wish to be subjected to these. El_C 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney

User:Bcplim has made, and reverted, a series of edits to St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, one of which apparently includes personal details about a member of staff. See [20]. It might be prudent to remove the offending edit from the article's history. Thanks. Gimboid13 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock invasion

• Ruth Celeste (talk · contribs)
• DannyCohen (talk · contribs)
• Ner Israel (talk · contribs)
• Rabbix (talk · contribs)
• DinaTamar (talk · contribs)
• Mary Anne Wilson (talk · contribs)

I don't think we need checkuser here, since these are all obvious. They're all editing the same things, they're echoing each other in AfD's, they're all pushing the same POV - namely labelling certain rabbis and rabbinical institutions as practicing/condoning child molestation in total violation of BLP, and promoting certain activists and organizations that advocate against "clergy abuse". I am asking for another sysop to review these users and to indefblock the whole lot for abusive sockpuppetry and coordinated POV pushing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College. El_C 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding CrankingCraig (talk · contribs). - crz crztalk 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All indef blocked, I concur with Crz's conclusion. Obvious troll army. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

Can someone please explain to Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that he cannot do cut and paste page moves. [(humorous) personal attack removed].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.18.66 (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Saxifrage

I hope admins are keeping an eye on the trolling from the oppose vote that has spiralled out of control. – Chacor 10:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Weixiang7326

That user, Weixiang7326 was adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source in the article, Windows Vista. Please block that user. Thank you. --210.213.86.46 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam Gawronski (talk · contribs) misrepresentation of real life Adam Gawronski

It has come to my attention that someone has created an account using my real life name (Adam Gawronski) and proceeded to vandilise the St Pius X College article with offensive edits. Although these have since been revereted, the username (and hence my real name) still exists in the history. As you can imagine, I do not wish to have these comments under my name as they can be used against me even though I am not at fault. It appears that the same has happened under the username Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs), which is in fact the real name of a staff member at the school. As these users are both 'joke' users, obviously created exclusively with the intention of vandalising the St Pius X College article I do not believe that prior warning is required / would have any effect. This type of vandalism and misrepresentation I consider cowardly and also borderline illegal.

I would request that both Leonie Miller - St Pius X Administrator Extraordinaire (talk · contribs) and Adam Gawronski (talk · contribs) have their names changed so they are not impersonating anyone then blocked (so that their names do not appear in the history of the article, as I gather that deleting history of an article / deleting evidence of specific posts is not permitted/possible). I will then request (in the appropriate section) to have my current username (Gawronski) changed to Adam Gawronski to protect my online identity.

Gawronski 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This request should be directed to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard as only they have the power to change user names. Dragons flight 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Death threat against user

Just posted here. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Already indef blocked. --InShaneee 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 blocked one minute after I posted. Thank you both. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I tossed a warning at the talk page, but I guess it's too late. --Masamage 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef block pending explanation. It looks like Theresa deleted some subpages of his (for good reason). If he has a convincing apology/reason, I'll unblock. Thatcher131 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems a little strange, but not particulaly threatening. Some kid I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to unblock him since you were the target, go ahead. I'll give him a second chance if he is willing to discuss the matter. Thatcher131 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm fine with you asking for an explanation first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not unblock anyone after a death threat, even if they say they're sorry or whatever. Even if you're okay with it, bringing them back gives them a chance to similarly harass and threaten others who might not be. I know the vast majority of them say they'd never really go through with it (etc) but that's no excuse to make it easy for the few who would. There's already been real-life murders on Myspace, and we don't need that here as well. Nobody should give their life for the privlege of editing a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Andrew. Certain edits are beyond the pale; death threats are one of those. If the person is truly contrite, they will create a new ID and edit properly from now on. If they revert to such behavior; they should be checkusered and permabanned on sight. -- Avi 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's high time we had a formal policy on Wikipedia specifically prohibiting death threats and excplicitly defining them as a bannable offense (our harassment policy mentions them in passing but is very vague). So I've started a very rough policy proposal at Wikipedia:Death threats. I welcome any additions, changes, or feedback. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just posted a CheckUser request in the IP check section asking for contact with the appropriate law enforcement agency and ISP with the results. Should this be required for every death threat posted on Wikipedia? I know that most are probably empty threats, but I am not comfortable about the possibility that someone's death threat is not an empty one. Jesse Viviano 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Having been the recipient of a previous death threat, I would certainly support this suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Steel359

[21]

User not only violated 3RR (I didn't, because only 3 of my edits there are reverts), but reverted and protected the article to his ideal version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Steel359 for three hours for edit warring on Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. The protecting to his preferred version aside (that's territory for RFC and/or WP:RFAR), administrators should be expected to know better than to edit war on articles. He continued edit warring on the article after several users tried to contact him concerning his protection of the article, so I blocked to get him to discuss these instead of continuing this unproductive editing. Feel free to review this block, of course. Cowman109^Talk 00:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support this block based on the evidence presented here. Protecting to a preferred version while in a content dispute is also not done. Hopefully just an aberration though. Lar: t/c 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The block should be for 24 hours. I've never seen anyone blocked for less than 24 hours for 3RR before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Eight hour blocks are not uncommon. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Centrx. I see 8 hours used a lot for 3RR with experienced editors. Daniel.Bryant 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, having very obviously broken the spirit of 3RR, A Link to the Past should be very wary of asking for blocks of admins with whom he has been edit-warring, to be extended. Guy 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting similarly to Lar, though Link has a point. I don't support changing the block length now that it's set, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The blocker said he did three hours to try to get Steel to engage in discussion, but he doesn't seem to have been interested in discussing it. So I think the block should be increased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) his block log has a good record, no previous blocks, and this block is in my view intended to get his attention and get him talking. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this block does the trick, why would a longer one be a good thing? I've given blocks as short as 15 minutes just to get people to stop and think about what they are doing. 3 hours seems right. Also, i'd rather we not establish the precedent of one of the parties to a dispute arguing about how long a block is for, thanks. Lar: t/c 01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins should be blocked for longer than, say, a long-time regular user. They got the position, and if they violate a policy that could lead to a block, they s hould know better than to do such a thing. It's almost like special treatment to NOT block him for 24 hours. I got blocked for it, and my 3RR wasn't as nearly as bad as his 3RR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All revert wars are bad. There is no such thing as "my reverts weren't as bad as his". Three hours is fine. Support block and block length. – Chacor 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, you've got quite a history. --InShaneee 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive; they are deterrent, preventive, and recording. In this case, the blocking administrator thinks that a 3-hour block will be sufficient to deter the user from future disruptive behavior. This could be because the blocking administrator has prior knowledge of the user, where otherwise he might give a default longer block, but that is not favoritism. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee: I've been blocked twice before that blocked, and had them lifted. Also, what can be deterred? "Oh, three hours? Better take a nap/watch a movie/clean house!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They can do whatever they like during the duration of thier block off-wiki. The point is to stop thier disruptive behavior on wiki. semper fi — Moe 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109 just directed me to this discussion. I filed a report at WP:AN3 before realizing that a three-hour block already was in place. Had I noticed Steel359's 3RR violation before I became involved in the American/British spelling dispute, I would have placed a 24-hour block myself. If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than other users. It's true that 3RR blocks aren't punitive, but Steel359 reverted the page six times in a 14-hour period (during which he protected the page to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). He could use a 24-hour break to cool down. —David Levy 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the initial block does not do the trick, I would support a longer block. I don't see any sign of discussion on Steel's talk page... so not sure how it would play out, let us wait and see. But again, I don't see a party to a 3rr (Link) having any standing to comment on who got how much blockage. Lar: t/c 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my belief that any user in good standing (including one with involvement) is entitled to comment on an issue (with others taking all of the facts into account). I obviously was not entitled to issue a block myself, of course. —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll take a break. I've been really moody for a while and I'm surprised it took so long for something like this to happen. Some important things in RL are coming up and I'd rather not be dealing with this at the same time. I don't intend to start a huge discussion on ANI when there are more suitable places, but I'm going to vent a little. The content dispute itself is about vgcharts - a site of videogame sales figures. This site (apparently) uses shipping figures to estimate a game's sales, and ALTTP has been removing these in good faith on the grounds that they're misleading. The text in the article makes it explicitely clear that they're estimates, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, when removing the sales info, ALTTP carelessly left sentence fragments lying around (see the third line here), and then later removed content unrelated to the dispute when reverting me [22]. As for the spelling, the article was almost totally rewritten during the process of taking it to FA. There was no conscious effort to change the style. But seeing as along the way it did change, I can't see why so much effort is being put into changing it from one version which isn't inconsistent to another version which also isn't inconsistent [23]. When I was reverted, I was pointed to the manual of style. The first bullet point there says: "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.". It was unconsciously changed from one to another as huge chunks of text were removed and new chunks were written (by me) from scratch, and the end product did use the same style throughout.
Like I said, sorry to moan about article stuff on ANI. I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia lately, and formal logic isn't going to revise itself, so this is quite a convenient point to take a break. I worked really hard on MGS3 to get it to FA, and suddenly people are parading in and making all these changes without a whisper on the talk page. And I'm going to stop there before someone accuses me of WP:OWN. -- Steel 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel, no. Just saying that it's an estimate does not cut it. Wouldn't you do the same if you saw a featured article saying "according to false information, Pocky & Rocky sold 800,000 copies"? Because that's what it is. I know the person who owns the site; on the forum that he posts on he's constantly plugging his site. It got so bad that VGCharts was banned from all sales discussions at NeoGAF. The owner of the web site, ioi, is not a professional by any definition of the word. In fact, I get review copies from various developers in the industry to review on a site I work on, so I am actually more connected to the industry than he is, because he has absolutely no connections. Just because you specify that the source is an unprofessional estimater does not make the numbers any less bogus. Additionally, just because I unintentionally reverted something, yes, but that could have easily been added back without reverting the VGCharts information back, so don't claim I did it when you did it as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your decision to take a break is a wise one. As I commented at WP:AN3, it was obvious to me that you were under a great deal of stress. (In our one prior interaction, you seemed quite reasonable.)

Regarding the dialect switch, I believe you when you say that this was unconscious, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improper. American spellings (such as "organization" and "humor") had been in use in the article since February 2005 (when the first dialect-specific spelling was introduced). You recently substituted British spellings, thereby creating inconsistency that remained until an anonymous user changed the heading "localization" to "localisation" a few days ago. When someone switched it back, you twice reverted (the first time with no explanation) on the basis that the article used British spellings.

Quoth the portions of the MoS to which I was referring:

"If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)"

"Follow the dialect of the first contributor."

"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

I don't doubt that your conversion from American to British spellings was innocent, and I never ascribed malice; I simply restored the English variety originally used in the article. I've done the same thing with articles that were improperly changed from British English to American English.

In any event, I wish you the best of luck in your personal matters (and your wiki matters upon your return). —David Levy 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I've always understood it is that the first contributor thing should be brought into play when there's an inconsistency. At the time you changed the style, there was no inconsistency, and so no need to revert to American spellings. Anyway, consider that my last message, I'm off now. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "first contributor" rule takes effect when there's a dispute regarding which variety of English to use and no other valid reason to select one in particular. Otherwise, we would be inviting users to deliberately change established articles to their preferred dialects (citing the fact that this results in "no inconsistency, and so no need to revert"), thereby sparking massive edit wars. The fact that the article existed in consistent British English for two days (as opposed to the 1 ½ years in which it was written in consistent American English) didn't somehow render that particular status quo sacrosanct. —David Levy 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, if there were no dispute, such as if someone were to re-write a dormant article, the "first contributor" rule is irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A message I received

[24]
If he'd said that about someone else he would probably be blocked (by me) by now. I really don't appreciate being talked about in that way and consider it exceptionally insulting. This isn't a "go and block him for me" request, but I'd be grateful if in my absence someone could remind him to AGF or something. -- Steel 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment that was unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I'd support a strongly-worded warning. – Chacor 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is true that you did 3RR, plus protected a page you were deeply to keep it at your preferred version and was only blocked for three hours. I mean, it wasn't as if you violated a petty policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An unfair case

Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of Chinese people and was blocked indefinitely. The reason given to me is a sock puppet case. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. The computer I used is one at my university computer lab, which is shared by all students. I think the administrator's action is totally unfair. I took a look at the sock puppet case and didn't see many similarity among those blocked editors. Most of them are just temporary accounts people use for the purpose of not revealing IP address. The accused user SNLE was indefinitely blocked only for sock puppet. I don't think sock puppet is justifiable for indefinitely block, as indicated in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page. Anyway, I think the administor is too arbitrary in making his decision in case of shared IP address. I wonder if some outsider could come and solve this case or at least ask the administrator to stop blocking people on unjustified bases. Thanks.User68732 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

" This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.

• Chinese people, people of Chinese ethnicity
  • Zhonghua minzu, the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality
  • Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group in China
  • Ethnic minorities in China
  • Overseas Chinese

I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"— Preceding unsigned comment added by User68732 (talk • contribs)

Hello! For a person who are not claiming to be User:Snle, you seem to be awfully concerned about him/her. If you have checked the facts of the case, you would know very well that Snle and his/her sock puppets have not only engaged in disruptive edits and repeated violations of WP:3RR, but also made abusive edits and restored those edits when they were deleted. It is a pretty solid case, to say the least. Besides, I'm not sure this is the right venue to appeal a decision.--Niohe 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at SNLE's talk page. There is only a warning of possible 3RR. I don't think violation of 3RR deserves to be indefinitely blocked. I also see that SNLE engaged in discussion on the talk page. There is no disruptive edits. People just have different ideas. User68732 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle has engaged in massive sockpuppetry, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Snle. Khoikhoi 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the reason for you to decide whether SNLE has sockpuppeted is on a shared IP address. That will be wrong, because many of the accused editors don't share any similarities at all. User68732 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What examples are you asking? I used a shared IP address and got indefinitely blocked. Is it enought. I'm accusing you of misusing administrative power. I think it is better for you to keep out of this. User68732 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. --Masamage 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cerebral Warrior and the userpage saga

People keep reverting this editors userpage. While I don't think much of the content being reverted, agreement appears to have been reached (and concensus) on the users talk page, yet evern editors involved in that formal request to User:Cerebral Warrior.

It appears that there is an edit war of sorts on that page, where people come along and revert it, and others (myself included - twice at least lol) have reverted it back to the users version (as disagreeable as I find it), because there is a WP disclaimer at the top of the page, and it is for the editor to remove on request if required, not other editors. In my understanding, the only other people that should be taking direct action on an actual userpage are admins, pending refusal to comply with the rules or formal consensus requests (a formal request and apparent agreementof sorts being in evidence on this users talk).

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at the situation and take appropriate action to put an end to ths issue before it escalates further? thanks, --Crimsone 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user's talk page suggests there has been some kind of agreement and things are cooling off. If that is the case, I am reluctant to stir things up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that only admins should edit another person's userpage. All Wikipedia pages, including userpages, refeclect on Wikipedia's reputation IMO. We are here to write an encylopedia, not stir up hate or state our political opinions.If he wants to do that let him get a website - it's very easy nowdays. I believe that the userpage should go. I don't know if the consensus is with me on this, I will not act at the moment. However I urge those who are reverting the deleters to simply stop. No one has the right to say whatever they like on thier userpage, anything that inhibits conversation and compromise on articles is bad for wikipedia and hate speech does just that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. There are so many restictions on userpages already, we may as well do away with them. So let's phase them out. The next logical step in this process is to outlaw "Vanity pics". We are, indeed, here to write..not to advertise what a "cute kitty" or "bitchin car" I gotz duude. We have a firm concensus now against vanity articles, why not vanity images as well?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant - his userpage should go, not all of them. I think userpages can help bring a sense of community, but it's important to remember that they are given to wikipedians as a favor not a right. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpages only give the illusion of community and help create a false impression of what we're really here for. Policing them for inappropriate material is a drain on time and resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't MySpace. But even if userpages stay, vanity pics need to go.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I should mention though that in this case, the disclaimer was added per the talk page agreement with an administrator. I happily accept what you say as the norm, but surely after administrator agreement, the both sides of the dispute should drop the issue usually? The thing is, as disagreeable as I find it, I can't bring myself to define what's currently there as hate speech. A fine line is being tread with it undoubtedly, but in the context of the disclaimer, it's not really reflecting directly on wikipedia so much either. I believe the agreement on the talk page was twofold in this respect.

