Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220

User:DCGeist

User:DCGeist refuses to allow anyone to edit the RKO page with pertinent and referenced information. He also has removed the POV tag I placed on the article. He refuses to budge even though my addition is referenced because it is not in "his sources." He is attempting to remove my referenced additions to the Sound film page as well. Looking at his past edits, he seems to be doing this quite alot and doesn't allow anyone to edit certain pages.Zosimus Comes 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DCGeist is now making personal attacks. He reverted my sourced edit of Sound film (which also included a better preserved poster than the one which is now on the article) and made this comment "this is an article about sound film, not about a single-minded editor's unsourced, nonconsensus obsessions" and then he added this to my talk page: "why don't you shut your foul mouth."Zosimus Comes 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Top Gun, yet again

• Top Gun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Block evasion, continuing copyvio (and other sections in older archives)

Top Gun is an editor with a severe lack of understanding of copyright issues and a habit of copying material from websites. This editor was blocked twice for copyvio and the second time, the block was extended to indefinite duration for continuing to edit anonymously (also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun, an older case). Top Gun was unblocked after promising ‘not to add any more copyrighted text to Wikipedia’ but ‘may be immediately and indefinitely reblocked in the event of any further copyvio edits’[1].

Recently, Top Gun created The Maravar Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an almost verbatim copy[2] of somebody’s war story, justifying this by ‘The article has been already rewriten. And difers from the original.’[sic][3]. However, besides the fact that the initial revision was a copyvio, the article is now a derivative work (as clearly seen in its history) of a non-free copyrighted text.

Prior to being unblocked, Top Gun was told not to do this. I think this is a clear violation of Sandstein’s terms and Top Gun should be blocked. —xyzzy_n 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to think altering the text makes it a non-copyvio. An easy mistake to make. Did he do this before he was blocked? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A lot. —xyzzy_n 09:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is violating the rules, as explained to him on his talk page, despite multiple warnings - then he should be blocked. If, however, his behavior may be reasonable, due to a misunderstanding of the rules and of the messages on his talk page, maybe the problem is that he needs things explained better. Od Mishehu 12:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6]. Top Gun should have had enough time to read Wikipedia:Copyrights while blocked. —xyzzy_n 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Solution is simple. Avoid any kind of copying and you avoid copyright violations. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've given Top Gun a suggestion on how to go about writing articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

May User:Cymruisrael cleanup the article Ra'anana?

User:Cymruisrael was banned from editing Ra'anana several months ago, in relation to a dispute with user:Israelbeach. He's just called my attention to recent massive and problematic edits to the article, edits made by an anonymous IP and having nothing to do with the dispute for which he was banned. I don't currently have the time to invest in the cleanup of this article. May User:Cymruisrael be granted special permission to cleanup the article as it currently stands?--woggly 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that such a request is reasonable, provided that the user doesn't make any modification except for the cleanup, and that the material is, in fact, unrelated to the reason of the ban. Od Mishehu 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin civility

The following was posted on WP:AIV:

• Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This admin attacked me for my disallow vote [7], and proceeded to attack be further despite warnings [8][9], then threatened to block me for giving him warnings [10]. The Behnam 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the situation, and from my limited view this does look like User:Mel Etitis has been quite incivil. This isn't the kind of thing I like dealing with, so if anyone else wants to investigate this further, please have at it. --Chris (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one [11]. The Behnam 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not an attack on you. it was a reference to your content. If it said, the Benham should die, or the Benham sucks, or the Benham is an idiot loser, i would view those as persoal attacks. SUre, they might not have been the most appropriate but they are far from being very innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a 'puritan', mocking my vote, and threatening to block me for warning him about the offense are all things an admin shouldn't be doing. The Behnam 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the puritan comment was probably our of place. I will agree with that. and the threats as well but if the situation has been handedled a little nicer on all sides, things would have gone alot smoother. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I already apologized for not realizing that you don't use the warning templates for 'regulars', but this doesn't at all merit his reaction. The Behnam 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this edit is grossly uncivil. Civility is a policy, not a suggestion. --Chris (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2007