Not that I'm intending to ask for views on the content that is (though undoubtedly a part of this situatition), but rather, on the disruption surrounding the issue--Crimsone 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think such issues can (or should) cleanly be seperated from the nature of the dispute and its solution. Commenting on the dispute itself, users do not own their userpage, and anything divisive enough, no matter what disclaimers are on it, tends to go. --Improv 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. While I strongly approve of users making their POV known, I think this goes beyond what is acceptable. Unfortunately, Cerebral Warrior now believes that: "After extensive discussion, a compromise has been reached-I can put what I want on my userpage, provided I agree to a disclaimer stating that my views do not reflect those of the community. The disclaimer is prominently displayed, as is the content I see fit to put on my userpage.", which seems iffy to me. The editor continues to post to areas where his user page will continue to give offence ([25] for example) and has somewhat misrepresented my intervention ([26]). I feel it may be time for someone else to intervene, if anyone agrees with me that this content is unencyclopedic and inflammatory. --Guinnog 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:crazyeddie ahs created what amounts to a mini-rfc on each controversial element of the userpage on Cerebral Warriors talk page While a good idea in principle, I was wondering if a sysop might move the section to a subpage (or a different namespace) and run a history merge as appropriate before it all gets a little messy?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

User:NuclearUmpf has decided to make this AfD an attack page on the nominator and myself. I attempted to remove these comments. [27] I then attempted to remove these comments to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard and stated that I was going to start an AfD on his behavior. User:NuclearUmpf has restored these comments. I don't want to get in a long edit war with this user. Travb (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Me and this user has a past history, please ask Thatcher131 for information regarding the past, including harassment, edit warring, bating, off wiki contacting of people I have disputes with, and now voting to delete a noticeboard I am involved with. The AfD in question accuses the participants of votestacking, Travb's example is actually an article that the nominator added himself. Anyway please see the MfD page and please direct questiosn to Thatcher131, as they are familiar with every aspect of this and can give you a run down of this users history. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on Thatcher131's page requesting assistance in the matter. User_talk:Thatcher131#Travb_again --NuclearZer0 12:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO both of you need to stop, sit back and think about your actions. And probably both avoid that page, and each other, for a while. WP:RPA is not a guideline or policy, so it should only be used sparingly, and certainly not if there's been such a history of conflict. – Chacor 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear and I have some of the same interests (political articles), and I have actively avoided editing any articles which he has edited. The Afds, on the other hand, where everyone can "vote" does not disrupt Nuclear's editing. I had not mentioned Nuclear at all on this AfD, he began attacking me. I am not familar with AfDs, but long attacks on other users, I would think are not only irrelevant to the AfD, but against WP:NPA.

Thatcher131 is indeed familar with both of our history's, including NuclearUmpf own sordid history, which I won't go into here.

User:Chacor wrote: "probably both avoid that page, and each other, for a while" I agree, thanks for the great advice Charcor. If User:NuclearUmpf will avoid editing the page, so will I, despite his attacks still being on the page.

Anyway, I am now logging off now for several hours. I would appreciate an admin who has not been involved with either of us before, looking over the AfD. I would like these attack comments removed please. Travb (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but tell you that you are violating WP:AGF by calling a large group of editors to be votestackers, then to remove proof that you indeed do vote in the same manor, in an article you complained about the votestacking at, is far from a personal attack. Further pointing out the nominator's block 3 days before for vandalizing that page and disruption as well as WP:POINT violation, is certaintly relevant to the discussion. Your arguement that people who follow that noticeboard are votetacking is quite obsurd when faced with the fact that you have voted in a similar fashion. I would like to point out that he removed also a listing of who voted how on the article he was complaining about, showing his voting in step with the majority of editors on that noticeboard, however also showing that they did not all vote alike. The truth hurts I guess. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to catch the message above, I'll reiterate: you're both in the wrong here, and you both need to start avoiding each other for a while before you both get yourselves blocked. --InShaneee 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, they posted on an MfD for a noticeboard I participate on. I cannot avoid this user if they are seeking me out. To threaten both of us makes little sense in this case. Should I not participate in MfD's for things I am a part of, that this user is aware I am a part of? Please do not make blanket comments, perhaps there needs to be a resolution here instead of admins saying simply play nice, its apparently that won't happen with them shadowing me. --NuclearZer0 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider this your last warning; language like that you just used is not acceptable. You two are antagonizing each other, and it needs to stop. --InShaneee 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking briefly at this current dispute, we have Travb refactoring comments on the MfD (not just Nuclear's) and deleting Nuclear's explanation of his !vote and replacing it with a simple signature. We also have NuclearUmpf personalizing his response to Travb rather than just focusing on the matter at hand. I would advise Travb not to refactor comments on XfDs (admins are generally not dummies about double votes) and especially not to refactor or edit comments made by someone with whom he is in frequent dispute. Nuclear should stick to the matter at hand and not discuss motivations or behaviors of other editors. (Fair to point out the nominator's history regarding the page; unhelpful to accuse Travb of violating AGF.)

Since you guys seem to generate the most friction over XfDs, I think the next step would be Wikipedia:Community probation banning both of you from all XfD discussions for some period of time (2 weeks, a month?). Nuclear's arbitration probation allows him to be banned from pages he disrupts, but I don't think it would be equitable to ban only Nuclear from XfD since this seems to be a mutual thing. (There's probably enough crap just in the AN/I archives to file a new RFAR, which neither of you wants; Nuclear for obvious reasons, but I doubt Travb would be treated like an innocent victim.) Thatcher131 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again Thatcher131, I appreciate you actually looking into the disputes to see what the issue is. I apologize for my accusation of AGF to Travb. But the truth is this constant bumping heads with him is starting to annoy me, and worse that fact that admins simply do not want to deal with it. I am tired of being poked and prodded and would prefer not to edit Wikipedia anonymously, but it seems this issue will keep coming up as long as Travb has a name to attach me to. I will start logging my interactions with him now on as I do not see an a RFAr too far off in the future and I feel I am being constantly baited and threatened by this user. --NuclearZer0 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats an xfD? I would be happy to abide by anything Thatcher wants, voluntarily.

User:NuclearUmpf makes a lot of accusations, which I will not waste anyone's time with responding here.

My only comment is that I find it ironic of User:NuclearUmpf reaccuring talking point, he always yells, "I am a victim" when a quick, casual look at his talk page and edit behavior shows that their are dozens of editors which he has or is currently butting heads with, not just me.

Again, I will volutnarily abide by anything that Thatcher says, with or without Nuclears cooperation.

But before I can, it would help if someone could explain what an Xfd is, because the XFD wikiarticle seems wildly off topic.

{5 minutes later} Found my answer: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes "Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes." I won't edit any XfDs until November 30, 2006, one month from today, as Thatcher131 suggests.

I would appreciate an editor deleting Nuclear's irrelevant attacks on me and the nominator on the AfD. I ask Nuclear too do this as a courteousy, but he removed my message again from his talk page.[28] Travb (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We were asked not to post on eachothers talk pages, please abide by that. --NuclearZer0 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

X is a common denominator for a variable, in this case X means any of the deletion type pages, MfD, AfD, CfD etc. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to complain about the actions and behavior of NuclearZer0 and also GabrielF in this MfD. I have brought forth what I consider VERY serious charges, that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda. I complied a list of editors, and how they voted in a particular AfD. 2 editors listed, including Nuclear, inserted comments which many might consider not only trolling, but as vandalism, as the comments destroyed the formatting of the list.

Please see Example One (note that NU made two edits to his unhelpful comments) Example Two. Their actions and tone indicate that they're not taking this seriousely. What is the next step in the escalation process? I would like to have several POLITICALLY NEUTRAL Admins look into these serious charges. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF please, the following are innappropriate:

• "that a group of editors have been working together (in secret until they were discovered only days ago) to edit with a particular POV / agenda."

Also MfD is not the place to wage your charges. I will not this in the MfD. I objected to being classified into a list and labeled, this user ignored that even though its against the spirit of Wikipedia and so I added a joke, I would like to be removed from the list as I am not a member of any board, not even at the company at which I work, and labeling people is disruptive and hurtful to everything Wikipedia stands for. --NuclearZer0 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiona Mont article

Could a kindly admin put this article on their watchlist. I have been an editor on the article but came across it by hitting the random button. It appears the last few days have seen numerous attempts by interested parties (indeed Fiona Mount appears to be editing the article herself) to edit the article to provide a more "favourable" view of events. I am particularly concerned with edits such as this, which wouls appear to me to be libelious.

--Charlesknight 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be Graham Hesketh (Mont's husband) is involved as well. See User:213.160.120.156. --Guinnog 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wedge (TV show) / User:Shaggy9872004

Persists in removing the 'criticism' section of The Wedge (TV show), requiring users to revert the article on at least a daily basis. Has never given a valid reason for doing so, and is aware that nobody agrees with their actions. Also fraudulently posed as a Wikipedia authority early on, threatening "Please do not move/edit. By order of Wikipedia. YOU WILL BE CAUGHT".

58.166.6.17 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on their Talk page, and will keep an eye out. Remember, you can always try to discuss with the editor or on the article Talk page before taking something here. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Hi folks. I know this isn't normally the proper place to report vandalism, but WP:AIV is only for recent vandalism that needs immediate stopping, and I can't find any other place to report this. Apologies in advance, and I'd appreciate direction to the proper place for future reference. Anyway, my issue is with UB16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account whose sole purpose is to blatantly vandalise the Doug Flutie article. I warned him with {{bv-n}} on 21 October but he started up again (at a much slower rate) a couple of days later. Every single one of his edits is to Doug Flutie and every single one is vandalism. I seem to recall a precedent for blocking vandalism-only accounts, so I believe that's what needs to be done here. Powers ^T 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Discuss it with the editor or on the article Talk page. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If this and this represent a content dispute, I'm Ann Widdecombe. Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the future, accounts that have vandalised over a period of time can generally be reported at AIV - basically, anything that merits an obvious block after cursory investigation can be reported there. There's no 'statute of limitations' on accounts in the same way that there is on IPs - we ask for recent warnings/vandalism on IPs as otherwise we might block unrelated people, but with accounts we know for certain it's the same guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have posted some diffs as evidence, but it would basically have been a copy-and-paste of his contributions log. Powers ^T 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They're back

They're back. [29] 24.155.148.144 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Devon Werkheiser

• Just a heads up, if some people want to watchlist Devon Werkheiser, it's been the target of a really strange vandalism campaign the last few days where the vandals add information on his "death" (the guy is most certainly not dead) from a variety of causes. The anti-vandal bots and a few other users have been getting them so far, but I just thought I'd add it here. Thanks! -- Chabuk 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:66.91.213.98 and Samurai stubs

An IP user User:66.91.213.98 has put {{db-copyvio}} tags on a huge mess of samurai-related stubs, mostly with titles starting with A. From what I can tell, none of those articles are actually copied from the source ( [30]), but the text is, in many cases, derivative. I unfortunately can't finish the job of de-speedying all of those right now. Could someone pick this up? Also, some kind of process should probably be opened to discuss those articles: while each one is distinct from the source (and has been from the start), the number of these articles all with derived text from the same source is worrying. (All the articles in question were created by the same user, too, Darin Fidika (talk · contribs).) Mangojuice^talk 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

These articles need to be looked at for copyright violation - the source material is clearly cited within the copyvio tag. In all cases, the content of the text is identical with minor rewording. This has been discussed at great length at Lord Ameth's Talk page. The end result was a call to "take whatever actions we deem necessary", so I have gone through and looked at the original source material on the Samurai archives, and have included the direct links in the copyvio tag. The tags I put in should not be removed without first taking a look at the source - the only source - used for these areticles. The definition of copyright violation needs to be discussed, then, however taking a paragraph and changing a few words around but keeping the meaning and idea the same probably should constitute copyright infringement. If someone had noticed this issue 10 months ago, it would not have become such a large job. I was trying to help out all of us contributors by taking care of this. There are well over 100 articles copied from the source website with minor rewording. As has been brought up on the lordameth page, a simply reworded copy of an article probably constitutes copyright violation. Furthermore, that aside, it shows poor scholarship, as these articles can not be verified. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

I'm in the process of removing all these speedy tags. May I suggest to User:66.91.213.98 (and I will do so on his/her talk page) that he/she do a global AFD nomination for these. I understand the copyright concerns, but I'm not going to unilaterally speedy-delete several dozen articles when the copyright violation is not perfectly clear. NawlinWiki 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Along with what Nawlin says and what is at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems, these aren't blatant copyright violations copied from a website with a clear copyright notice. Therefore, these are not a canidates for speedy deletion. WP:PRODing or taking these to WP:AfD would be the best solution. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A mass AfD has been started up now on the issue, in case anyone was curious. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Katsuyoshi. Mangojuice^talk 06:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted links to possible attack pages

I reverted a couple of links to what may have been attack pages against John Pugh, a Member of Parliament for Southport in the UK. (diff 1, diff 2) It's a contentious situation (from a user whom I know from other contexts), so I wanted to have an admin "check over my shoulder" to make sure I didn't jump too fast. Justin Eiler 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're well within the recommendations of WP:LIVING. Jkelly 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested block for User:Wissahickon Creek for disruption

Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) has not heeded warnings to cease disrupting Wikipedia, most recently with disruptive pagemoves despite having been asked not to move pages without proper discussion. He has also recently been warned about the scope of his contributions and has ignored advice here and on his talk page[31]. His behavior is consistently disruptive and he has shown a great capability to make discussions less productive, cf WT:RFA, Talk:Alexander the Great, Template talk:Countries of Europe. --Keitei (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of things, he hasn't done much, or am I missing something? He only moved that page in question once, and has not done so since these warnings. Cowman109^Talk 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read this discussion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, If you dig a little you'll see that none of his pagemoves have had consensus. His attitude and personal attacks on people make it particularly difficult for anyone to work with this editor. Someone should be keeping an eye on his behaviour for sure, but it hasn't gotten to the point of needing a block yet. pschemp | talk 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keitei don't you think you react to harsh? You don't assume good faith I suppose. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Imposters Mycroft.Holmz, Hemto

Mycroft.Holmz (talk · contribs), already blocked due to username, is in a content dispute with established account Mycroft.Holmes (talk · contribs). [32] [33] "Holmz" has another imposter sock Hemto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), obviously of me, Femto 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Need some assistance with a user who insists on pumping an article about a car

There is a user (User:Voritecorp) who has repeatedly moved the article HSV Holden to the top of the Wikipedia:Peer review list despite warnings on his Talk Page and in edit summaries. This behavior has occurred at least 5 times and has been reverted each time. I have not been involved in this edit warring but have noticed it happening via my watchlist. As far as I can tell it's not a violation of WP:3RR but it surely violates Wikipedia rules involving commercial promotion. Based on a Google search, Vorite Corporation appears to be related to the sale of cars.

I would like an admin to drop a note on his Talk Page explaining the issue and warning him that he can be blocked for continuing such behavior (if I am correct that this is blockable behavior).