(edit conflict) I disagree that Mel was being particularly incivil, and I'm still looking for a personal attack here. And nb for The Behnam- placing warning templates on a user's talk page is generally inferior to leaving them a written-out explanation of your grievance. I suspect that Mel's brevity in dealing with you was a result of getting a warning template and not some actual human communication. A Train ^{take the} 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, this cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as an "attack", let alone one that requires administrator intervention, and your leaving of boilerplate on user talk pages [12], [13] is significantly less in the collaborative spirit we expect here than any suggestion that you "grow a thicker skin" about what constitutes an inappropriate username, which was apparantly the harshest thing said to you before you started threatening to have people blocked. Knock it off. Jkelly 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is sarcasm, followed by a "forsooth" statement expressing disbelief. [14] The Behnam 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, civility is a policy. It could have been stated much nicer however I think the point is valid. SOmetimes people take things a little to seripously and need a reminder to lighten up. However, the manner it was done is was not appropriate. Has teh editor in question left a message (not a template) expressiong there concerns? There is a huge rusn to post something to WP:ANI without trying to confront the editor in question first about the issue. Try to work it out there and then come here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that Mel's username vote was hardly an "attack", let alone unworthy of a npa template. The further contacts were unecessarily confrontational from both sides, but could have been avoided if each side tempered their indignations. Jeez. No more warnings. No blocks. Just walk away and cool off. -- Scientizzle 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He was basically stating that we shouldn't have editors like me/I am not a good editor. Then he expressed disbelief at my vote, then all the rest. The Behnam 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't understand how one could interpret the RFCN vote in the manner that you did. It looks more like an attempted light-hearted joke than an attack. Your application of an npa template was needlessly impersonal and trite (Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars); Mel's response was out-of-line, your continued application of npas was, too, and the whole nonsense exponentially accelerated into this. Seriously, who gains from further warnings or blocks here? Both of you say sorry and get over it. -- 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• We can do without message changes like this one; but I don't consider this to really be a personal attack at all. I will say that the "grow skin" message is extremely inappropriate, but not uncivil. Acalamari 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is he above the consequences other users face for the same violations? If there is anybody that should not do something like this, it is an admin. The Behnam 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know of an admin who blocked an English Wikipedia user for telling another user to grow a thicker skin, please do let us know, because that admin needs a talking-to. Jkelly 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time. His threats to abuse admin power are also not acceptable. The Behnam 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • This is pretty funny, since The Behnam himself threatened me and accused me of a "personal attack" for a comment that wasn't directed at him at all. I'm with Mel Etitis on the thin skin issue 100%. TortureIsWrong 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins are not above policy. In fact, admins have to make sure they follow policy more strictly than regular users do; as they are expected to know all about policy. Acalamari 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just say "Everyone calm down: incivility is a bad idea, so don't, and boilerplate templates for people who have been around a while are also a bad idea?" Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An admin shouldn't 'lose control' or whatever excuse because someone used the wrong template. He doesn't even yet acknowledge that he violated civility at all. The Behnam 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this pattern fairly often, where two users just aren't getting along and become incivil towards each other. There is no specific sanction against incivility here. Benham, if you'd really like an acknowledgement, I suggest taking it to Mel's talk page, acknowledging that you yourself had a role in this, and expressing hope the two of you can put it to rest. IronDuke 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just recently apologized for using the templates on this page. [15] The Behnam 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what you should have done instead of coming to AN/I, coupled with an explanation to Mel about why you felt his comment was uncivil. Then the two of you could have hashed it out, and it probably would have ended with smiley emoticons and back-patting. There's nothing that AN/I can do that actual one-to-one interaction wouldn't have done in this situation. A Train ^{take the} 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually brought it to ANI, as it was originally posted on AIV. If this was a bad move, I apologize, but I figured this would be a better place to discuss than AIV. --Chris (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I mis-typed. My meaning is that The Behnam should not have brought this to a noticeboard at all, certainly not the Intervention against Vandalism noticeboard. I don't think that you, Chris, did anything improper by moving this to AN/I. A Train ^{take the} 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I handled this the same way I do when a newbie starts attacking me; issuing warnings and then taking to AIV if he ignores them. But I guess Mel Etitis is above having to abide by the policies and face consequences like "normal" users have to. The Behnam 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, A Train. --Chris (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've heard such complaints about Mel - I remember this request for comments on him from 18 months ago which includes a lot of very similar complaints. I'm wondering if this indicates a long-term problem. -- ChrisO 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[after multiple edit conflicts]
Good grief.. Not only did I not call him a puritan (no-one did, though another editor used the term obliquely), but The Behnam is being incredibly thin-skinned. Would those who have no personal axe to grind have a look at the history of this, so that we can all forget about it? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You attack me (thin-skinned, again) to support the claim that my NPA calls should be ignored. How quaint. The Behnam 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, your ill-founded claims of being attacked are an inappropriate attack on Mel Etitis and their continued repetition is disruptive. Further, your weak claims diminish accurate claims against admins as it makes them easier to dismiss as just more of the same. WAS 4.250 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I think that my claims are legitimate. Even if they are mistaken this does not justify an admin insulting and threatening to abusively use his power against another user. The only reason that this is dismissed is because people insisted upon protecting him by ridiculously blaming me. As if my fault even matters when it comes to an admin's civility. The Behnam 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mel seems to be going too far. Users should not be required to grow thicker skin - this is not the project for thick skinned, this is the project for everyone. It's the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave and apologize, not the delicate ones who should learn to tolerate them. Further, threatening a user with a block for using a standard warning template is certainly inappopriate - if such block would be implemented, it would in fact be an abuse of admin powers.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Liao's sockpuppets, etc.

Dear Admin noticeboard, I had created a checkuser case against Jessica Liao and her many various socks. The case has since been closed and I was wondering if you look the checkuser case over now that it has been closed. You can find it here. I have noticed that the accounts are still being used... recent edits include a few days ago and even the main account has started to be used again, while the IP accounts are still in use. I'm not sure what action you can take but I have been told by many admin that this is the correct place to report and ask for a decision in cases like this. MrMacMan 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the checkuser case has been confirmed, go and post the names of the sockpuppets on WP:AIV, with links to that case. Or you could leave it here, and eventually the socks will be blocked. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you or admins in general don't have a problem with me leaving the case here instead of having it in another location... it would just allow me to make sure action is being taken. MrMacMan 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

Moved to WP:CN. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William Bradford (professor)

Someone that I presume to be the subject of the article, William (Bill) Bradford, has been trying very hard to get his article deleted. This involves what I suspect to be sockpuppetry, deleting what he doesn't like, tagging it for prod and speedy, and generally acting against the consensus at AfD and against the policies of Wikipedia. He also stated in an edit summary, "I have removed false statements about claims Bradford is alleged to have made but which cannot be substantied by reliable sources. Previous edits have been libelous and actionable." and "The original purpose of this page, and recent edits to it, are libelous and false and allege statements and conduct by Bradford for which there is no reliable source." I consider these to be legal threats, which I believe are a no-no. Note that the article is thoroughly cited, by my own work, as of last night. Whether those sources are reliable, I have no idea. See also: User talk:Disavian#William Bradford (professor). Any help or guidance would be appreciated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A small correction - I believe the prod was added by User:Doc glasgow, not by an anon. I was the one who most recently removed the prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. I'm not necessarily saying that anyone that added {{prod}} was a Bradford sockpuppet, just that there is some controversy, and someone claiming to be Bradford seems to be involved. Bradford did add a {{db-attack}} in one of his edits, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The user came before claiming that he was the subject of the article. The edits have obviously been POV some examples: "In 2005 Bradford accused Professor Florence Roisman of opposing his tenure because of some of his conservative views and out of a racial animus against conservative American Indians..." "Several bloggers have spread false rumors that Bradford..." [16] In addition the IP has been making legal threats saying that the additions are "liable". I've protected the page for a day meanwhile we see how to deal with this.--Jersey Devil 14:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful here. This is a marginally notable biography and a very upset subject. This is one of the areas when wikipedians tend to lash out and act totally unethically. Yes the article is referenced, but we really need to ask ourselves whether we need it. Whether some of the information is one-sided, intrusive, or amounts to investigative journalism. We don't do investigative journalism. And I fear some of our wikipedians are rather to keep on keeping all the critical negative information they can.--Doc^g 14:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's a lawyer, according to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant, even lawyers are human. Allegedly. Doc is right, we should think long and hard about what motivates us to keep this article. I have removed the military record section for reasons stated on the Talk page. I have to say that my Factiva sub does not show the case at all, so I am not convinced of the significance of it. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that lawyers are more likely to present and act upon legal threats. And what is this "Wikipedians tend to lash out and act totally unethically"? I was doing my best to take the article, reference it, and remove the bias. Is it not (theoretically) unethical to delete something that is (theoretically) true about someone? Although I agree that removing the military record section was probably a good idea, at least until it can be rewritten using a more NPOV stance. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little bit, the main conflict has been over the military record. However, that's not the primary part of his story. That part of the the article says what he did or claimed. It should probably be worded that "news source xyz said that..." etc. It would also be helpful if we could access his profile, but not even archive.org has it. There's not a source that quotes him saying that he has a silver star, either; perhaps he says so in one of the FOX News clips. Also, there's the question of whether or not Frontpage Magazine.com (the source for the silver star information) is a reliable source. Bradley says they are not, (if not explicitly, then implicitly given his disagreement with the information in their article) and given their consistent POV and recent crusade against The Technique, I am inclined to agree with him. Ultimately, I want whatever results to be thoroughly sourced, and to remain relatively comprehensive. POV and RS are our big problems here. Deleting the article because someone whines about it doesn't seem right, or ethical for that matter. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or just delete the section. Yeah, that works too. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the article was POV-ish, and I was attempting to remedy that by adding references and rewording it; however, his large deletions of content and attempts to delete the article were highly distracting, to say the least. By the way, the broken reference #13 was caused by the deletion of this line at the end of "tenure controversy":