--Richard 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The username is disallowed as it is the name of a company that he has been active in promoting on wikipedia. As such that is advertising. Userblocked per username policy. pschemp | talk 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker insists on citing a mirror to make a point

I've tried very hard to communicate with him, however he refuses to reply to any message. On the Aiden article, he insists on citing Artistopia.com (a listed mirror) to verify a piece of negative criticism. I'm not against the criticism if it can be verified, but there are no sources to cite to support the criticism. User:Deathrocker has been very difficult in the matter and refuses to discuss. He would rather revert-without-comment any edit that gets in the way of his agenda. Please help. --EndlessVince 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Deathrocker has violated his revert parole imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker by reverting the disputed source 5 times in the last 6 days (he is limited to one revert per day and two per week). I could block him. But I am not inclined to do that because no one has discussed this issue on the article talk page. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this kind of content dispute. You're both going about it the wrong way, so I'm not going to drop the block hammer on him just yet. Bring it up on the article talk page, explain why it is a non-reliable source, and if he continues to revert, report it here or at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why posting on the articles talk would make a difference, sure it could get wider input, but the user has tried to bring this up directly and (without checking) he apparently has chosen to ignore it. As far as I am aware there is no rule which says "thou shalt use the article talk page rather than approaching an editor directly to resolve an issue", and if there were such a rule, I'd certainly ignore it as being ridiculous. --pgk 07:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring without discussion is bad whether the reverts are rapid or slow. Over the period of time where this citation has been inserted and removed there was no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. Still, you have the same block button I do, and if you see it differently then drop a block on Deathrocker per his arbitration. Thatcher131 12:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point (or I miss the point). I read the above comment as being I'm not going to act because you didn't follow some "correct form" of posting on the articles discussion page. Indeed on Deathrockers talk your comment comes across (to me) as suggesting that EndlessVince is in part to blame for Deathrockers actions, by putting him in a situation where he could easily archive the comments without responding. If EndlessVince has made a good faith effort to resolve the situation that should be recognised, and there should be no excuse for Deathrocker ignoring that (regardless of Arbcom sanctions or not). Elsewhere anyone saying you didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's would be pointed towards wikilawyering or not a bureacracy. In this case by the word of the arbcom ruling Deathrocker is in the wrong without any discussion on any page being required. Now I haven't looked into the situation and I'm quite prepared to accept that this situation may be resolvable without resorting to a block, but that is different from saying I'm not going to do it because you didn't follow the correct form. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but that's how it came across to me. --pgk 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

EndlessVince requested a source, so I provided one. Which he blanked because he "likes the band". I have made a compromise edit however,[34] putting a "cite" tag inplace of the mentioned source is it is somehow consider "disputable". - Deathrocker 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source if you wish to be afforded encyclopedic consideration. El_C 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If he insists on a citation, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the edit, and it can be removed until you do. Plus you still violated your revert parole. Please be more careful. Thatcher131 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not really important but I've stated 3 times that I've never even listened to the band. --EndlessVince 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari Improper closing of an AfD with deletion without consensus

I strongly believe that this admin based his decision on his PERSONAL opinion of the article rather than the consensus of the editors involved in the AfD for Andy_Stephenson because that was what his ending comments say he did. I believe this was an abuse of administrator's powers because; 1. There was no consensus, not even close. 2. The rules do not allow for personal opinions in that role. 3. The article absolutely met WP:NOT and WP:BIO. Finally, this AfD was launched for political reasons because the subject of this article is an embarrassment for certain groups of American Ultra-conservatives. Please investigate this matter, especially as regard to whether the rules were followed by the closing admin. BenBurch 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what the deletion review endorsing the deletion was supposed to deal with. In other words, there are many editors who don't agree with you. (As I believe I was one of them, I won't comment on the issue itself.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to his closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson, Naconkantari closed the AfD based on the guideline WP:BIO, not based on his personal opinion. "The rules", as you call them, actually allow for administrators to use discretion in closing AfDs, and indeed to close against the numbers if the policy based arguments are stronger on that side. AfD is not a majority vote. As for whether the closing admin followed the rules, the rules are that closing admins should call 'em as they see 'em. If you disagree with a closing, that's what WP:DRV is for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought admins weren't better than regular users? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, admins aren't "better". They are, however, trusted to do things like closing controversial AfDs with an understanding of the complementary roles of policy and consensus at Wikipedia. Naconkantari seems to me to be doing good work in that department. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't have any more rights, if that's what you mean? They have extra responsibilities, one of which is to exercise judgement and discretion when closing AFDs. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an extra responsibility. An admin could easily have a no consensus result go in that admin's favor - technically, their input can be enough to cancel out enough keep or delete votes to make it a consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That AFD was a pretty clear delete. The majority of the keep votes were done by blatant sockpuppets anyway. This really isn't the place to discuss this, though. Take this to RFC, not here. ANI is filled with enough improper stuff as it is. Cowman109^Talk 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted all votes not from sockpuppets or those spammed - 24 delete, 21 keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of votes isn't really supossed to matter, the points made are, right? If the people voting Delete were making more logical sense than the Keeps, then the result was Delete (or vice versa).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Deletion Review is over here. This has no place on WP:AN/I. Thank you, that is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This just came off of DRV. Aiee. —Cryptic 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been deleted, been through deletion review and through a speedy delete of recreated material. Three different admins closed these three items. Move on. It's gone as it should be. --Tbeatty 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, take it to RFC if you want to complain about the administrators. Please, don't reply to this thread any further as this is not the place. Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in with one comment. User:Naconkantari did not explain his rationale and how he arrvived at concluding that consensus had been met. His summation was 'failed WP:BIO' This was not an appropriate statement of finding in light of the fact that dozens of editors hotly contested this AfD, and spent HOURS debating - pro and con. IMHO his inaction of not explaining his reasoning was lacking in content to the point of negligence, and totally unacceptable for an Admin. Here is a fantastic job by a admin. example one -- here was his nacon's UNacceptable. I would also like to know if he picked this AfD to mediate, or it was assigned to him. I see that he himself has edited on the Conspiracy Noticeboard which could call into question his impartiality. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• FAAFA, I don't believe you're familiar with the way things work on Wikipedia. I would suggest you hang around for a few months and learn the ropes before accusing people of impropriety. What Naconkantari did was appropriate. Take care. --Improv 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Looking at the page in question, arguing consensus seems hard. If the AfD was closed for any other reasons, that needs a clear and conspicious explanation. I see nothing in WP:BIO that forces the deletion of this article (and indeed, it is only a guideline). The place to assess notability is the AfD. It may very well be that User:Naconkantari had good reasons for his decision and acted in good faith. But then it is his duty to commincate these reasons. Wikipedia is run by the community of editors, not by admins. See the Simon Pulsifer case.--Stephan Schulz 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a common problem when 'consensus judging' becomes 'process judging'. Naconkantari closed it as a delete not due to consensus, but for 'failure to meet WP:BIO'... but many respondents to the AFD argued that it did meet WP:BIO - and many argued that it did not. At which point Naconkantari decided whether or not HE thought it met the WP:BIO standards and that's the way the AFD went. Essentially, his opinion alone. I tend to think in situations where there is a disagreement about how policy applies to something that's where we need to look to consensus... rather than saying 'this view of policy is correct and therefor consensus is irrelevant'. The latter seems to get used for alot of controversial closes. It makes me nervous when we start doing things that don't have consensus because 'this is the right decision'. That essentially makes consensus subservient to the personal opinions of admins. We trust admins to interpret consensus, but does that extend to saying that 'we trust admins to interpret policy regardless of consensus'? Obviously, I've got a 'dog in this hunt' as I created the page. At the time, an ArbCom member said we needed to have it. Now it is described (by some) in rather less positive terms. :] Opinions shift over time and vary by individual... which is why I thought we had consensus as the standard for decision making. --CBD 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't consensus the main body behind the AFD?? --SunStar Net 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not voting - it's discussion based on arguments, and it is judged by the closing admin. Judging it as if it were a vote is a far greater wrong than using individual judgement -- the latter is what is supposed to happen. --Improv 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a process, it's a state, and, in my understanding, a state where a large majority agrees on something, and few if any substantial counterarguments are still upheld. If you see this state in this case, you have very different eyesight from me. --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, if an article fails Wikipedia notability standards, it will be deleted, even if every single member of Wikipedia advises "Keep" on the AfD. AfD is not a vote, and consensus does not over-ride policy standards. Justin Eiler 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That determination is part of the AfD, not a task for the closing admin. In fact, I would say that determining notability is the main purpose of AfD. Copyvios or violation of WP:BLP are something that usually can reasonably be decided by an admin. It's much less a matter of opinion. Notability cannot so easily be decided by one person alone, and luckily it does not have to be decided by one person alone. There is no urgency in that case. To quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: " the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus" (emphasis by me). What do you think is the purpose of having AfD as a consensus process?--Stephan Schulz 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent} Stephen, you said "That determination is part of the AfD, not a task for the closing admin." This is partially incorrect: while notability can be argued in AfD, admins are not only required, but empowered, to make decisions regarding notability, verifiability, and reliability of sources. They can be overturned by deletion review (or by ArbCom if it comes to that)--but this case was reviewed by DRV, and the decision to close and delete was upheld--not by Naconkantari, but by a different admin. Then when the article was re-created, it was speedied by yet another admin.

Stephan, Andy's death was a tragedy--I completely and totally agree with that. Andy is remembered by his friends and co-workers, and I respect not only that memory but the grief of those who lost a friend and loved one. But these are emotional considerations--Wikipedia cannot be swayed by emotional considerations, no matter how convincing such arguments seem to be when those emotions are running high. Naconkantari was required to decide whether or not Andy Stephenson met the requirements of WP:BIO--and in his best judgement, he did not. DRV concurred. While Andy's friends and family will grieve, Within the context of Wikipedia the issue is over and done. Justin Eiler 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. To make my position clear: I do not argue that the article should be recreated. In fact, I have not heard about Andy Stephenson outside this discussion - if he is notable, the notability has not reached my side of the pond. As you can probably deduce from that, I don't forward the argument that he was (or is) notable myself. What I do complain about is an admin disregarding (my interpretation of) reasonable policy. It's not the result I'm concerned about, it's the process (or lack of the same). If we follow your argument, we don't need AfD at all. Just delete, and shoot it to WP:DRV. But of course, as "no consensus" means "maintain the status quo", a controversial delete will not be undone at DRV. Our policy up to now has been "if in doubt, let's keep it" and I think that's reasonable. Having a non-notable article is not a serious problem. In fact, add a million of them, and Wikipedia will still be nearly as useful and as valuable resource as it is now. Deleting a notable article lowers the value of Wikipedia (deleting a millon will do so in a very noticable way). --Stephan Schulz 19:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying your position.

As far as "disregarding reasonable policy," that is an unfortunate effect of the guideline that AfD is not a "vote." Admins must exercise judgement on these issues ... and unfortunately, such judgement is subjective, because like regular editors, admins are only human. Naconkantari is of course no better than you or I, but he is more experienced in Wikipedia policies than I am. In his judgement, the article's lack of notability over-rode the results of the specific AfD discussion.

Stephan, any subjective judgement made is not going to please all people involved or interested in that particular decision. The only other solution, however, is to make the AfD process entirely objective--but that would reduce the AfD process to a simple vote, complete with the ballot-box stuffing and sock-puppet brigades that have been seen in some of the more contentious AfD debates. If your issue with this particular deletion is the process by which it was undertaken, I can only tell you that I feel it is the better of the two alternatives.

I quite agree that the AfD process is an absolute mess. The only reason this particular process is used is it's less of a mess than the other alternatives. Justin Eiler 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Justin -- judgement calls have to be made, and a simple vote is far worse than admins, who understand and respect project goals, reading the AfD comments and judge based on that. If anything, we've seen far too little of what Naconkantari has done. Our policies mean nothing if we ignore them whenever enough people show up, without even giving much reason, and "vote" against them in the specific case. Good judgement and discussion is what we need, not simple voting. --Improv 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that judgement calls have to me made does not imply that they are beyond criticism. It's the only way we can hope to improve the judgement of people who have bad judgement. And at least in this case, I'd say the closing admin displayed very bad judgement. Contrary to your claim, I don't see this as appropriate, and as far as I can tell, this is not " the way things work on Wikipedia".--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's beyond criticism - it's a matter for Deletion review. --Improv 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Using the Administrators' Noticeboard as a means to do an end-run on a completed AfD and DR as well as an ongoing DR strikes me as inappropriate. This is a matter for dispute resolution, in my mind. Process has been followed here, and the incidents noticeboard is not for making appeals on policy or process.--Rosicrucian 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good suggestion, yes.--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There did not appear to be a consensus in either direction at the close of the deletion debate. What would be most helpful is if the closing administrator would explain why this fails WP:BIO so that future editors can address those concerns. I am willing to lend a hand if this article is given a chance at a fresh start. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 1 November 2006

Request for Clarification

WP:TGS/WP:GUS/WP:UBM was suppose to be a solution for all the userbox wars and deletions. Let users do as they want in their userspace (WP:JOU). So, here's the question. Admin User:Centrx has deleted User:Royalguard11/userboxes/NDP, along with a ton of other boxes that used to appear on User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Political Parties. I thought that T1 didn't extend to userspace. Did policy get modified in the last few days? I'm getting half messages from admins. Some of these userfied userboxes have been here for months. All the sudden, the decision is to get rid of them all? I would like something more than "wikipedia is an encyclopedia", because I know that. I would just like to know if after months of userfying boxes that they aren't all going to get deleted anyways. Userfying was the solution, right? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is regretful Centrx did not link to the pertinent discussion in his deletion edit summary. El_C 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Which pertinent discussion would that be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the same thing. CharonX/talk 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why this has been basically ignored by admins (save a few) in general. When did we become leapers? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess most of them don't care. Oh, Userbox Wars 2 will be an interesting wake-up call if this situation starts to detoriate. CharonX/talk 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Australian Aborigine" to "Indigenous Australians"

Could someone look into the page moves of Zarbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He moved several pages that used "Australian Aborigine" (or some variation) to "Indigenous Australian" and has no other contributions other than that. This was brought to my attention by an anon who has been copy-paste moving the pages back. I have requested that he stop so we can figure all of this out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(I have reverted some, but now I actually question some of my own actions that I cannot now revert.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

The moves should be explained. The terms seem to be rather interchangeble ^{(e.g. aihw.gov.au/indigenous workplace.gov.au/IndigenousAustralians)} El_C 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're not. There are two groups of indigenous Australians - Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The term "indigenous Australian" is a more all-encompassing term - as Zarbat notes in his edit summaries. I suspect that this is the reason for the moves, which seem quite reasonable ones when viewed from that viewpoint. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are three groups, to be pedantic. The third are the Tasmanians, but IIRC all of them are dead. --llywrch 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. El_C 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a reply on the IP's user page. If I've done something terribly wrong feel free to revert my moves. In any case I'll try to reach an agreement with our friend - the IP. If things don't work out I'll try to put it to vote. In any case I don't intend to drag this out into a full-blown debate. Enough drama already. Zarbat 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Being Fed Up With Str1977's Removal of Sourced Material on Muhammad

An instance: [35]

I don't get User:Str1977's logic. He is removing sourced material because he thinks that he understand Islam better the Cambridge History of Islam. His arguments are as follows:

• He says: "The Quran (and note, it is the' Quran) as a book did not exist at that time. If Muhammad used an argument, attribute it to him.", "If we say The Quran we immediately associate the book of that name or the Islamic revelation in its entirety. If individual revelations are referred to, then use a different wording, to avoid confusion to the reader."

My answer as posted on the talk page of Muhammad: 1. The source puts it exactly in this way 2. For the record, his understanding of the Qur'an is inaccurate. The Qur'an refers to itself as Qur'an. In fact, the word has no precedant in Arabic language before Islam.

• He says: "If you read carefully I did not say that "Abraham was not a Jew" was wrong but problematic as it is misleading. What the Quran says is completely irrelevant in this matter. Abraham is not a Jew, since that means either a descendant of his great-grandson Judah, or an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judah, or descendant of his grandson Israel, or a adherent to the religion of Judaism. But nonetheless, Abaraham is the patriarch of all Jews. He was not an Arab and he was not a Muslim in the sense that he adhered to the religion historically founded by Muhammad. We should not use this as cheap trick insinuations. That was all my remark was about."

My answer: I am saying what the source says. He doesn't agree with the source. That doesn't mean he has the right to censor the source. All I am saying is that he should back up his thought based on academic sources. But of no avail. I am fed up.

• He says: "And judging from what the WP article and what I could google says about Abdallah ibn Ubbay, this passage involving him here is highly inaccurate. It is also clearly speculation what would have happend "if" Muhammad had not come to Jathrib."

My answer: He is more than welcome to contact the Cambridge university and explain their errors to them.

All in all, I believe every neutral observer can see that he is using these pretexts to censor information.