At some point, Bradford began assuming names and posting comments in support of himself on a law school weblog operated by students.<ref name="wol">{{cite news|last=Epstein|first=David|title=Web of Lies|work=Inside Higher Education|date=2005-12-06|url=http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/06/bradford|accessdate=2007-03-27}}</ref>

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling at AfD

Resolved

- Articles untagged, AfDs deleted, user blocked. WP:RBI.

User:Scalgon has in his/her own words nominated "10 random pages for deletion" at AfD. These appear to be the user's only contributions, so we're probably dealing with a sock of a banned editor on a WP:POINT rampage. Someone please close the relevant AfD debates. Thanks. --Folantin 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have closed all afd's. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Pebs96

I'm at the end of my rope again. User:Pebs96 has a long history of promotional and combative edits. She and I came originally came into conflict over the now-deleted Bloodless bullfighting article. Her first edits to Wikipedia were promotional in nature, mainly adding her clients' websites to External Links sections of corresponding articles. She had the policy explained to her by User:SCEhardt on his talk page, but continued in this manner until having the same exchange with User:Jredmond. Many others attempted to explain this policy to her, including Metros232 and adamrice. After the discussion with User:Metros232, she began to mark all edits as minor. She then continued to add external links.

• regarding this "she began to mark all edits as minor"... that was a default thing in my profile, which I had no idea what it meant and did not even know what it was for. So STOP wording things "assuming" you "think" you know everything (K-I-A ... Know-it-All). Your madness never cease to amaze me. Get a life already!--Webmistress Diva 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pebs96 created the Bloodless bullfighting article in early June last year. The article was filled with improperly licensed pictures, mostly tagged with GFDL licenses but with no release by the photographer and a very large, clear copyright notice on them. I speedy-tagged them as incorrect license, and she responded here after they were deleted, with my admittedly steamed response here and following in my archive.

After waiting several months for the Bloodless bullfighting article to become something more than an advertisement and word-for-word copy of her own commercial website, I submitted it to WP:COI/N. The decision was later made after discussion there to submit it for AfD, where it was deleted, in process. 2 days after the close, she responded on the closed AfD. I had the page on my watchlist, and opened a DRV request, procedurally. I also notified Mailer diablo, the closing admin. It has been through DRV as well, and has been closed and endorsed.

Now she has insinuated, though not outright accused me of, racism, trolling, and being a member of The Cabal.

Despite the fact that I find being accused of being part of The Cabal funny, the veiled accusations of racism I find abhorrent.

Where do I go from here? fethers 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I state for the record: User:Fethers is not a member of The Cabal (TINC). For and on behalf of The Cabal, Guy (Help!) 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Psst... The first rule of The Cabal is you do not speak about The Cabal.Deny its existence.Deny everything. Lemon martini 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup... you're officially a member of that cabal you talk about... which I never even heard of and wiki-linked to. You're constant harrasment of me clearly speaks of your intention.
• Just an FYI, all of those folks whom you mentioned above NEVER went as far as you are going. It truly is amazing how a person can have so much energy with negativity.
• You need to just STOP accusing me of "promoting".... when it is absolutely NOT true at all. You just can't leave stuff and people alone can you. You just have to go on and on about NOTHING!
• Well.... this is way too draining for me to have to rehash again.... so I am going to sign off now.... buh-bye! Have fun with being a negative person! Yours truly ~ --Webmistress Diva 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• p.s.

You're behavior in "nature" is quite the "anti-[faith] attitude. You seriously need to get a life and leave my alone.--Webmistress Diva 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in Sri Lanka

Resolved

Edit warring on the above mentioned article, administrator intervention requestedRaveenS 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

→ WP:RFPP would have been the most appropriate place to request a full protection. The talk page of the article is almost empty. You got some work to do → discuss while the article is protected. I've just done the protection. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mewtwowimmer - impersonating admin, impersonating another user

Mewtwowimmer (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This is from a helpme request of User:Squirepants101:

Can I remove the Administrator2 userbox from Mewtwowimmer's userpage because he is not an administrator? He did not a request at WP:RFA. He also impersonated another admin by giving himself a barnstar signed by Glen S. I removed the barnstar from his talk page. Is that also okay?