Can somebody please help me here. Should I engage in revert war? --Aminz 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. this is not the only time I have had this problem with Str1977. --Aminz 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use the dispute resolution process. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please let me know if insistence in obvious removal of sourced material, which I believe is disruption, should be directed to dispute resolution process? Thanks very much. --Aminz 10:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is a content dispute. Hence, dispute resolution is by definition the best option. I would strongly suggest the MEDCAB to start with. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problems :) Any other questions etc, feel free to post on my user talk page (click the "T" in my signature). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute and ANI is not the right place to go. I have replied to Aminz on the article talk page. And yes, I am fed up too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat?

User:Xchanter, just back from a 24-hour block that came from some rather strident arguments regarding his dislike of images in sexual-organ-related articles, has put a statement up on his user page suggesting that he feels Wikipedia is not complying with obscenity statutes, that he has contacted the Foundation, and is awaiting "their reply before contacting the apporpriate legal authorities (specifically the Attorney General of the State of Florida, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Law Enforcement Against Child Harm (LEACH) Task Force)." He states that's not a legal threat, but... well, looks like one to me. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--MONGO 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Three-minute response time. I'm duly impressed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Long term sockpuppet – User:Centauri

I’ve known since soon after Centauri (talk · contribs) arrived that he was a sockpuppet of Gene Poole (talk · contribs). All the evidence it really takes to confirm that conclusion is a review of their contribution histories. Even just reading their edit summaries is enough. They’re nearly exactly the same, on the same topics, and from what I’ve seen always take the same positions in debates. But just for the sake of arguments, consider the following:

• User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_6 (first two sections)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive14#Sockpuppet_Double_Voting.3F
• this diff
• But this diff of course takes the cake. George later tried to claim that they knew each other and he left his computer logged in and Centauri made the edit. If that was true, why would he need to cover it up? Also coming up with that story after the fact isn't exactly trust inspiring.

After editing Sealand and working on the talk page to try to moderate the situation between Gene Poole and others throughout much of 2004 I came to know his editing style pretty well. Then a month after Gene Poole quit apparently due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy, Centauri showed up with exactly the same views and editing style. Quite a number of people have noticed they were sockpuppets over time including Netoholic, Calton and myself as just a few examples.

Though I’ve known they were alternate accounts, I didn’t really reallize that they were used so extensively to stack votes in AfD. It came to my attention when he did it recently in an RfA. It seems he’s been abusing them for quite some time to double vote and me too in various debates. I’m completely confident that they are sockpuppets and therefore more than comfortable making a block, but I still wanted to post here for discussion. Since it’s the same person, blocking one of the accounts won’t have any harm, he can still contribute from the other. While George can be difficult to reason with I think he makes enough useful contributions that blocking both accounts or wasting time with RfC or arbcom would not be fruitful. Thanks, I plan to make the block soon. - Taxman ^Talk 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An obvious case. I confidently expect the usual venom, hints, and threats from this user on my talkpage for saying so.[36] Bishonen | talk 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Which one did he pick to keep? Lar: t/c 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't pick, claims it's not his sock, but since Centauri came second that's the one that should be blocked, if not both for disruption. - Taxman ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The posts linked to above on User talk:Irate alone constitute sufficient evidence, IMO. Please block. — Matt Crypto 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to place the block? He's claiming it's my vendetta which is funny because I've had little to no interaction with him for quite some time outside of the sockpuppet issue. It would just be cleaner if someone else did the honors. - Taxman ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to block in a day or so, presuming there's no compelling argument against it given here. — Matt Crypto 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. One issue I want to raise though, is how uninvolved one has to be. I'm not seeing Taxman involved in this except as an admin... I don't see why it's not OK for Taxman to place the block. I think we have to be careful not to get too leery of placing blocks, or this can be used by the Wikilawyerish to work through lists of admins, using each one up, till there are none left... (I felt Tobias was doing that to some of us at one point) That's gaming the system Lar: t/c 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it would be wrong for Taxman to do the block, but he is right that there is benefit to it being done by someone previously uninvolved. It reduces the possibility of Centauri/Gene Poole making (even vaguely) credible-sounding accusations that it was a vendetta. — Matt Crypto 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not so involved that there's a problem here and we shouldn't be afraid to enforce policies if our only involvement is in acting as admins. In this case I am only involved in my capacity as an admin and a bureaucrat to stop disruption, though in the past I have edited the same articles as mentioned. As I said I am comfortable making the block, but I'm also interested in causing the least fuss. There's no harm here in having Matt do it, he's not remotely involved as far as I know, and neither are you. Waiting a day is fine too as there's no huge rush here now that he know the likely outcome he's probably not going to vote in anything, and if he does, it can be reverted until the block is made or decided against. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that Taxman could make the block; especially after consensus is found here. Also agree with him that someone else doing it might cause less disruption and bring the situation to a close sooner. IMO, this whole situation is going to need close ongoing watching. FloNight 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to get along with these two (one?) well, and though I have my suspicions as well, I can't help but think that a RFCU would be easier.

I've been pretty darn sure people were socks before and been wrong. Either they are or aren't socks; CU is easy and there's no time-pressure or current hostile activity to have to deter or prevent. If CU says they're singular-him, then take appropriate action. Georgewilliamherbert 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, either they are or aren't socks, but CheckUser shows whether they have edited using the same IP address in the last month or so. We actually already have stronger evidence already: last year, Gene Poole and Centauri edited under the same username. — Matt Crypto 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In the last year, I've sat down and borrowed my wife's computer at times, and once did a WP edit while doing so and forgot to check who I was, and ended up with her account. I've also watched other friends do the equivalent at their houses. There is general agreement that this does happen innocently from time to time. I don't think the suspicions here are grossly unreasonable or anything, but AGF should still be considered. If CU shows they're always using the same IP then, as much as I get along with them (him?), they have been using socks to vote multiply on various things and get around 3RR at times. If CU shows they're distinct, they credibly could just be real life friends or aquaintences, who tend to think alike on some issues. I wouldn't defend multiple voting or getting around 3RR, but I'd like CU to resolve the issue not people's gut feelings. Georgewilliamherbert 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you always agree with your wife? I don't think that's possible, but Gene Poole and Centauri do. Also they don't claim to live together which would make it reasonably likely to happen sometime, just to have been acquaintences a few times, and that story only came out after he was confronted with the diffs. Also, why would he need to cover it up if it was just an acquaintence? - Taxman ^Talk 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I would be more comfortable with a block, after a confirmation via CheckUser. Is there any compelling reason that we shouldn't do one? --Elonka 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's any reason not to do it. — Matt Crypto 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He's known for so long that he's widely considered a sock that a checkuser wouldn't do a bit of good. Check user can't prove a negative, but the pattern of edits is so telling here. Jonathunder 23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that a CU may confuse the issue and is unnecessay per editing patterns. --FloNight 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether we would still block if CheckUser comes back as "unrelated"; if we wouldn't, then yes, it would be unfair not to run the test. However, my understanding is that CheckUser provides some reasonably strong positive evidence of sockpuppeting, but only weak negative evidence. For example, to defeat CheckUser, all you need is to edit using a different ISP for each account. Personally, I think the above evidence is sufficient, so I view CheckUser as unnecessary, although not harmful. — Matt Crypto 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been done in the past and come back inconclusive, predictably. As Jonathunder notes, he's known since days after Centauri arrived in 2004 that people suspected sockpuppetry, so he would have known to be careful. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust, it can only confirm, not clear suspicions. And as the checkuser policy states, it's not to be used for obvious cases. - Taxman ^Talk 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Where has it been done in the past? There's no CU case archived for them...

Conclusively avoiding a positive CU requires getting another ISP and always reliably using one ISP for each account. While that's certainly possible, doing it reliably enough for extended periods of time is unlikely. It seems hardly credible that someone who spends most of their time doing what everyone seems to believe are basically ok WP editing would go to the effort to both purchase and totally reliably use another ISP to cover up these actions.

My impression has been that Centauri and Gene have overlapping, but not exclusively overlapping, areas of interest. Though micronations stuff is clearly overlapping, there are other areas that they tend to not meet in. This is not proof positive they aren't socks, but is a negative indicator. Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go down that road, you're going to have to be willing to fully analyze the rest of the edit histories. From 2004 and earlier. Always supporting the same positions, timing of editing articles, often the same ones, style of commenting, arguing, etc. For someone determined to use two accounts to show multiple support for their positions, it's not implausible to avoid CU. Remember, he's known since the beginning he was suspected. So of course, he's going to try to differentiate the two accounts, but the things that are important to him he overlaps. - Taxman ^Talk 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the evidence compelling and support the proposed block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right too Taxman; the contributions seem very suggestive indeed. --Guinnog 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, support this block, the evidence, even without a CU, is compelling. Nothing has changed my mind. Lar: t/c 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A note

Just a note about Checkuser requests: after I came across GP/C's most recent instance of double-voting at an RFA, I went to the Checkuser to make a request, but their rigidly bureaucratic code system seemed to explicitly EXCLUDE making the request. I asked why on the talk page, and got back a bunch of bureaucratic bafflegab from Redux (talk · contribs), so I didn't bother.

I will also note that when I have explicitly asked GP/C to confirm or deny the sockpuppetry, GP/C avoids direct answers in favor of conspiracy-theory redirections [37] or evasions [38]. --Calton | Talk 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've denied it several times - most recently only 2 days ago - and I'm denying it once more for the dummies now. --Gene_poole 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Free clue: sputtering and personal insults are generally not persuasive rhetorical techniques. Also "I've denied it several times" does not contradict what I said, since conspiracy-theory redirections and evasions are not your ONLY reaction, just an extraordinarily common one. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even without having spent much time on this, it's apparent that there is some similarity in writing style. Just to pick one example: how common is the edit summary, "rewrite/ing for coherence"? To me, that seems a somewhat unusual and idiosyncratic turn of phrase, yet it crops up several times in both Gene Poole and Centauri's recent edit summaries. Given the evidence, I think the explanation that Gene Poole and Centauri are real world acquaintances who just happen to write in a very similar style to each other, and who just happen to share common interest in certain obscure topics, and just happen to have once edited under the other person's account by accident, is looking increasingly far-fetched. — Matt Crypto 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Add to that, just happens that no one can find an example where they haven't voted the same way or didn't support the same positions, Centauri just happened to show up editing the same articles in the same style just after Gene Poole said he had quit, and they just happen to have the same grudges. Even if a few token disagreements were found, no two people agree that often. I suppose everyone can look at the evidence and see this for themselves, but might as well make it even more obvious. - Taxman ^Talk 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can continue this for as long as you like Taxman, but the bottom line is you're just making it up as you go. There's no actual evidence of anything, and the fact you're avoiding checkuser like the plague speaks volumes. There are a much larger number of both articles and votes where neither Centauri and I have ever crossed paths than there are examples of where we have - and that too, speaks volumes. I don't intend making any further comment on this matter, but I will conclude by stating that I believe your actions here are totally lacking in credibility, and that you and your friends are behaving in a manner that is both cowardly and hypocritical in attacking two editors whose contributions to this project are valued, and above reproach. --Gene_poole 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I filed the RFCU: [39], though the way that the way the page is worded, it appears that this particular case is outside of the typical reasons for the request. So I guess it's up to the RFCU clerks now as to whether or not they wish to accept it. --Elonka 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the evidence to be quite convincing, as do a number of others who commented above. Accordingly, I've blocked User:Centauri indefinitely as a sockpuppet used for nefarious sockpuppet-y things. I don't recall having interacted with "either" Centauri or Gene Poole incarnation before this. As always, of course, this sort of block is subject to the community's review. — Matt Crypto 22:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks against multiple users - Seabhcan

After a long and somewhat arduous discussion over the inclusion of a source in an article, Seabhcan, stated on the talk page that

This is like talking to a Stalinist. I give up - I'm taking a wiki-break. Delete what you like while I'm gone, I'll revert when I get back. I suggest you start with topics such as the Great Depression and History of slavery in the United States. I'm amazed you've allowed such anti-Americanism to remain on wikipedia! Its clearly communist propaganda.

He then went on to post his notice of a Wikibreak on his User page with the following message

On wikibreak - sick of talking to dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I then removed the material and placed an WP:NPA tag on his talk. He then made a revert calling it vandalism, although it was not a true revert as I suspect he knew he was in error. As an admin Seabhcan should know better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While his wording isn't particularly helpful or making him look great, it's also not policy to remove personal attacks, especially from someone's userpage. It's not so egregious that it's worth spending more time on. Just let it go and improve some articles for penance. :) - Taxman ^Talk 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be problems on both sides here. However, the wording on Seabhcán's user page has now been toned down anyway. Badgerpatrol 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. The incivility I have had to deal with led me to leave a discussion on his talk page regarding his choice of words, especially his condescending tone in his edit summaries.--MONGO 13:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think incivility is Mongo's specialty. He has called me every name in the book, yet I don't report him. I can't be bothered really. Sticks and stones... Yet, Mongo seems to have far more time on his hands. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

More insults.--MONGO 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for a review of disruptive editing pattern

I've started a RFC (user conduct) against someone who has, in my opinion, engaged in Disruptive Editing in the forum of edit-waring and POV pushing. WP:DE suggests bringing such a case to this page. The link to the RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Devilmaycares. The user in question seems to have continued the questionable behavior and blown off the RFC on the talk page. Help is appreciated. ---J.S (t|c) 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some outside attention on this... ---J.S (t|c) 07:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

User User:NuclearUmpf is insisting on posting his comments at the top of the page, which is supposed to be in chronological order, except for replys, and further commentary on existing posts - presumably in an effort to draw more attention to his allegations. [40] -- Please see the existing complaints concerning his conduct on this page here [41] He is currently on probation for serious violations of numerous policies, which doesn't seem to have helped his behavior.-- Furthermore, two 'members' of the board which is being voted on for delation under MfD, are now mirroring the page which is up for MfD in their user spaces, which could be considered an attempt to evade the MfD. I ask that a top level Admin take a look at this page pronto. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All has been using the Administrators' Noticeboard as a threat to try to WP:OWN this MfD. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] I would urge admins to take this into consideration, and not allow him to harass users in this fashion.--Rosicrucian 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Absurd -I told him he was free to post his allegations at the bottom, where they belong. See the edit summaries. I even reposted them there myself as a favor to him. Pages go in chronological order except for replies and additional comments to existing commentary. Considering that this user is on probation for SERIOUS violations, I sm suggesting that a block of at least one week would be in order.

Admins should look at his actions here Here Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pot=Kettle? Why is this here? Thatcher131 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Who could possibly have predicted that a user called "Fairness And Accuracy For All" would turn out to be a pain in the arse difficult character? Guy 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's his motto. --Tbeatty 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Demarcation, is it? Guy 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: ban NuclearUmpf and Fairness and Accuracy from further editing the MfD. Since they can't play nice together, out of the pool. (they're the two most actively pursuing this case and I imagine they've already said everything useful they have to say.) Thatcher131 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Tbeatty 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, make it so.--MONGO 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He was asked to refrain from posting in the section above!

I learned my lesson, plus I'm not on probabation like nuclear is (old name 0faults is Ofaults arbitration ruling

Will an admin please move his comments to the bottom where they belong, and kindly look at his past behavior before condemning mine?

Thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Just like to point out, that the user is now accusing me of removing his comments on this article, which the edit history will show quite plainly that I did not do. Accusations are flying so wildly now that I can't even really keep up. [47] --Rosicrucian 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've banned Fairness and Nuclear from making any further edits to the MfD page, although (perhaps unwisely) I'm allowing them to use the talk page. I'll keep an eye on that too. I'm not particular concerned about comments being in chronological order as long as they are properly signed; very few admins are idiots and I expect whomever closes the debate can find the thread without difficulty. Thatcher131 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wont comment there either, most of my last comments have been trying to tell him to relax and laughing at the secret society conspiracy theory that is being cooked up there. Thank you Thatcher131, I think a lack of his presence will allow the MfD to go on it should have in the first place. --NuclearZer0 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I closed the debate. It was only going one way anyway; if we want to reconsider when the dust has settled we can do so. Guy 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That works too. :-\ Thatcher131 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible unauthorized bot

I have just blocked 141.84.69.20 (talk · contribs · logs) because they appear to be running an unauthorized bot. Some of the edits are good, some are bad, and all communication attempts have gone unanswered. I blocked for 24h to wait for a response, second opinion requested on next steps since it is an IP. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The IP is registered to a school in Germany, so a longer IP block would not be problematic. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted under A7 recreated

We need an admin to salt Hannah Nealey, it was already deleted once by NishKid64, and then recreated. It's half bogus/half non-notable bio. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe took care of it, dispute closed. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Long-term abuse by an IP

I have had some issues with an IP, User:198.53.202.126. Although it is a shared IP, it has only been used by one editor as far as I can tell. That editor has occassionally edited under the account User:Partrib. He has been editing several religous-themed articles since January. His edits include placing spam links to his personal web site, making false and unverified accusations against certain individuals and organizations (some of them in violation of WP:BLP), using article talk pages (and sometimes the articles themselves) as soapboxes, copying large amounts of material from his personal web site onto article talk pages, changing or deleting other editors' comments, and circumventing blocks by using his registered account. Here are a few examples of his behavior: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. I was told on WP:AIV that I should report him here. I believe that he should be carefully watched to ensure that future abuses are handled quickly. —Cswrye 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warring bordering on vandalism by 65.93.96.64

65.93.96.64 (talk · contribs) is reverting on Juan Cole and Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole without participating in talk, either simply summarizing edits as "rv" or "rv POV." The POV issues have been dealt with in talk and edit summaries and the anon ip has not responded; some of the issues he is reverting are simple factual issues (e.g. whether a person works in a particular position or not) that have been explained in edit summaries but he is reverting them anyway. He appears to be a sockpuppet of a user who prefers simply to steamroll his reverts rather than identifying himself in talk; I say this because he has few edits other than to these pages, and he seems familiar with some of wikipedia's conventions. He is making the same edits with other IPs 172.133.187.89 (talk · contribs) and 65.93.101.88 (talk · contribs). --csloat 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now using 65.92.202.247 (talk · contribs) for the same activity.--csloat 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very strange; I can't figure out what this anon user is trying to do.--CSTAR 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts of ANON User 158.135.12.160, 158.135.197.124, 158.135.25.117

This ANON is using three computers/sock puppets at Sam Houston State College and making repeated reverts to the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Her/his comments have been integrated into a new section, but I beleive they are so new they are not "seeing" or "reading", I believe a block may be the most appropriate action. I have left comments and warnings on all three pages. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper Admin conduct and closure of MfD

The following is Admin Guy's reply to me - an Admin I've never crossed paths with - and this reply was to my serious complaint about a user's (who is on probabtion for flagrant violations of WP) continued violations of WP.

Who could possibly have predicted that a user called "Fairness And Accuracy For All" would turn out to be a pain in the arse difficult character? Guy Linky to offending post

Immediately after insulting me, he closed the MfD which I was referring to, one which had been open for less than 2 days. I ask that a more dispassionate, objective and thoughtful Admin look at his actions and decision. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether he was right to close the MfD, but judging by AN/I these past few days, he was certainly right to call you difficult. –Joke 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Joke137 and User Talk:JzG. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is a pain in the arse, unfortunatly, he is no better than the other user he was fighting with. It does take two too tango, after all.

In my experience, the other user has a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and using ANI and other wikipolicies to push his POV.

Although I have less contact with User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, and although User:Fairness And Accuracy For All doesn't know how to push his POV by using wikipolicy as well as the other user, he is just as partisan and liable to use AfDs as weapons.

I personally think that the AfD should remain closed until after November 7th. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All seems to be on a personal crusade of sorts, to make his "side" win. Granted, the other users in this AfD are probably doing the same thing, but, being seasoned wikieditors, they are not naive enough to admit it.

I say for the sake of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, we should keep this AfD closed until after November 7th. After he has had time to think about how close he is to a AfD and eventually being booted by those partisan admins and veteran wikipedians who disagree with him, he can reopen a new Afd, if he wishes, after November 7th. I know User:Fairness And Accuracy For All will be angry for this opinion today, but if he manages to not be booted (which appears unlikely at this point), he will thank me later. Travb (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed the opening statement on my page TravB. If *I* were interested in trying to affect an election, I would be trying to enter negative info into the candidates running in close races, like many partisan warriors are doing here on Wiki. I took a pledge not to edit ANY candidate running for office next Tues, and I've kept it. You're simply wrong or projecting again. I'm not worried about winning. Not in the least. My Champagne is already in the fridge. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, 3 editors thus far have said your a pain in the arse, and partisan, powerful editors who you have really pissed off used your words against you, regardless of your intended meaning. So lets tally the results: your editing strategy thus far has been a failure, and may cost you editing priveleges.

The hard thing to do is change your behavior, the easy and common thing to do is blame everyone else. My bets are on the "blame everyone else" strategy. Travb (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Travb, I would like to suggest that it is at best impolitic to describe respected long-term editors as "powerful" - the only merit long-term editors have is their long involvement with the project, their understanding/acceptance of project goals, and the lattitude they're given towards achieving those goals. Calling them powerful risks serious misinterpretation. Take care. --Improv 11:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I request users not to throw innuendoes. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning as follows: GabrielF is a reasonable person, and has acknowledged and dealt with concerns with the original formulation of the page. The MfD was headed for keep, and two editors had to be banned from disrupting it. There really was no point in extending the discussion since sufficient input had already been obtained to recognise that the consensus is to keep, albeit perhaps with some slight work on the criteria by which pages are added or the terms in which they are discussed. There is, to my reading, widespread support for the view that 911 conspiracy theory POV-pushing is a problem, and we need somewhere to keep an overview of it - this page is as good a place as any. The theorists are welcome to watch the page as well, everything being out in the open and all. There does not seem to be any overt advocacy going on on that page, so there is no pressing need to delete it to avoid harm to the project. Guy 12:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I documented advocacy, or at least POV, in the specfic case of Kathleen Christison, and I contend that may be why they moved that discussion onto the talk page. please see . The nominator intentionally chose an extremely narrow Google search, and then used those results to misrepresent her 'notability'. To say that her 'only' notability comes from one particular book is demonstorably false. If you Google just her name you get 91,100 Ghits. I included a link from a University that returned DOZENS of publications from her. Christison publications - University College of Cork, Ireland . It turns out HER HUSBAND is a 9/11 theorist. She's not. She's got AfD'd cause they don't like her HUSBAND'S views. If that's not a misuse of AfD, and a POV Agenda, I don't know what is. I don't have the time to DRV until after Nov 8. But I'd like to challenge you (if you're not overtly partisan politically) or ANY other top level admin who is politically neutral. Review my argument - That Kathleen Christison EASILY passes 'notability' and that she never should have been AfD'd. (please note, I don't even agree with many of her views on Israel) and that the AfD was 'bad faith' as it intentionally used an overlynarrow search to draw a demonstrably false conclusion as the basis of the AfD. If this is the ONLY example of the Conspiracy Noticeboard acting improperly, it's still one example WAY too many. Thanks F.A.A.F.A 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't deletion review be the proper place for this? The page is designed specifically to handle cases where you believe the deletion was unwarranted. Shell ^babelfish 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will DRV after Nov 8. The point of me documenting this case was that I contend the actions were so overt (especially using as narrow a search as possible to 'lessen' her notability) and against the spirit of Wiki that it proved impropiety and that 7 members of the board acted not in good faith, (on her real notability) but with a specific agenda. - F.A.A.F.A 19:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And that doesn't belong here either - please see the bold red notice at the top of the page. Shell ^babelfish 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to being irrelevant here, it's also irrelevant to the user subpage. AfD is an open discussion, and this AfD had a resounding consensus to delete. Guy 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that there was no actual impropriety here, but I think that Guy unnecessarily created an impression of such, and threw a marginal personal-attack across the bow. I don't see any point to continuing this other than noting that it wasn't stellar admin behavior and moving on. Georgewilliamherbert 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent nonsense, request attention and/or action

I'm concerned about this user: User:Ichbinklugja, and their noxious antics around here, specifically their creation of a blatant hoax 1965 Romanian Virus Epidemic and linking to it from wholly unrelated articels (EG. Meat Tenderizer, List of counties in Rhode Island, Huntsville Symphony Orchestra), uploading blatantly copyrighted images (EG. Image:Tudor6.gif) and referencing this Tudor Iancu dude, possibly to slander him. A new account has now been creating a bunch of new suspected hoaxes about... Romanian viruses (EG. Popescu Xenophage). 68.39.174.238 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the probable hoaxes. If they are valid, a proper article will be along soon, and the chances of us failing to have an article on an entire class of virus is vanishingly small given the number of expert medical contributors we have. Guy 12:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice deletion summary. 68.39.174.238 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

request semiprotection

The article continental drift has been vandalized nine times in the last 52 hours by anon users. And that isn't counting multiple consecutive vandalisms by the same user. Please put a semi-protection on that article. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This belongs at WP:RfPP, not here.
2. Nine vandalism edits in 52 hours isn't a very big deal. I don't think semi-protection is needed just yet.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said 9, I just counted the reverts. There were many more vandal edits than 9, probably around 20. And the vandalism goes back more than 52 hours, it has just become worse recently. I'll put it on RfPP theough (I didn't know about that page). Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Immediate block required at Insp nf (talk · contribs)

The user appears to be some kind of vandal bot, and is making high speed edits to a large number of articles. Megapixie 07:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked and rolledback. Good way to pad my edit count, too. Thatcher131 07:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of the contribs didn't roll back because MediaWiki doesn't seem to like minor changes to redirect pages and throws a SQL error (duplicate key). I've doing these manually by commenting out the redirect in one edit, then uncommenting it in the next one. This should probably be reported, though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kann adfu cker (talk · contribs)

This account was created, (note the offesnsive name) was created to make a harassing edit [58]. It was clearly not a new user, and was only made to troll. A CheckUser reveals that it is very likely to have been Arya Rajya Maharashtra (talk · contribs), who is currently involved in a dispute with Sarvagnya. I would appreciate if some admins could take a look at this. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Very similar situation to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Culverin. User in a dispute creates an account to harass those they are in the dispute with. Precedent stipulates about one-to-two weeks to cool down in moderate cases like this; in the Culverin case (a bit more severe), it was 24 hours, up to indef, back down to 6 weeks, then shortened to about 5. Maybe an apology may smooth things over, and make it easier to give a shorter block. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kann adfu cker is already indef blocked. I have blocked User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra for 24h only as it is his first block. Feel free to increase his block Alex Bakharev 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another check shows that Crazy Katrina (talk · contribs), based on both IP evidence and area of interest, is very likely to be another Arya Rajya Maharashtra sockpuppet. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have extended the block to a week. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

31-hour block of a /24

I just blocked 72.159.133.0/24 (which is a mere 254 end-user useable IP addresses, IIRC) for persistent vandalism. See 72.159.133.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for more info. Interested admins are cordially invited to review this block and revert it if they feel such a reversion is warranted.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Firearms and films

There was an article List_of_firearms_in_films, which got deleted after an AFD. We now seem to have it back again, also under the names List of modern weapons in films, List of modern firearms in films, List of Modern Firearms In Films : a second AFD is proceeding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons in films. The article creator has reacted unfortunately at this, blanking the new AFD, and adding prose to the article explaining that he thinks it shouldn't be deleted (apparently it is a "very important trivia page").

Does someone fancy checking whether these are substantially similar enough to be covered by the original AFD and also dropping a note explaining whatever the deletion appeals process is to the editor. Morwen - Talk 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, done & done. Duja^► 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nadege, Nadia A.

This article is an autobiography (or close to one!) and has been created by (probably) the subject herself, see page history.

If an admin could investigate, that would be good, thanks! --SunStar Net 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, this shows non-notability. However, let's wait for some more comments. (And if that person is notable enough, that's an inappropriate username). — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a WP:AUTO violation?? --SunStar Net 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by violation of it? If you read WP:AUTO especially WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself, there's nothing that states "if you do this it will automatically be deleted". It simply says "If you do this it might be listed for deletion". So what's the issue here you'd like admins to address? Metros232 16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This quote:

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. --SunStar Net 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake starting this thread. Sorry! --SunStar Net 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted. There was no claim to notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New edit war brewing at Transnistria

Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was unprotected a few days ago, but a new edit war seems to be brewing, with several sides claiming to uphold NPOV. Banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be involved as well, judging from the page history. Another set of admin eyes on this article would be welcome. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya=Gnanapiti

We sought the checkuser of sarvagnya, KNM, Gnanapiti, Naveenbm and result reveals that Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are sockpupetts. Please see this. What are the next steps to be followed? I request u to take stern action against them as they have harrassed and annoyed the editors who didnt agree to their pov.The evidence is present on Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute.Baka, me, Arya are few of the victims of them. I request admins to act upon them severely. Mahawiki

There is a similar discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FsarvagnyaBakaman _Bakatalk 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Salt and Pepper Shakers Vandal active again?

A few months back an anonymous editor was going around adding to articles such as Glenn Ford and Bob Hope a rather nonsensical statement, usually a variant of "In their later years they concentrated on their passion for collecting salt and pepper shakers." When I saw the exact same wording appearing in a few places I got suspicious, and I actually contacted a relative of Glenn Ford's who is a friend of mine and asked if he could confirm the information, and he said it was nonsense. So I've been reverting this statement whereever it appears. This vandal seemed to disappear for awhile but reemerged earlier today at Glenn Ford. I blocked that IP but he might turn up again elsewhere. Just a heads up more than anything else that should admins or other editors come across reference to "salt and pepper shaker collecting" in any biographical articles, they should treat this as suspicious and probably revert without question. I'm also leaving a copy of this note over in the Biography Wikiproject area, too. Cheers. 23skidoo 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, recusing myself

Could an uninvolved administrator review this and take appropriate action? Personal attacks from the anonymous editor in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors case. [59], [60] Durova 18:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm mostly amused by her personal attacks at this point. A blocking admin will have to apply two range blocks 203.54.9.0/24 and 203.54.186.0/24 (anon only) as she's on a dial-up and will just log back in again. Thatcher131 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to any admin action, there is a pending motion for a temporary injunction pending in the arbitration case here. To the extent that any arbitrators are reading here, I urge them to promptly vote on the motion, as the situation presented in this case is unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Samurai Archives copyvio situation

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Katsuyoshi. I have closed the debate early in favor of deletion as copyright violation. There are a lot of other articles out there with exactly this kind of problem that weren't listed in the AfD. I feel it's time to Ignore the need for each article to be covered by a debate: any such articles should be deleted, but there are TONS of them, and I'm not familiar with Samurai history enough to do it on my own. A good place to look would probably be the contributions of Darin Fidika (talk · contribs), though those articles date to early this year: January or February usually. I have asked for help from some involved parties, but I thought I should mention the situation here. Mangojuice^talk 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaine Harman and her briefs

Elaine Harman is apparently a British radio presenter who thinks she is Stephen Colbert and is encouraging people to write about her briefs. So far, I've had to delete and protect Elaine Harman, Elaine's briefs, and Elaine Harman's briefs, which were being created and recreated by numerous new accounts. Please watch for further variations of these and delete/protect immediately. Thanks, NawlinWiki 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Did anyone notice that she was trying to solicit contact via Wikipedia?? If you look in the deleted revisions of Elaine.Harman you'll probably see it (I saw the page just before it got deleted!) --SunStar Net 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Caloon2000/Halloween edit war