Here is how he impersonated Glen S.. Squirepants101 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit is when the user added the userbox, which I removed already. CMummert · talk 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cherry on top: the user has a userbox claiming that he is 13 years old. CMummert · talk 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note pointing out that the userbox has been removed and that it should not be re-added and requesting an explanation. (Please note, however, that there is no inconsistency between being 13 years old and being an administrator.) Newyorkbrad 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being a 13-year-old editor, just as long as no harm is done. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My most notable edits are as follows: adding Teletubbies and My Gym Partner's a Monkey to the list of shows broadcast by Jetix. Want to see? Mewtwowimmer 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... could someone explain to me why pretending to be an admin when you're not is as terrible as this implies? -Amarkov moo! 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All other things aside, it is a bad thing when your user page contains things like this "Most of my changes are so right that I can edit any page to be 100% accurate and no one can change that." and "I created Wikipedia and Arfenhouse." (I'm removing said lines as we speak) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user self-identifies as being ADHD and edits wikipedia to keep his "miniscule attention span" (his words) occupied. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not being an administrator can be seen as or used as a position of authority. Admins are usually pretty experienced users, and being an administrator shows that you have at least some level of trust from the community. Also, admins have certain abilities that other users do not, and thus non-admins approach admins for help. This is problematic if the person approached is also an inexperienced new user or, even worse, a user with malicious intentions. Lastly, less experienced users frequently do things like posting block messages or protection templates when those tools can not be used. A less experienced user, not knowing where logs are or how to read them, may just take those templates at their word, which isn't good. Natalie 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given edits like this: [17] in which the edit sum is "I am the new administrator". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with pretending to be an administrator is that people may come to you for help that you cannot provide. This user also faked a barnstar gift from another user, which I find more troubling. CMummert · talk 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The users just created an Rfa for themselves with a few personal attacks in (calling other users trolls), on top of claiming to be an admin would anyone support a 24 hour cool down period? There are some good faith edits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. I just gave him a "final warning". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd support the RfA??? Oh.... you mean you'd support the 24-hour cool-down. *sigh of relief* -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) and remember, boys and girls, always be specific about your referents when "it" can mean more than one thing!

Mewtwowimmer recently added questionable content on Jetix (Germany). He claims that Popeye airs on Jetix (In the United States, it doesn't, it airs on Boomerang. In Germany, Boomerang is available on Pay-TV). Squirepants101 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he also changed the country codes on the list of Jetix shows, and changed what countries air what. He changed the abbreviation for Scandinavia from SC to NU, so pretty clearly unconstructive. He needs to take his ADHD elsewhere.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AAAH! I've lost my mind! I was the guy who kept voting 10's for Popeye on the German Jetix. In the USA, Popeye is on Boomerang. I know, I know. I also added shows like Teletubbies, Peppa Pig, The Dumb Bunnies, Bob the Builder, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, and The Powerpuff Girls to the list of shows on Jetix. Mewtwowimmer 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand questionable blocking

Pallywood has been subject to vigorous debate about its existence, its notability as a topic, its scope and subject matter, etc. Anyone who reads the Talk page and related pages will quickly find that one group of editors wants the article gutted or deleted; another wants to keep it. After these various discussions, one editor chose to slap a Notability tag on the article, though it was clearly established through the AFD and other discussions that the article and its topic is indeed notable. Betacommand has taken it upon himself to enforce this POV edit by threatening anyone who removes this tag with immediate blocking, and has followed through on that threat[18]. While there clearly continue to be content disputes on this topic, admin sanctions are inappropriate here. I would ask that Betacommand be directed to mediate on a more constructive and less partisan basis, and that Jaakobou's block be lifted immediately. --Leifern 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Betacommand's actions here very troubling. I'm hoping that Betacommand realizes his actions have over-stepped his authority, and that other admins won't have to unblock for him. It would be much better if Betacommand did so himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ill tell you why I blocked the user. plain and simple edit waring. I left a note on the talk page yesterday clearly stating that until issues were resolved on the talk page there was to be no edit war removal of the tag. I also stated that anyone who does remove it before the discussion was finished would be blocked for edit waring see WP:NOT. I dont care one way or another about the tag. it was edit waring. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But User:Jaakobou has only made 3 edits in the past 4 days to it, am I missing something? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That's not the kind of ultimatum we should be making. Betacommand, I suggest 'again that you refrain from blocking other editors- period. Your judgment on when it's appropriate to do so has been questioned many times, and you have shown no sign of being more conservative in your actions. Friday (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly question your judgement here, Betacommand. Please unblock the editor in question, and recuse yourself from "policing" this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of users who are in the middle of a content dispute on that tag. I wanted to stop the edit war and left a note on the talk page hoping to stop the war and promote discussion, Instead Jaakobou ignores the issue and continues the dispute. that is why I blocked Jaakobou. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)}

There are several users warring over this tag. It hardly seems equitable to block only Jaakobou. Allow me to add my voice to those calling for this block to be lifted and for Betacommand to use more restraint with the block button. Heimstern Läufer 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you're one of the users who is taking part in the dispute; you've restored the tag twice yourself. You therefore can't block any of the other disputants. Please unblock Jaakobou. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the unblock (that should be done by Betacommand himself), as per Friday and Jayjg' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock per above. Seems another example of v poor judgment to have blocked only one side. WjBscribe 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have blocked either side. :-) He's involved in the dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support an unblock as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at Betacommand's Talk page making similar points. My own feeling is that he ought to be blocked, and Jaakobou unblocked; he clearly isn't going to acknowledge his error [I was wrong about part of that; he's not admitting his error, but he has unblocked Jaakobou]. Looking at Betacommand's history, I don't really see how he can be held to be a safe pair of hands for admins' tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• There have been many incursions recently, and historically. Look at his block log, he has been blocked multiple time for unathorized bot use, and has not learned. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have blocked any user who continued to edit war regardless of the side. I have unblocked Jaakobou but someone needs to stop the edit war on that page. I don't care about that page except to stop the edit waring. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was contintuous close to 3RR infringements by a user over a number of days I could have understood, but this was nothing of the sort, protection may have been the answer but not blocking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

←Looking at it, protection did not even seem too appropriate. Over the last week, there were generally 5 or less edits per day with one day having 1 edit. May be a dispute but not hardcore edit warring. I would have had to see alot more action to protect there and have a valid WP:3RR violation to block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some background is needed here. Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently went through an inconclusive AfD discussion, which resulted in no consensus. Several of the editors who voted to keep it asserted that it was "notable", without explaining why. Following the AfD closure, I asked four key questions on notability on the article's talk page at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions. Two other users have also raised notability concerns. One of them, Catchpole, added the {{Notability}} tag to the article to flag these concerns ([19]). Three editors including Jaakobou then acted in a tag-team to repeatedly delete the {{Notability}} tag as a means of shutting down the debate ([20], [21], [22]). To date, none of the editors who argued that the article is notable have bothered answering any of the questions, other than appealing to the number of Google hits (e.g. [23]) or arguing in effect that "it's notable because I say it is". This is in fact the third time that Jaakobou has done this; Betacommand's action was undertaken to stop Jaakobou continuing a tag-team edit war which he started ([24]).