Caloon2000 is in violation of the three revert rule; in addition, the user continues to add POV information cited with links to unreliable websites, and when reverted, adds the information back into the article. Caloon2000 has been warned more than once. User is new, but seems to have a preternatural knowledge of Wikipedia policy and lingo, leading me to believe that this is a sock/meat puppet. Look at the IPs/contributions/comments of Caloon2000, Keltik31, and Llloydfrancer; they seem to be connected. Thank you.-- Weirdoactor 20:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not use multiple accounts. Weirdoactor has been repeatedly misusing the vandalism template. Weirdoactor is discouraging new users who want to contribute to Wikipedia by massive threats. He has been reported at Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard 08:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Above and beyond any possible meat/sock puppetry (or an oddly strong grasp of Wikipedia policy and lingo), Caloon2000 *has* been making bad faith, POV edits (primarily from a religious POV, but oddly deleting religions the user does not agree with, such as Wicca, from the article) using unreliable sources as citations, as well as making false statements insinuating that a) they are an admin, b) they have the backing of an admin, and c) that there is a non-existent "consensus"; in addition to being in violation of the three-revert rule. Caloon2000 is the only user making any threats; or discouraging users from participating. I suggested that they create a new page detailing the religious reaction to Halloween, which could contain minority viewpoints not needed on the Halloween page; which apparently wasn't an interesting idea to him/her, as it didn't call for making wholesale changes to an existing article, or adding links to unreliable websites with extreme religious viewpoints as citations, as the user seems to enjoy enacting upon the Halloween article. -- Weirdoactor 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Caloon2000 is also retaliating for my warning him about POV and 3RR violations by placing unwarranted vandalism templates on my talk page. Another editor has since removed it, but Caloon also posted on the Halloween talk page that I should not be allowed to work on the article because I am a "Feminist" and a "Wiccan". Not that it matters, but I'm not a Wiccan and am somewhat insulted to be called one. The links Caloon2000 kept reinserting as "sources" also contained hate speech and gross misinformation about Irish history and Gaelic culture. Very offensive stuff. He also deleted Christian links I added because they were to Celtic Christian groups who do not have religious objections to Halloween. --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is already protected. The appropriate place to resolve this dispute is either at Talk:Halloween or at Wikipedia:Requests for comments, unless further use of administrator tools is needed. Jkelly 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Zennie

User:Zennie has been warned by three users including myself that many of the links he is adding are inappropriate under WP:EL and WP:SPAM. The user continues to add the links and continues to be warned. In response to my most recent warning, the user left this comment where he threatens to have me removed from my position (presumably as an admin) on the Wikipedia. This seems to be a threat against me so I will allow the inappropriate links, place no further warnings on the user's page, and not block the user. It is unclear to me whether or not this is a personal attack as defined under WP:NPA and as to what action I should take regarding this. I'd welcome some feedback, please. --Yamla 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have not informed Zennie that I have left this message here. If anyone feels it would be appropriate to have Zennie contribute to this discussion, please inform him. I do not believe it is appropriate as my question is over policy and administrative actions. --Yamla 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Threatening another user is harassment. The first line of the "In a nutshell" box read "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats...". I would suggest block for 12/24 hours, so that this user doesn't do something which might get them blocked for much longer. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me though I am uncomfortable handing out the block myself due to the threat itself. If at least one other admin also supports such a block, could someone else hand it out? If everyone else thinks it would only be appropriate for me to hand it out, I will do so, but otherwise I think it will result in less future conflict for it to come from someone else. --Yamla 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to stay safe and not do it yourself. I can't do it, not being an admin and all that. I'm sure a sysop will come by here soon - this page has to be one of the most watchlisted on Wikipedia. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This user might be under the false assumption that Jimmy Wales will intervene on their behalf as evidenced by a post on my talk page after I explained the situation. I've tried to intervene as a neutral third party, only to have my advice ignored and the edit warring/revert warring continue. I see no problem with the admin being threatened to put in a short block (a few hours) until the situation cools down. (it's been done before) Yankees76 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Zennie has now publicly called for the removal of my adminship and general banning in his personal blog. My understanding, however, is that while this may be inflammatory, it is not grounds for action on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A 24-hour block has been instituted, a link to this discussion was placed on Zennie's talk page. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that's not you. He's talking about "Yamia". Yamia's a total jerk. -- Merope 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocks failing

My block attempts are returning an error of "A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "Block::insert". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ipb_enable_autoblock' in 'field list' (10.0.0.235)". "It appears that the new autoblock option is failing. JoshuaZ 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:VP/T or #wikimedia-tech on freenode are the better places to anounce that if it hasn't been resolved or announced there already. - Taxman ^Talk 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica copyvio in a Wikipedia article's talk page history

Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) recently posted the entire contents of Brittanica's article on Alexander the Great at Talk:Alexander the Great. I've removed it as a massive copyvio, but should I also purge it from the talk page's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many edits to the talk page, and it's not terribly practical. We tend (for reasons unknown) to retain bad individual revisions in the history with infringing material. I guess there's WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the nuclear option.

Moving on, I am closer than this > < to disposing of Wissahickon Creek (talk · contribs) as obviously a sock, as obviously causing more trouble than good in his so-called mediation on that article, and now for illegally dumping copyrighted text into the project. Does anyone wish to save him from himself (and from me)? -Splash - tk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask whose sock you suspect him to be? Just interested. He was certainly no newbie when he appeared on 22 October, of course, and his behaviour is certainly problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It'd be pure speculation if I used names, and therefore unhelpful. As you say, he is certainly no newbie and, it strikes me, has a tendency to involve him/herself in such a way as to be irritating at best. First activity was to make a stream of (repeated, dead) proposals to transform RfA. That stopped when I called him on it. -Splash - tk 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - but if you're considering "disposing of" (=indef-blocking?) him, wouldn't you have to demonstrate he's actually an illegitimate sock? I.e. either of a banned user, or interacting with his puppetmaster in illegitimate ways. His behaviour otherwise may be unconstructive but in itself not really indef-bannable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is a sockpuppet and it is being in any way disruptive, it should be blocked. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to be circumspect. I think, with increasing certainty, that the user is either a)a sock of someone we already disposed of or b)is an account created to do annoying things whilst appearing to try to be helpful. In either case, my concern is that we are being trolled. Here ends my exercise in circumspection. -Splash - tk 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more I see that pattern too. At least one similar case comes to mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on W.C.'s sockness (although someone who edits an RfA and joins the Mediation Cabal among his first edits is obviously suspect), but I certainly agree that he's caused more trouble than good in his "mediation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. He's also been making controversial edits and pagemoves over at Template:Europe, and accusing other users of being "edit warriors". Another user brought his sockness to my attention a couple days ago. Khoikhoi 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I find a problem with the header of said editor's talk page: "This is the place to talk, discuss and question my authority." He seems to have picked up Wikipedia processes (and even elaborately decorated his userpage) in a span of less than a week, which is quite strange. Thoughts, anyone? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that note is really... something. And that was his second edit on WP! ([61]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black has given him a strong warning [62] which, incidently, I think sums this nonsense up pretty nicely. --W.marsh 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to call someone a sock when it is entirely unclear who he could be a sock of, but he definitely isn't your average "new" user (but he doesn't seem terribly experienced...). I've been trying to clean up the mediation case he... started and as a side checking his contributions, which are startling. Picking fights on WT:RFA, unilateral pagemoves of widely used templates, pasting a Britannica article verbatim, no concept of consensus, frequent refrains of NPOV vs POV (which he is apparently the ultimate authority on), and no understanding of mediation. I've been trying to at least enlighten him a bit as to what mediation and consensus are, but the whole process has been extremely frustrating and he keeps insisting upon his "NPOV" solution to a mediation... Blocking for disruption doesn't seem farfetched to me, but I'm clearly biased. --Keitei (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talkpage to give an explanation of his "sockiness". If he doesn't give a satisfactory answer, I'd support a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think of him in terms of "sockiness." I would think in the mindset of "trollishness" instead, if either ruse can be sufficiently supported by concrete evidence. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetish-ness of a blatant copyright violator? I reccomend checking out WP:'T to see if its him. If it is, shoot on sight. 68.39.174.238 00:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's not inappropriate for me to interject here, but in addition to W.Creek there seem to be other sockpuppet(s) involved in the mediation at Talk:Alexander the Great, and I'd really appreciate it if someone took a closer look. I am a participant in the debate, and reported one suspected puppeteer/puppet duo at WP:SSP. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Physicq210 ... In my view, if some identity is editing disruptively, (especially, editing trollishly) and gives the appearance of being a sock, it is not really necessary to determine exactly whose sock it is in order to justify a block. The disruption is enough. I have not reviewed the contrib history closely myself but if other well respected editors and admins say there is disruption, my first instinct is to trust them and support the block, should one ensue. (Certainly exploring whose sock it is may be useful to consider applying further blocks, but it is not necessary to block THAT identity) That's my view... Hope that helps. Lar: t/c 15:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

An indefinitely banned user by the name of Princesspickles2006 (talk, contribs) recently removed content from the Rescue Heroes article (diff); the recently created user name Princess kitty (talk, contribs) subsequently made an almost identical edit (diff). Shannernanner 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot misbehaving

Please shut down User:VoABot II. It identified me as a new user (I have over 15000 edits), and appears to be systematically reverting all edits to Hilda Toledano. Septentrionalis 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to only revert likely socks (using a criterion). For some reason, it now seems to see to have counted some old users as very new and with few edits two times.Voice-of-All 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of how it's programmed, but if it uses an integer to determine number of edits, you may need to increase the size of the int. What might be happening is it may be attempting to stick a value in the integer that is larger than the integer can hold, causing it to wrap back down near zero. This, obviously, would be annoying. A quick check on the size of the integer it's using might reveal the problem, but once more I have no knowledge about the inner workings of the bot. -Niarbeht 10:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious accounts

I don't know if this is the place to raise it (and if I should be leaving a message elsewhere, please point me to where I should be going), but I've just seen five accounts make edits to various porn star articles... in each instance the account is in the name of the porn star, and in each instance the link added is to the "biography" of the star at a website which has been pulled out of other pages as being linkspam. I have an extremely strong suspicion that the accounts in question were created strictly to try and lend undue credence to the links being added in an attempt to forestall their removal.

The linkspammed page is always a subpage at dv8.com that is specifically about the star in question.

The accounts in question are:

User:Holly Body, editing Holly Body

User:Jasmin St. Claire, editing Jasmin St. Claire

User:Hyapatia Lee, editing Hyapatia Lee

User:Katja Kean, editing Katja K (Katja Kean is an earlier pseudonym of the actress in question)

User:Sindee Coxx, editing Sindee Coxx

At the least I think these accounts, unless they can be shown to be the celebrity in question, should be blocked. I think it might also be useful to add dv8.com to the blacklist to prevent further attempts to spam that link. Tabercil 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very bizarre. They're obviously the same person, and all the porn actresses were born in 1970 or earlier. Anyone else notice that? Anyway, they're all username blocked. As to blacklisting the link, I think it takes a more widespread problem than this, but if the linkspamming comes back we can certainly look into that. Oh, and this is an appropriate place for something as weird as this. Grandmasterka 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I just took a peek at my watchlist and I see two more articles this morning where dv8.com was added, one of which is by the "subject"...

User:Marilyn Chambers, editing Marilyn Chambers

The other one is more intriging...

User:David2548, adding dv8.com to Sindee Coxx

Again, the username Marilyn Chambers should be blocked, and I'm adding the David2548 user as evidence of continued linkspamming of dv8.com in hopes of having it added to the blacklist. And as for the actresses all being born before 1970, hadn't noticed that... Tabercil 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Got another example added this morning: User:Dyanna lauren spamming dv8.com to the article Dyanna Lauren. Tabercil 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

dv8.com has been added to the spam blacklist. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. Tabercil 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• You sure it's been added? Just saw an edit this morning... User:Rebecca Lords spamming dv8.com into the article Rebecca Lord, as seen here. Tabercil 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Erica boyer adding dv8.com to Erica Boyer, as seen here. Tabercil 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image move request

Hello, Image:11111122222.JPG should probably be named something more like Shortie Like Mine Album Cover.jpg. Any chance of a rename? Vectro 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Download the image, then upload it at the new name, since image moves are not possible. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at WOCL (radio) article

I looked at the history of WOCL and it appears that a series of IPs have run amok vandalising the article over the last several days, adding partisan propaganda (WOCL is the main competitor to WJRR) and other nonsense. Can someone please take a look at it? Crunk Specialist 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing

In the John Kerry article re 'botched joke controversy'

• "Adding more to the Remarks Section

• "I believe that more should be added to the recent remarks section of this article. There should be more about the reaction from soldiers and soldiers families. Also, this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election. One day, although it might not be, we could look back on this and think that this could have been why the republicans kept Congress. Bcody 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) From said user's page: "My Opinions - I support President George W. Bush..."" Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing - F.A.A.F.A 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Aaaah. Your own POV and reading has turned this into more than what it is. "this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election" is not an attempt to hurt them. It is an obervation about what might happen historically. Why didn't you engage them on the talk page and ask for a clarification before running to the ANI board?--Tbeatty 03:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this issue in need of admin assistance? If not, then this does not belong here. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it requires an Admin's assistance to help with the edit and POV war currently underway. Thanks for volunteering. Another Admin chimed in on the talk page as well, but the more the merrier. Wikipedia is no place for electioneering. - F.A.A.F.A

I made a comment to the talk page. Don't think this merits more than that. Durova 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that no editor may say "this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election" in any article, but you may report the reactions of noted commentators and pundits on both sides. Thatcher131 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What if a commentator or pundit (or a widespread consensus in the circles of political analysts) arrives at the conclusion that "...this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election."? Admittedlt it would have to be sourced, but I don't see why no editor should be able to say it. Crimsone 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what Thatcher said: "you may report the reactions of noted commentators and pundits on both sides". The commentators and the pundits are relevant sources, individual wikipedia editors are not. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. I guess I misread the comment. My apologies (I'm having a rough day today lol) Crimsone 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that this was on the talk page and the editor being complained about has never actually edited the article and was making a consensus case for inclusion. Tbeatty 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One day after making this report complaining about another editor, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All AKA NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left this piece of trolling on the John Kerry talk page. Is it time for a Community Ban? --Tbeatty 07:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people admitting to wanting more negative info added to the Kerry article in hopes that it hurts the Dems chances in the election - and then proxies adding that info and copyrighted pics, over and over in violation of WP, even after an Admin admonished the partisans not to 'electioneer' - people posting bogus rumors abour Kerry's alleged sexual orientation on the talk page claiming they they heard on Fox news today Bogus Rumors. - and you want to bring up MY light-hearted assessment of the obvious? Jeez! - F.A.A.F.A 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said any such thing. Your misinterpretation of Bcody's comments and your lack of WP:AGF is disturbing. Not to mention your constant disruption. --Tbeatty 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears you'd rather talk about anything other than the blatant partisanship and electioneering going on. (such as 42 mentions of Osama bin Laden in the Clinton article - vs 2 in the Bush article) See If 'we' acted like some here are acting with the Kerry article, the Bush article would have multiple paragraphs on the controversy caused when Bush joked about 'not finding WMD's' at the correspondent's dinner, and the outrage from the families whose sons and daughters died looking for those WMD's- Bush WMD Joke Controversy A quick read of the Ode to Bush Article didn't result in any hits. (I might have missed them though). At least 'we' can hold our collective heads high. - F.A.A.F.A 09:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I do Anything Wrong?

I put my opinion on how we can improve the John Kerry article page on the John Kerry discussion page. Isn't that what the discussion page is for? To talk about thoughts on how to improve the article? I didn't do any editing to the article at all. I believe that if John Kerry had made a remark about Hilary Clinton, then the article would have her response, so what is wrong with having the soldiers response? Even if the joke was not about them, many people thought it was and they had a stron response to that. But to make it clear I did not do any editing, I just put my thoughts on how to improve the John Kerry article on the John Kerry discussion page. Bcody 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - no electioneering on Wiki. - F.A.A.F.A 10:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong. FAAFA misread your comments as a 'desire' rather than as an 'observation.' While the observation doesn't beliing in the article, it is fine for arguing for inclusion/removal of material on the talk page just as you did. --Tbeatty 09:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't violate any Wikipedia policy. F.A.A.F.A., formerly known as User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:NBGPWS posts meritless accusations on this board almost daily, which nobody pays any attention to. Feel free to disregard his comments. Morton devonshire 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe...

...consider dispute resolution? This is going nowhere, and I doubt anything will be resolved on this page with all the bickering going on. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps the hardest lesson any editor learns is "not everything belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard."--Rosicrucian 01:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from breaking WP:REVERT and WP:FAITH

Explained on User_talk:Dina#Stop_your_revert-vandalism : this user violates WP:REVERT and WP:FAITH to such an extent it doesn't have plausible denial for its deletion of content, i.e. incompetence resulting in vandalism. This behavior is dangerous and s/he should be told so by an admin. -- 62.147.39.202 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You could, you know, reasonably discuss things with people? Not every random disagreement needs admin attention. What ever happened to assuming good faith in both directions, or talking things over as part of the dispute resolution process? Another user's lack of civility does not excuse comments like "You really have no excuses whatsoever and you're a waste of everybody's time." Luna Santin 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, talking's good with reasonnable people. Problem here is:

• People who ignore a half dozen signs screaming it's a legit edit (as I listed on Dina's page), and ignore basic rules (reasonnable people don't need to read WP:REVERT to know they shouldn't revert wholesale an edit they object only to a part thereof, "Don't delete, improve" is common sense), and the difference between and article page and a dab page, and due process for identifying actual vandalism such as looking up edit history and edit summary, and HTML comment information (especially flaming ALL-CAPS ones), etc.
• People like that, in my experience, are NOT reasonnable and will continue to delete and remove useful content out of incompetence, just to up their edit count, until told not to by an authority figure, like an admin.
• Hence my plea here, to attract attention to this singing-n-dancing nuisance, because it's not just a one t-time, local disagreement about one point of one article, it's an editor ignoring all due process for fighting vandalism or reverting, and using an automation tool "VandalProof" to massively apply those reverts, and thus it's an ongoing problem that will continue and affect any number of pages until an authority figure tell her that's not how it's done.
• And since a half dozen screaming signs it was a legit edit removed her any excuse whatsoever, and since she's wasting people's time by reverting wholesale regular edits, well, I call 'em like I see 'em. Because assuming good faith on her part doesn't remove the fact she's incompetent at reverting articles, possibly doing more harm than good overall, and will continue to until told not to by an authority figure, if even that.

-- 62.147.39.202 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

More related vandalism: A friend of Dina, User:DVD R W, had participated on User_talk:Dina#Stop_your_revert-vandalism, and thus knows full well all the reasons why the item was legit as per WP:MOSDAB, etc. However, he's now acting as if he doesn't know, and has:

• (diff) Once again entirely deleted the item from the dab page (thus reducing its navigational and "catch errors" value). He didn't provide an acceptable justification for his own wholesale revert since it was already all explained in the discussion (he even edited Dina's talk page after me, so he can't pretend not having read it) and he didn't add any rebuke there.
• (diff) Is now apparently aiming at having me banned (by adding a "second warning" to my previous IP's talk page) in order to suppress criticism of his friend Dina's incompetence.

This is now petty, disingenuous maneuvering, and hurting the content of the encyclopedia.

→ User_talk:Dina#Stop_your_revert-vandalism

→ User_talk:DVD_R_W#Stop_your_revert-vandalism

-- 62.147.86.249 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling people incompetent because they remove your constant attempts to spam Wikipedia is not really going to help your case. Danny Lilithborne 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I support DVD's behaviour on this issue and suggest trolling accusations of vandalism should be deleted from this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've not even looked at the history of my first IP or the argument on Dina's page, else you wouldn't say that. In the hours before this incident, I had, among more:

• Created a whole starter article]
• Cleaned up a spammy corporate article and have it moved from Phonic to Phonic Corporation
• Fixed all "What links here" pages linking to the old page name
• Fix during which I cleaned up a list of audio manufacturers that included Phonic, verifying each entry for dab/redir/fix, including disambiguating an erroneous link from Alice (usual company name, but dab page) to Alice Soundtech (full company name, but no article yet).
• and removed a bunch actually useless URLs from the same manufacturers list
• After that, I added a dab item about the notable Alice audio manufacturer on the Alice dab page, which is the thing to do for such cases as per WP:MOSDAB. And since it is currently a redlink, I provided a notability claim as per WP:NOTABILITY with a link to their page (which has just such information right on their frontpage) and a fat HTML comment and edit summary explaining just that.

→ Are those the works of a troll or spammer?

→ Was also detailled at User_talk:Dina#Stop_your_revert-vandalism

And I maintain that deleting the entry for a notable audio manufacturer called Alice, from the Alice dab page, was incompetent. Furthermore, dab pages are the least interesting for spam: nobody's supposed to get there under normal conditions, any link to a dab page is temporary by nature, and destined to be fixed, until the dab page's "What links here" is empty and the dab page orphaned - only there to catch the next erroneous wikilinks that'll need to be disambiguated. Dab pages are the last page one would target for linkspam.

-- 62.147.86.249 09:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I already saw the history, and I really don't care. Perhaps if you had been civil with the people reverting you, then others would be more interested in paying attention to you; your edits up to the Alice point are pretty good. However, creating a redlink on the Alice dab page for a company, knowing full well that Alice is a rather common name, and then going on an insult spree when it gets reverted, pretty much negates any hope of others having patience with you. In other words: Pot, kettle, black. Danny Lilithborne 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the simple solution I've posted at User talk:Dina#Stop your revert-vandalism. --Dweller 10:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant solution, whatever the outcome of the AFD!

• Funny thing is, I have no special interest in Alice (which is why I just drop them in the hellpit of a dab page, instead of aiming at making an article for them), and yet I'll now have to do some notability googling about them in order to put my dollar where my mouth is.
• But yours is a constructive and objective solution. Constructive because it doesn't just blindly delete information, but encourages creation and research instead. And objective because it's not just one deletionist who decide to remove information from the encyclopedia based on whim or ignorance, but a peer review at AFD that'll decide if said creation can stay. Controlled creation instead of uncontrolled destruction.

-- 62.147.86.249 11:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that will teach me to go to bed early. My reasoning was pretty straight forward (in an evening with tons and tons of vandlism of various sorts): It looked like spam to me. And the "revert vandalism" was a very gentle first level spam nudge. The edit summary was kind of confusing since it contained an external link. Honestly, a simple "I think you made a mistake & here's why" probably would have convinced me to revert myself and remove the warning. The stub/Afd is a good solution. I won't be participating in the Afd because I really have no vested interest in seeing Alice not get an article, however I'm curious to see the outcome. I remain comfortable in my basic competence. Cheers to the various admins involved for your level-headedness (while I was sleeping peacefully...) Dina 11:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsure...

If this is appropriate place to report is, but the user using IP 216.162.22.136 has made several vandalism edits in the last few hours. I corrected a few of them, but if an admin could take a look at it and take action as appropriate, I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a test2 vandalism warning on their talk page; if they continue after this warning then you can add a final warning such as test3 or blatantvandal. If they still don't stop after a final warning you can report them on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and they'll be temporarily blocked. Demiurge 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Countries

Some apparently new user is making many changes in EU related countries, maps, accession dates etc. Is there a consensus somewhere for that? The edits certainly seem anti-EU. •NikoSilver• 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That user has posted requesting assistance on the Admin Noticeboard as well. Looks like some content dispute issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for not removing that earlier. It was an early result of an unfinished discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues. It was just way too WP:BOLD and created reactions in many EU country pages. That discussion is still in process. •NikoSilver• 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

204.120.34.25

Just look at contributions of ip 204.120.34.25, it's all vandalism. He's been warned and blocked before. I'm new to Wikipedia, perhaps more experienced people can pick this one up, I'm not really sure what to do with it. -- Sirius81 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

English and British Queen Mothers

Could somebody help me out here? There's an anon user (using a varity of IPs in the 62.47.180s range, and claiming to be de:Benutzer:Andrea1984) who keeps on reverting the article because of some strangeness regarding the English word "presumptive." The disagreement has something to do with the fact that the German synonym is präsumtiv. Originally, the anon wanted to use "presumtive" instead of "presumptive" in the article (a campaign that, so far as I can tell, goes back several months, if not years), and then today has decided to remove the word "presumptive" from the article entirely and replace it with an awkward euphemism, on the basis that it is a "bad word" and that removing it will end the "argument." She has now reverted the article four times today (I've reverted it three times), and is basically saying that she doesn't care about the 3RR after I warned her about it. I think the article needs to be semi-protected and reverted back to the form that everybody else seems to agree is fine. Any help greatly appreciated! john k 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Teresa Isaac

This may not seem like a particularly inappropriate username, but it's the name of the mayor of Lexington, Kentucky, notable for being a rare Arab-American mayor. I wouldn't even have known this interesting fact, if changing the link from that name to point to Mayor McCheese was not that user's first edit. Special:Contributions/Teresa_Isaac. So she clearly knows this is someone's name in particular. The rest of the contributions from that account range from the mildly to the highly questionable. (For example, this one [63] is just amusing, while this one [64] took a fair bit of work with reference to our Wikipedia:Articles for deletion policies, and could have done harm if people carelessly took it for real.)

I somehow doubt this is the real mayor of Lexington, Kentucky, and think she should at least be asked to change her user name, if not blocked outright under the WP:USERNAME provision that says "Where inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames are coupled with vandalism, the username may be blocked indefinitely on sight." It's not the worst username, and it's not the worst vandalism, but the combination may trigger it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that User:AlphaChimp has blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. Newyorkbrad 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That was fast work, thank you both. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Next week you can do it yourself. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica

At Bombing of Guernica, an anon often editing as 195.54.243.250 (talk · contribs) (but also editing from other IP addresses) keeps removing most of the content on the range of estimates of casualties, leaving only one (rather low) estimate. Lately, he/she has also been removing from the reference list even articles that are the sources of estimates he/she does not like. And he/she won't come to the talk page to discuss it. Insofar as there has been discussion on the talk page, the consensus is clearly against these edits.

It seems that not many people are watching this article, and I myself have a massive watchlist, so I don't do the best job of keeping tabs on any one article. Could I ask a few more people to keep an eye on this? It doesn't seem to quite qualify as vandalism, but it does seem to qualify as repeated editing against consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it, but keep in mind, the message you recently left on their talk page may be the first time they've seen any messages. Some people don't know how to see the history or the talk page, they just know how to click edit and save page. So if they don't get the hint the first time, just revert them and explain on their talk page that they need to explain themselves with references on the article's talk page and provide a link to it. Then after explanation if they continue to remove referenced material repeatedly, it's not vandalism, but it is disruption. - Taxman ^Talk 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Username redirect question

I was recently dealing with a situation in which I had to check several references on a particular administrator's talkpage. In doing so, I found myself repeatedly misspelling the admin's username (it's a long name and readily misspelled). I suggested that the admin create a user account under the alternative spelling with a redirect to the real username, to avoid the possibility of a very credible impersonation account being created. I have seen several other administrators and experienced editors create redirects in exactly this fashion to avoid impersonation worries, but this admin, coloring by the numbers, wanted to make sure doing this was acceptable. Can someone confirm that it is? Thank you. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. Thatcher131 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

nothing to stop one registing multiple accounts and redirecting as long as they don't abuse them.Geni 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

<after 2 ecs>When people change usernames the old name redirects to the new one so I can't see why what you're suggesting would be objectionable. See, for example, admins User:I@n, User:Snottygobble, User:Ambi, User:AYArktos. All admin accounts that redirect to new names. Also, the person could create a soft redirect by following Wikipedia:Doppelganger_account. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all. That's consistent with my understanding but as indicated, one of your fellow admins wasn't certain so I promised to check here. Newyorkbrad 18:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, even if the common misspelling was already registered in an impersonation attempt, go ahead and make it a protected redirect to assist search attempts. It's not like the impostor account will be editing any time soon. —freak(talk) 22:40, Nov. 2, 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.41 vandalism

Hi, there is a continuous vandalism by the anonymous 195.93.21.41 in Hilda Toledano page, pretender page, and Duke of Braganza page. This anonymous, a big supporter of the other portuguese pretender Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza continue with his libel against the pretender Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, aka Hilda Toledano, and continue to insert in these page Maria Pia as impostor or false pretender in order to favour the pretender Duarte Pio. These are only his personal point of view and so is not possible in this encyclopedia he continue to libel Maria Pia and her heir. Please help in this situation and block this anonymous. Thanks Justiceiro 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this is more a content dispute than an issue of vandalism (unless User:Justiceiro can cite diffs showing clear examples of vandalism). Since Hilda Toledano a/k/a Maria Pia is deceased, references to her do not implicate an issue of libel as to a living person, and my limited review of the edit histories didn't see any negative references to her designated successor (who is living). I do not believe a block is necessary at this time. --Metropolitan90 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo again

A suspiciously high number of newcomers engaging on tag-team/edit wars. The article is on probation by ArbCom ruling and disruptive editors may be blocked on sight. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have banned 4 editors (User:Mlv123, User:MK013, User:Fairview360 and User:Wizardry Dragon) from editing the article for 72 hours. Although no editor violated 3RR, each "side" of the dispute reverted the disputed paragraph 5 times, and these editors each had two or more of the reverts. This is intended to show that article probation is taken seriously and to try and stopa culture of disruption from taking hold there again. Future bans are likely to be longer. Thatcher131 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by TV Cable S.A user(s)

Just a quick note to admins. I'm currently investigating persistent but isolated vandalism by a range of IP addresses from an internet provider in Bogota, Columbia (TV Cable S.A). The IP addresses all begin 200.x.x.x (and I'm especially interested in 200.118.x.x and 200.71.x.x) and I would appreciate reports of vandalism, reverts or blocks to either WP:AbRep or my talk page User talk:Heligoland. More details on the whole situation at WP:AbRep - Best wishes Heligoland 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Domestic violence is fun"

Over at AN, we had a report of a bogus AfD for Domestic violence [[65]]. The folks at that point seemed to think we were looking at a reincarnated troll. I'm not sure I agree that such was the case. However, Domestic violence is now nominated for WP:FAC with "Plus Domestic violence is just a cool and fun topic. Policratus." If anyone is bored and wants to distinguish between trolls, poltergeist editing (someone p*ssed off and knocking over the furniture), and someone cycling accounts, User:Policratus is for you. Otherwise, if folks think that the article might need some protection and have some interests along those lines, such would be welcome. (I'm probably the project's worst vandal fighter.) Geogre 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; perhaps a longer block was due, but I'm not familliar enough with the above. El_C 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I need to investigate the article itself, but I thought that something happened there that had gotten some user to doing the whole poltergeist thing (each account is new, does something stupid, then another, something stupid, etc., and all to basically pout about whatever it was that happened), but I thought perhaps someone would know. Apparently, this is just an innocent victim of the poltergeist's attentions, as Policratus was doing the whole Borat-style opining ("pornography gets my vote," etc.). Geogre 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Impersonating user

Hello. I'm not sure where to report this, so I'll put it here... A new user with the name "SockMFR" just posted on my talk page... looks like a pretty clear attempt at impersonation. --- RockMFR 22:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a username violation. -- Merope 22:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Another one just popped up (User:Rock out with your MFR out)... --- RockMFR 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That one, too, has been indef blocked. -- Merope 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image in DYK on the Main Page

Is Image:Beckomberga-hospital.jpg really suitable for display on the Main Page? The copyright template says it was "published in 1922 or earlier" but the description says "c. 1935" so I don't think it is public domain. Kavadi carrier 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Unless the creator died more than 70 years ago, the work of art is not public domain worldwide. It is still, however, usable on the English Wikipedia, because the servers it uses are located in the United States.