The notability questions haven't gone away, and I invite people to look at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions to judge for themselves whether they're justified. To put it bluntly, a number of editors apparently don't want to address these questions and are bent on ignoring it and shutting it down. I suggest that this isn't the kind of behaviour that we want to encourage. -- ChrisO 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO,

(1) I'm amazed/dismayed that you try to pin your hijacking the page into a revert war i supposedly started.[25]

(2) editors have adressed your qualms numerous times but you keep ignoring them and portray the responses as "it's notable because I say it is", as a matter of fact, it has gotten tiresome to adress your repetative ignoring on Afds, votings, comments, responses and edits made by other editors which you misrepresent with ill faith to support your original deletion and blanking attempt on the article. Jaakobou 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, this isn't the place to get into the content dispute, but your notability concerns have been discussed many many times on the Talk page, on the AFD, etc. There have been strawpolls on the questions you raise, and so on. To say that we don't want to address these questions is at best unfair. --Leifern 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So where is your answer to the notability questions that I posted? Diffs, please. There is some deeply dishonest, POV-driven editing going on here, frankly. -- ChrisO 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

here's some of his answers - [26], now you can search for "Leifern" on the talk page and i'm sure you'll come up with a good numbers of responses that in my mind can be summed by these two: (1) the phenom is notable and has a fair deal of coverage (as a user stated: most of the 'allegations' have been proven), (2) there is support for a better title about the phenomenon, however - it is not the generic "media coverage" title that you're promoting whole-heartedly to hide the topic in (after a failed deletion attempt). Jaakobou

Since there are recurring issues

Someone else already mentioned the subject, so since it's out there.. I believe there's a general lack of confidence in Betacommand's use of the admin tools. I know there's no "official" process for this, but realistically, if crat asked a steward to change someone's permissions, it's likely it would get done, right? What would it take to convince a crat that there's consensus for a removal of sysop permissions? Friday (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to go to arbcom, we couldn't just ask a stweard to do it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, an RFC for starters ... Cyde Weys 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There alreast is one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, it can be found here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a process that I am not too familiar with. However, with the large amount of seriously controversial activity recently, what would need to happen to start that process. He has been confronted many times and may temporarily stop but shortly after begins. In all honsety, I really hate to say this but I do not think he has shown recently that he has the capability to use the tools responsibily. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall say this the current RFC is moot that issue was settled before there a need for it. I attempted to step in an stop an edit war. the issue was over a tag and thus I saw no need for protection, instead I left a note on the talk page warning users not to engage in the edit war and to discuss it on the talk page. Less than 24 hours later there was another edit as part of the issue. Like I said before I have no POV on the page. I dont care if it gets deleted or becomes a FA. I was just attempting to stop an edit war. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's to be RFC, I'd suggest a new one specifically aimed at this question rather than tacking onto the old one. But, I don't see the point in RFC unless we believe a crat would consider it actionable. Friday (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel the bst move would be arbitration, the RFC has already been filed for another issue regarding trigger happy blocking, another RFC seams pointless when beta isn't going to change his ways, and for an involuntary desysopping it must be arbcom enforced or by Jimbo Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, take a look through hsi last 200 or so blocks. It appears that th eusername block issue is not completly resolved. I am perusing it and have a.) found several blocks fired rapid fire (10 a minutes or so) and blocks of usernames such as User:Marri jake, User:Dldnjstjr (which may be random but is short enough could have gone to WP:RFCN and other ones that would have been better at a request for comment username. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'm not sure it's really up to a 'crat if it's actionable. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that a single bureaucrat could decide to desysop anyone. What's wrong with arbitration? --Conti|✉ 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for getting involved in this mess. I attempted to stop an edit war an get killed over it. I havent even read the dam article. I was just attempting to stop an edit war. Please forgive me for attempting to do the right thing. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While some accounts have been deadminned on an emergency basis (such as suspicion that the account has been compromised) there is no precedent for stewards to desysop admins based on administrative performance. Unless Betacommand voluntarily gives up his sysop rights, desysopping will require arbitration. Thatcher131 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know if arbcom has ever expressed a willingness to do this due to community consensus. They usually prefer a smoking gun, don't they? I don't know that there is one here, it's more about the cumulative effect of many incidents. Friday (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with ArbCom except that it's decision cycle is so long. I'm not sure if it matters in this case, there's isn't an emergencv here. I agree with all the others that some action needs to be taken. Maybe Beta would undergo a voluntary RFA and abide by the results. Otherwise ArbCom would be the next step if there was a action (de-sysop) in mind. Maybe it's time to discuss a community de-sysop process along the lines of a community ban. RxS 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of sysop privaliges, I don't know whether they would accept or not, but if there is a repeated pattern, and efforts to try and stop the abuse with dispute resolution there is a high possibility Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the specific situation here (indeed, I haven't even looked into it yet), but if there is a clear pattern of misuse of adminstrative rights and an Arbitration case is brought, it is likely that we will take any and all appropriate measures, including de-sysopping when necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone support a request for arbitration then? I don't want to jump in with my feet first if the community doesn't feel that this is an appropriate measure, but I really feel this matter merits them taking a look at it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked Karenlister1 (talk · contribs) — no reason was givem no notice at the Talk page, just a vague wave in the direction of Username policy in the block summary. At WP:RFCN we can't see what's going on here. I'm blocking Betacommand for an unjustified and unexplained block, unless anyone objects. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access sure makes it sound like the stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions. It's true that we have no established local process for this, but then again, such things become "established" by actually being used. Friday (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the crats if they would do this. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Would_a_crat_be_willing_to_be_the_.22trusted_user.22_in_a_reverse_RFA.3F. Friday (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Meta stewards work for/with every Wikimedia wiki, and not every wiki has the same structures that we do (in fact, very few do). To my knowledge there is presently no structure on en.wp to gain community consensus for a desysop as traditionally it has been handled by the Arbitration Committee, who would then request action from a steward. I doubt we could just have a discussion and then point a steward to it without significant discussion about implementing such a facility first. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Husnock was desysopped after consensus here at ANI, as far as I can recall: but that was an emergency, as he'd given away his account password to help a blocked user circumvent their block. We probably need to start thinking about a procedure for community-enforced desysoppings following massive loss of trust. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Husnock was an emergency desysopping based on the threat of a compromised account. The stewards are responsible for all wikimedia projects; only some have arbitration committees. Here, I believe they would not honor AN/I consensus. In fact, as an arbitration clerk in Seabhcan case, I was planning on posting a notice of the arbcom case on Meta:requests for permissions and was told that the arbitrators would communicate directly with the stewards to effect the approved desysoppings in that case. I don't have an opinion on the allegations here but I am reasonably certain that the only way to desysop someone on en-wiki is be decision of Arbcom, either as an emergency (such as the NSLE case) or after a hearing. Thatcher131 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I posted this initial notice on the basis of one decision that I thought was ill-advised with respect to one highly contentious article. I have no reason to believe that Betacommand was looking for trouble, or trying to cause it. We all make mistakes, and I for one, am happy to allow him to learn from this and move forward in his efforts to improve this encyclopedia. --Leifern 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I was just trying to do the right thing and stop what I saw as an edit war. I attempted to stop it. and now Im being taken to arbcom? what ever happen to AGF I was trying to do the right thing in stoping a edit war over content. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF

• Yes, you're being taken to arbcom. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand I believe you did everything in the best of faith. But I don't think you accept that it was wrong, any of it. More importantly, I feel absolutely no confidence you won't do it again without being taken to arbcom. I assumed good faith on March 21, when I thanked you for reverting, and took no action. I assumed good faith on March 23, when I asked you to promise you wouldn't do it again. You didn't. It's now March 26, and there are a dozen very experienced editors who think you are very wrong, again. There are only a few days left in March, but I can't think of a different way to avoid another AN/I section titled Betacommand by the end of it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Betacommand has apologized, very sincerely I think, for this mistake. It was a tense article and he was trying to do the right thing. He just misjudged. So long as he guarantees not to use his tools again in disputes that he could even remotely be seen as involved in, then I think we should let him learn his lesson and give him another chance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please write that on the arbcom page. You're a very experienced and highly respected editor, even among other admins, it should have an influence. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Beta commands username blocks (again)

Please take a look at WP:RFCN where I am requesting that many editors, blocked by betacommand for username violations, be unblocked due to lack of policy violation. This issue has been brought up before and was the reason for the originial request for comment. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

These aren't recent blocks though, by all means, overturn them if you think they're not appropriate but do we need all this drama over something from February ? -- Nick ^t 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks! I just like to make sure before I do something like that. (I.E., I would rather have a second opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, in his defense, many of those blocks are old, around the time of the orginial RFC. However, i find that suchs blocks hurt wikipedia more than any innapropriate name that exists for an extra 5 minutes will do. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the dates, which I really should have done. In one sense that makes it worse; a set of potential editors may have been driven away from Wikipedia. In another, my block of Betacommand is less clearly justifiable. Should I unblock? What's the consensus here? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with his recent actions, but he unblocked the one in question. While most of the username blocks that I brought up were after the initial request for comment, in the past week or 2, his blocks have been used less frequesntly. I think he should be unblocked but on the record, I strongly disagree with very much of his recent actions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any policy basis for your block in the first place, it seems punative rather than preventative since as far as I can tell he has already stopped the disputed activity pending the outcome of the discussion. If he's really that much of a danger to the project then a block is a pretty limp sanction anyway. --pgk 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"In the first place" I'd wrongly understood that this string of blocks of User names was very recent, and the block was intended to stop him blocking any more. As soon as I realised that the blocks were older, I came here with what I'd thought was a clear statement of my position. I'm glad to see that he's now been unblocked by someone else. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought a clearer statement of your position would have been to unblock on realising the block was made on a misreading of the situation, leaving the block in place certainly seemed to suggest (to me) you thought a block maybe justified just not on the basis that you blocked. Your initial statement on this regarded a single username block you undid, "I'm blocking Betacommand for an unjustified and unexplained block", though having looked closer I see the block summary you used was some what different. As you say this is resolved now. --pgk 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was unclear from the linked page whether or not this was current activity. I unblocked Betacommand now that it is clear what the situation is. -- RM 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I apolagize for not making it clearer. I was not asking for immediate action, however help in reviewing the usernames that did not seem to be policy violations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue here seems to be Betacommand having been quite reactive apparently blocking quickly without thinking/working through any issue. I guess there is a certain irony to him having been blocked on the same apparent reactive basis. --pgk 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have stopped username blocks to address the the issue of the RFC. I only block very obvious ones now when needed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when an admin gets too trigger-happy, but I think BC's resolve to refrain from it for the time being is a good idea. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption and polarization by User:Coppertwig

See User talk:Coppertwig/Significant dissent and User_talk:Coppertwig/Stability_of_policy.

New rules are imposed on editors? Read these gems in the talk page of these:

If you are in favour of the merge and in favour of WP:ATT as the merged version, you may not edit this page. If you are against the merge or against some aspect of how it's being carried out, you may edit here, except that I reserve the right to impose additional restrictions including restricting or banning specific individuals. Individuals should respect the WP:3RR rule, except that as the user whose user space this is in, I am not limited by that rule but can do any number of reverts.