Last I checked, that picture is 71 years old :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

At least it has the wrong tag. Kavadi carrier 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Age of the picture doesn't seem to matter, in that case; number of years since the photographer died does. --Masamage 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the odds of the author haveing died more than 70 years ago are pretty much zilch so time to contact the uploader.Geni 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Forthcoming mass vandalism

A few pranksters from Conserve School (User talk:63.86.151.246) are planning on trying to get the Conserve School article locked due to mass vandalism... within a few minutes. Please only block the IP and not established users when they vandalized. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit... they're making dozens of accounts to do such vandalism... I'm scared, admins! -- Chris chat edits essays 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, take a deep breath. Just go and request protection for the article at the appropiate page. You are making a spectacle of yourself. Sunset's Light 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A mildly suspicious-looking spectacle. X) --Masamage 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would need full protection, since there are users involved. I'll block the vandal as a vandalism-only account, since it's made quite a few bad faith edits (no good faith ones) since it was created earlier today. --Coredesat 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends when they made the accounts. I've premptively semi-protected. Feel free to remove it if you disagree with that decision. JoshuaZ 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Anarcho-capitalism

A user on the "Anarchism" talk page called "Anarcho-capitalism" is causing a lot of trouble. He continually abuses other members on the board calling names. He refers to Anarcho-Communists with epithets like "commies" and accuses people who don't agree with his personal view on "Individualism" to be "haters of freedom" and "anti-individual". Lately he's been vandalizing the page on Anarchism to push his pro-Anarcho-Capitalism POV which I and others have had to erase several times. He also vandalizes the page on Mutualist Anarchism and Individualist Anarchism to push his POV and seems to get support from a sockpuppet called "Doctors without Suspenders". Can he be stopped? Full Shunyata 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, see the complaint from a few days ago [66]. Donnacha 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe it. I've never used the term "commie" in my life, much less here. I've never engaged in vandalism or POV-pushing in any article. And, no, I can't be stopped.Anarcho-capitalism 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not the first person to note your vandilization of the Mutualism page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#Introduction_of_mutualism_to_US I see you're vandalizing the Mutualism page now. Kropotkin is certainly one of the best secondary sources you've come up with, but the claim about Proudhon looks questionable. The "national bank" would be the Bank of Exchange of 1848, which was to issue a secured currency, based on discounted business paper. The Bank of the People, proposed the same year, also issued a secured currency. All of the claims about Proudhon and "credit checks" seem to ultimately source to either Kropotkin or Marx, and neither of them are particularly clear about their sources. Only on Wikipedia would anyone think this cut it as proof. [Libertatia] 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Full Shunyata 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see this "vandalism" then. All that is, is somebody else flying off the handle like you have by claiming things happened that never did. I've never vandalized anything on Wikipedia. Where is the evidence?Anarcho-capitalism 06:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that the vandalism is gone now. That was back on the 17th of October two weeks ago. Besides, Libertatia noted what facts you distorted if you read the comment. It wasn't some random hearsay or "flying off the handle". Full Shunyata 06:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything is preserved in the History page. Click the History tab and find this "vandalism." Good luck.Anarcho-capitalism 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not gone; it's in the page history, like every other revision that's ever been made to the 'pedia. Please provide a link to the revision you're talking about. --Masamage 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous unsupported claims which other members argued against Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutualism_(economic_theory)&diff=82462210&oldid=77918061 Full Shunyata 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• laugh* Are you aware that that is a series of several editors edits? That is not just my edits. Any edits I make I support with sources in the Discussion page or attach the sources to the article, unless they are just trivial rewording of things to make them easier to understand. The quote from the editor above that falsely claimed I "vandalized" the article even acknolwedge that I gave Kropotkin as a source. He just didn't like it.Anarcho-capitalism 07:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Anarcho-capitalism made revisions in the past to say that Anarcho-Communists do not trade despite User:Donnacha and User:Blockder specifying that not all Anarcho-Communists are against trade. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=82443241&oldid=82434086 Full Shunyata 07:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And they were removing my claim that anarcho-communists are against markets, despite my instistence that they were not. So what? That's how Wikipedia works. People edit articles and people disgree about things.Anarcho-capitalism 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any record of this person using the word 'commie'. In fact, I've just dug around in his contributions for several minutes and, although I don't quite follow the conversation, the rudest thing I ever see him saying is "Geeze." So if you would like to proceed with this discussion, please provide diffs of the exact posts you are referring to. --Masamage 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He's the one making personal attacks. Look at what he just now wrote me: "I find you to be a very ignorant, hard-headed person..." [67] Anarcho-capitalism 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has been on the receiving end of personal attacks it's been Anarcho-capitalism. (Although I've gotten my share, too.) He hasn't come close to vandalising, either. This is about a difference in opinion and the posting here, itself, by Full Shunyata, is a personal attack. Doctors without suspenders 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It has already been proven that User: Doctors without suspenders is a sockpuppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#This_debate Oh, I can prove Doctors without suspenders (she, not he) is a sockpuppet. CheckUser aren't even interested in this user any more, they recommend me to block her on sight and not bother them with something so obvious. The only reson I haven't blocked her (yet) is that so many people are being unconstructive on this poor excuse for a talkpage anyway. But I have to say I wonder about the motives of people who jump in to say she's not. Do you actually know anything about it? [User: Bishounen] Full Shunyata 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see someone stating that s/he's a sockpuppet, but I'd have to see exactly what Bishounen's referring to to be able to comment. --Masamage 06:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This user bears a strong resemblence to User:IndividualistAnarchist and User:TheIndividualist among others, both blocked as sockpuppets of indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:RJII; they share a similarly-styled user name, and all three dove immediately and exclusively into articles in RJII's area of interest. (This user is in any case presumably also User:CapitalistAnarchist, although that isn't a crime; that one was around for a very short time and wasn't blocked.) If it hasn't already been done, perhaps a RFCU is in order, at the very least? --Aquillion 10:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? *laugh* Now the claim is that I'm somebody else? I can only guess that announcing I'm a capitalist puts a target on my head.Anarcho-capitalism 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's a sock, he started out more reasonable than he because under the influence of innumerable thewolfstar socks and Hogeye. He's gradually become more hard-headed, uncompromising and disruptive and has chased most editors off the page. There are clearly a number of socks around, but I don't think Anarcho-capitalism is one of them. Donnacha 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of me being "disruptive"? Where is the evidence of me chasing editors off the page? *laugh* This ridiculous. What are you trying to accomplish here?Anarcho-capitalism 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what's going on is anti-capitalists are upset that that I'm an anarcho-capitalist and that I denounce anarcho-communism as authoritarian on my Userpage. Oh well. Freedom of speech.Anarcho-capitalism 13:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What's going on is anarchists (by definition anti-capitalist) are not happy with your attempts to redefine the history of anarchism to push your minority POV. "Anarcho"-capitalists are rejected by anarchists around the world because you reject all but one narrowly defined element of anarchism. But, while we're willing to compromise and accept a mention of "anarcho"-capitalism within the article on anarchism, you, on the other hand, wish to change the entire article so that it argues against the dominant forms of anarchism - anarchist-communism, collectivism and anarcho-syndicalism. That is a clearly breach of NPOV policy. Furthermore, your user page is insulting, your attitude is uncompromising and hostile and, as for your chasing editors off the page, that's very clear from the edit history [of Anarchism]. Everyone has given up trying to improve the article with you around, most edits have been yours and attempts to undo your POV-pushing. Donnacha 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew it. You didn't like my Userpage. I'm not the one that put anarcho-capitalism in the article so I don't know why you're complaining to me about it. But, you're not "compromising" by allowing it in. You have to let in. That's because it is regarded as a form of anarchism by virtually all scholars and there are a million sources for that. The only people who disagree are anarcho-communist - of course! I'm not doing any "POV pushing" at all in the article. You've presented no evidence of that. No evidence for any of the claims above have been presented. The reason for that is that there is none. The claims are untrue.Anarcho-capitalism 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS" - Hmmm, what's not to like? Any attempt to define anarchism as exclusively opposing government is POV-pushing as that's a view held only by an extreme minority of right-wing libertarians who have bizarrely decided to call themselves anarchists. Basically, any attempt to define any other form of anarchism in a way that's consistent with "anarcho"-capitalism is POV-pushing. That's all you do. Donnacha 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You are offended by the title? Why? All it is is a takeoff on the "Philosophy for Dummies" type books. I realized it was going to be too esoteric to to be for the public in general but only anarchists would be interested in it, so I called it "Anarcho-capitalism for Dummie Anarchists" but then that didn't sound right to me so I used the title that I have now. You shouldn't be offended by it. As far, as POV pushing I can POV push all I want on my Userpage. But I definitely do not POV push in articles.Anarcho-capitalism 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Et voila, we have a perfect example of Anarcho-capitalism's hostility and rudeness. He calls all anarchists who disagree with him stupid, but, hey, it doesn't mean anything. At the same time, he gets narked when asked if he's stupid[68] (see my talk page). 'Nuff said. Donnacha 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha: Considering your blatantly hyper-arrogant and abusive debate style on the subject of anarchism, as seen in the talk pages of related articles, don't you f****** dare berating others for their allegedly "hostility and rudeness".- Peter Bjørn Perlsø 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Pot, kettle, black. 'Nuff said. Donnacha 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke. Maybe you haven't seen the "for Dummies" and "for Idiots" books. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists too, so I'm referring to them as dummies as well. Anyway, how can anyone take you seriously? You just admitted you made a personal attack against me and gave a link to it!Anarcho-capitalism 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're here to vent, then vent away, but I'm done bothering adminstrators with this.Anarcho-capitalism 14:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so if the accuser doesn't show some evidence really soon that this case needs to be on this page, I think it can be pretty clear marked off as a content dispute. --Masamage 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a simple content dispute if this is the second major complaint about the same editor in a week, please see [69] for more details. Donnacha 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please read the thread in full. So many times administrators dismiss this as a mere content dispute, when it is in fact a pattern of disruptive behaviour. As Wikipedia:Disruptive editing says:

"5. Editor ignores consensus.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate."

So by reporting this behaviour to the admins' noticeboard, we are actually following Wikipedia guidelines.

-- WGee 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I hadn't been aware of the whole background of the problem. (And I definitely don't understand the subject well enough to detect the nuances of this kind of debate.) I'm not an admin, but I do try to help out with stuff that doesn't necessarily need their attention; I think this dispute clearly does, so I had probably best step aside. Thanks for the references. --Masamage 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For there to be a "pattern of disruptive behavior" needs at least one example of disruptive behavior wouldn't you think? So far there are none. On other hand, what we have here is a pattern of a few anti-capitalists attacking me for no apparent reason other than they don't like my philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heavy lobbying re Moller Skycar

Spfrazer (talk · contribs), who registered four days ago and edits only on this topic, keeps revising the Moller Skycar article, which hadn't changed much in many months, to make it look more favorable to the company. They especially don't like the details of the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit over civil fraud, particularly the quote

"In the words of the SEC complaint, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground.""

It's accurate and properly cited; they just don't like it. (Here's the actual SEC court filing in SEC vs. Moller, which Moller settled by paying $50,000. It's much harder on Moller than the Wikipedia article: "From at least 1997 until October 2001, Paul S. Moller ("Moller"), a university professor and inventor, sold unregistered shares of MI stock directly to the public, raising approximately $5.1 million from more than 500 investors. MI fueled investor interest through materially false and misleading statements about the company's imminent listing on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the projected value of MI shares after such listing and the prospect for product sales and revenue.") So there's an established history of fraud here. The history is long; Moller has been promising a flying car in about three years since 1974. The company would apparently prefer that their embarassing history be less visible.

This editor is now writing me personally:

John,

Anyone willing to take the time to contribute on an issue for the Wiki must have some level of passion about it ... supportive or not.

I spoke with the folks at Moller International and you have a personal invitation to visit their 40,000sq/ft facility most any day they are open for business (certain days may be reserved for various activities or Dr. Moller may be out of the office). Do your homework, bring aeronautical engineering friends, college professors, etc.. Dr. Moller and some of this staff will give you a tour and a couple hours of their time to discuss your concerns and their history. ...

Someone up there in Davis really wants this article written their way. I'd prefer not to spend too much time on this, but I don't think it's appropriate for someone associated with the company to be allowed to whitewash their Wikipedia article. How best to proceed? --John Nagle 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If they offer you money, take it! Seriously, it may be good to warn them about policies (vanity, especially) and if they continue to violate it by removing sourced information, you can either file for protection the page for a few days (if you consider it vandalism) or you can request that the user be blocked (after you have warned them about the problem repeatedly and are sure they are not making any worthwhile contributions outside just POVing this article.) --Deodar 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They may have a point; I'm not sure that the SEC stuff being so prominently near the start is not POV. Nobody has doubted that the physics and engineering can work for something along these lines for a long time - it's a question of how much money would it take to make it work and whether Moller had what it took, in both engineering and financial senses, to do it.

Moller was doing some dodgy financial stuff and got called on it, but the SEC doesn't let serious criminals get away with a fine and staying in business. I don't think it's criminal to be a pie-eyed wild visionary.

I would support keeping the existing SEC stuff in the article, in a "Criticism" section down at the bottom, after a more extensive list of the vehicle characteristics along the lines of their proposed changes. Those are verifyable - I've seen them somewhere, I don't know where or I'd just put the reference in now, but I have seen them. Av Leak article maybe. They should be cited properly. And the article should accurately and in detail explain the SEC charges. Georgewilliamherbert 04:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• You could offer to open a content RFC, if the editor wishes. It all depends on why Moller Skycar is known. If it's known generally as an example of scandal, then the scandal/allegations should be in the lead. If it's known as a corporation trying to fly, then the allegations belong in a criticism section. If there are charges only, then the company's answer to those should also be given in a reduced form. Is this, in other words, Enron (the article for which would have changed enormously in 1999) or British Harrier? Geogre 10:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In aviation, they're known as the slightly fringe guys trying to fly. I don't know if they're widely known outside aviation, though they've been covered in Popular Science and other magazines. Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mjal (talk · contribs)

Serial RfA supporter. Ten identical copy-paste supports in 5 minutes, history of doing same before several times. Propose mass revert and ban. - crz crztalk 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian can participate in RfA and support or oppose without fear of reproach. A ban seems a bit steep for lack of originality in support rationale and an odd habit of mass-supporting RfA's hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's called disruption, H. And this appears to be a disruption-only account. But then, I proposed it instead of blocking for this very reason - to hear you opine - so thank you. - crz crztalk 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One man's disruption is another man's affinity for those nifty "RfA thank you" messages ;) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I must agree...as much as this guy really isn't helping a single darned thing, one guy isn't going to skew any results. --InShaneee 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As Hoopydink points out, this is not against any rule. If you disagree with someone's actions, you need to at least make the effort to have a discussion with them about it. Apparently all you've done is post "Are you kidding?" on Mjal's talk page, which isn't exactly neighborly. Everyone has a different idea of what makes a good admin, and there's no reason to throw anyone out of the community for it. --Masamage 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hoopydink and Masamage. Andre (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is disruption. We have blocked people for it in the past. However, it's evidence to be used in conjunction with other abuses and not enough by itself. Going in and "support" to every nomination is the same as going in and "oppose" every nomination: both are unconsidered motions. Since RFA, like AfD, is for discussion and opinion, knee jerk votes should, at the very least, be discounted, but they are also -- as surely as an "oppose i hate admins" -- attempting to disrupt by inflating/skewing results. However, nothing on the first offense except a friendly query and a query on the RfA for the beaurocrats, at least in my opinion. Geogre 10:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I think you're right about what to do about it. I do note nobody's posted anything else on the user's talk page yet. --Masamage 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Recreated deleted article with vandalism

Gloster canary - handle that, kthx. 66.231.130.70 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsure How to Proceed Re User:75.2.250.145

The aforemetnioned user deleted entire sections of the Tammy Duckworth article without posting proposed changes, garnering the appearance of vandalism. Normally, someone informs that editor that their actions could be considered vandalism. Perhaps it is just me being a well-meaning yet inexperienced noob, User:75.2.250.145 does not exist. User talk:75.2.250.145 exists as a Special Page - a new term for me. When I posted a comment on what appeared to be a brand new user-talk page, I was informed by icon box that User:75.2.250.145 is an anonymous user. It all seems hinky, especially when looking at the similarity inlanguage used in the edit summary and a permanently blocked user (for using multiple accounts to overcome the bloc. If I am wrong, I do humbly apologize.Arcayne 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The user page is normal, for an anonymous "IP-only" account. If you think it's a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user, post who you think it is here and someone will take a closer look.

You're right that the edit pattern looks a little suspicious.

Everyone has to learn what these things look like somewhere; this was a good place to ask. Georgewilliamherbert 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)