What kind of behaviour isthat, if not disruptive? The contentious attitude of this user over the last few days leave me wondering how can these users be advised to behave better? When enough is enough? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think his behavior boils down to WP:POINT. It seems he has a particular issue with the concept of 'verifiability not truth', and because he feels he is not getting enough people to discuss his issue with him, he is on a campaign of disruption. This includes editing the ATT poll questions by removing references to 'ATT', by engaging in endless debates, and by now creating a mini-fiefdom within Wikipedia's server where only he can decide who can edit, and where he alone can have unlimited reversion and content control. This disruptive behavior really has to stop. Crum375 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will leave a note on his talk page if you likeWe Need You 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)— We Need You (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And you would be...? These are your first two edits. Grandmasterka 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at that, right in this edit window...

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Sometimes people do keep personal essays and the like in userspace, and prefer to be the only ones to edit it, but I would really question the appropriateness of inviting only a part of the community that shares a certain opinion to edit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just left a note on his talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crumm375, hopefully he will calmly and rationally discuss this.We Need You 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That links to nothing. Are you sure you know what you're doing?HairyReason 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)— HairyReason (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(3x edit conflict) Um... You posted on the wrong page. See User talk:Crum375 (one "m".) Grandmasterka 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:We Need You try [link].HairyReason 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may, isn't it proper form to alert the editor whose behavior is the purpose of this AN/I that he/she has been reported here? It was over an hour before someone even told him. Not cool unless I missed something. MetsFan76 04:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just left a word with him at his correct talkpage. Looks like User:Hairy Reason doesnt have a clue either.We Need You 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Im the one making el stupido mistakos. Posted to talk page Coppertwig. I know, not the exact same link, but whatever.We Need You 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I suggest that anyone posting to this section of this page should read the proceedings of the 1787 Philadelphia convention before commenting further. A detailed historical record of any other four month long policy making process would suffice as well. That is, in light of how rational women and men with widely divergent truths are actually able to come to consensus, it is important that every point-of-view, including those with opinions unpopular with those in power be able to collaborate to develop clear statements of what they think of proposed policy changes. After those with the unpopular opinions are able to develop clear statements, they surely will offer those statements to be posted to a public space for everyone to edit and comment. Would that be acceptable to this honored assembly? --Rednblu 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh?We Need You 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your eloquent but meaning-devoid commentary is duly noted, Rednblu. I find your attempt at appealing to vague historic authority especially amusing in this case, since the American Constitutional Convention didn't tell anyone what they were doing until afterwards and kept everything confidential to the extent of employing armed guards around the deliberation halls. Hardly the model we wish to imitate here. --tjstrf talk 05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe those rules applied to Wikipedia in 1787, but now?..We Need You 06:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some users are telling me that it's not proper to invite some users, but not others, to edit a page in user space, or that it's not proper to do so if the page is advertised as background information to a poll. Possibly I misunderstood the situation. I assumed that the pro-merge document Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation, which was previously in user SlimVirgin's user space, was not open for editing by users taking an anti-merge position. Is it? I assumed it was a document collaboratively written by those on only one side of the dispute, and that the "Other Statements" section in the poll was there for the purpose of linking to similar collaborative documents on the other side(s). What are the rules for editing Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation?

I created the page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy based on discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Statements from all sides needed, and expect to move it to project space when ready, as was done for the pro-merge document.

It would be helpful to have an opinion from a non-involved admin on what the proper procedure should be here. Thank you. --Coppertwig 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the pages in question were essentially a personal essay, written by Coppertwig, expressing his views and objections to ATT, I would have no problem. That is well within the idea of what user pages are for. If he wanted to privately invite a few specific individuals that shared his views to edit it, I would have no problem. Still in the acceptable user page mode. But... setting up what is in essence a counter poll, anouncing its existance in a public forum, and invitating the community to come and contribute makes the page something a bit different than a personal essay expressing his opinion. To my mind it moves the page away from user space and makes it semi-public. To then say that only those who agree with his views may comment or edit, and that he has deletion rights, etc., is something I do have a bit of a problem with. Combine this with his overly repeated comments on every single page that even remotely relates to ATT, and it definitely goes beyond WP:POINT in my eyes. Blueboar 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's attempt to polarize the situation and dramatize these proceedings through his actions over the last four days, is in my view very disruptive. Sure, he has not broken any rule, but one does not gave to break the rules to exhaust the community's patience. Rather than further polarize the issues being discussed, this user should consider just being a community member that express his opinions like any other member: through useful public discussions in the assigned talk pages, and not as a self-declared representative of the "anti-merger" proponents as he himself has describe it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize it was a mistake to tell users they can't edit the talk page of the user subpage(s). I hereby invite all users to post messages on the talk page of the collaborative page(s). I will be thinking and reviewing policy (which I should have done before acting in the first place, sorry) and I might decide within a few hours to invite users to edit the user subpage too; one thing this may depend on is finding out what rules are/were in place for the pro-merge document. The users who bring up the issue of polarization have a good point. It may be beneficial for users to edit the page of the "side" they don't agree with, because trying to do this in such a way as to improve the document as a representation of that "side" involves a mental gymnastic that would tend to lead to understanding and collaboration. Interacting on the talk page may help in that regard, too. --Coppertwig 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for non-involved admins to advise you, they did (see Blueboar comment), and you still do not listen. So what is the point of asking? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jossi, I'm not an Admin, just someone adding his two cents. I would also say I am somewhat involved... I have written negative comments on several talk pages in response to Coppertwig's repeated harping on the roll of truth subject ... and wrote a comment directly to him, expressing my displeasure with the way he set up his 'Stability_of_policy' page. I have also expressed strong support for the merge. I would not say I am neutral. Blueboar 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On reviewing various policies, I've gained the impression that essays are written by either a single user or by all users -- not by groups of users. For this and other reasons I'm striking out my invitations to certain users to edit the user pages and inviting users to submit material for inclusion on the talk page instead. I hope this is satisfactory. Users may wish to comment on this at my talk page. --Coppertwig 22:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and disruption on DRV

User:Vlad fedorov seems to be harassing other Wikipedians in WP:DRV. In particular, he groundlessly accuses them of Wikibreaches [27], [28] on the sole basis that they use E-mail for undisclosed purposes. Also note that the harassment is obviously motivated by political editing dispute, and that content issues are discussed on a wrong page.AlexPU 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• As well as User:Pan Gerwazy, which supports the same point in review. Groundlessly accuses me in some breaches, not relevant to the discussed AfD [29]. These two really attack those who disagree with deletion. Also, off-topic content discussion continues.AlexPU 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the complaints department, and AN/I is not a court. If it were, familiarity with the concept of equity might be useful, especially the idea of unclean hands. After posting the above, you suggested "BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP!". Before that we have you telling Pan Gerwazy "Please remove your post ASAP", and screaming that Vlad Federov SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION. This exchange, which is what Pan Gerwzy pointed out, is worrying, to say the least. Let's give the usual dead horse metaphor a rest: the good word is that when you're in a hole it's time to stop digging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this sarcastic and cryingly injustful dude is not even an administrator. Is he allowed to talk here? Or should I report him as well? I did nothing wrong, I don't deserve this. No guys, I demand a real admin intervention, not comments form bypassers.AlexPU 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Angus is allowed to talk here, as are you yourself or any one who can edit Wikipedia. I see you have been blocked repeatedly for personal attacks and just came off a two-week block for personal attacks 4 days ago, consider this another final warning. Stop making personal attacks against other users now. Natalie 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. She did nothing about ongoing incident, but bothered checking my block log. If you've been blocked before - you're always wrong? I like that girl, her future is as bright as ArbCommer I guess :). No more questions on this chatpage.AlexPU 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked doesn't necessarily mean you're always wrong, but it does mean that you can't claim ignorance of this variety of unacceptable behavior. You may consider asking for help, instead of demanding it; providing diffs that actually support your claim (your first diff shows a user changing a sentence from "endorse" to "endorse deletion of the article" - hardly damning); and not snapping at people that politely point out your own harrassment of other users. Natalie 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User insisting on having fair use images on his userpage

On 21 March, I removed a number of fair use images from User:NewYork1956's userpage [30] leaving, as I always do, a detailed edit summary noting the policy under which the removal was done and leaving a pointer to a page containing an in-depth description of what it is I am doing and why. On 27 March, NewYork1956 reverted the removal [31], leaving me a somewhat nasty message about it on my talk page [32]. I responded [33], and re-removed the images [34]. Per my response, I am now reporting this incident here so that admins may address the matter with this user since it seems this user is intent on willfully violating our policies. Thank you, --Durin 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I am following the sequence of events here: On March 21st, without so much as a simple message on NewYork1956's talk page, you took it upon yourself to edit his userpage to conform with your view of policy on Wikipedia. When he quite naturally took umbrage at your presumptuous behaviour and tried to discuss the matter with you on your talk page, you escalated the conflict, repeated the behaviour, and are now taking it to ANI looking for support. Hmmmmm. You won't get any support from me. As I see it, you are guilty of editing his page without first discussing the matter with him, Had you taken that basic, polite step, this whole unfortunate situation could have been avoided. While you are within policy to do what you did, I certainly don't support the way you did it, and would have responded a lot less civilly than NewYork1956 did. Jeffpw 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh....Jeffpw, I don't think it has anything to do with "his view of policy." WP:FU states "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." That's pretty cut and dry to me. The only incivility that I see here is your accusations and your claims that his behavior is "presumptuous". That was certainly uncalled for. As for how you would have reacted, may I remind you that WP:CIVIL applies to everyone?⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously somebody hasn't cleaned their glasses this morning. I said it was done in accordance with policy. But it wasn't done in accordance with basic civility, which indicates Durin should have talked it out with NewYork1956 before acting.As to my "uncivil accusations", I don't see that I made any accusations at all. I merely gave my view of Durin's actions. Surely that is the purpose of ANI? Jeffpw 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. From the page on fair use criteria, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." See also Wikipedia:User_page#Images_on_user_pages. It seems pretty cut and dried--Durin's userpage on FUC is just to elucidate and expand upon the policy. I'll look into the matter. -- Merope 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think the image removal was performed in an uncivil manner, I don't think it had to be brought here immediately. An explanation on the user's talk page should have been given instead, and then this reported if he again reverted the removals. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to remove images that are under fair use from any other space other than the mainspace, even if it is another person's userspace. After all, it is copyright law. x42bn6 Talk 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Responding on two points; one, the concept of discussing a removal with someone has been proposed by people before. Enough people proposed it that I generated an RfC on it, which resulted in overwhelming consensus that what I am doing is appropriate and proper. You can view the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. Two, I brought the matter here because the matter has become a dispute with this user given their response. When I was an admin (a position from which I voluntarily stepped down), I would undo the re-insertion of the images and leave a note. Now that I am not, and given that this user is making a distinction between admins and other editors, I felt it appropriate to bring it here so that admins could comment on the user's talk page to help resolve the issue for this user since it is obvious he lacks respect for my opinion given that I am not an admin. --Durin 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are not acceptable in userspace any more than any other copyright image would be. It would be courteous to request their removal first, but in this is not a matter where there is grey area regarding what is permissible- fair use images must go. WjBscribe 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin was, of course, in the right. The use of non-free images on userpages is clearly prohibited. That we don't simply have a bot doing this is testament the the efforts we're going through in order to be user-friendly. The idea that asking is nice is noble, but it implies the contributor has a say in the matter, when he doesn't, which just builds more animosity... It also makes handling a backlogged area worse, and I expect at the end it would reduce the overall friendliness of the process. --Gmaxwell 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin probably knows that all users are equal. Admins do not have any extra magical-policy-sauce. Of course, if this particular user isn't listening, an admin can use their famous block button to actually enforce policy, as a form of meatball:PowerAnswer. --Kim Bruning 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin was absolutely right. I too have, lately, been removing fair use images from pages where they should not be. Originally, I left kind civil notes to the users, and some responded; some did not. Really, I completely lost track of who I had contacted about what, having 700 pages in my watchlist. To suggest that users who are merely enforcing policy should go to the extra lengths to ask other users to stop breaking policy is unrealistic. And this it totally supported by the consensus shown at the rfc. --Iamunknown 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Durin's actions. Although I am for fair use on Wiki, user space is no place for them. If you like something so much, and want to use it on your userpage, make your own photo of it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tank Engines

We seem to have a new vandal. First he was Jerry the Tank Engine, then he was Roland the Tank Engine, and most recently he was Trevor the tank Engine‎. Keep an eye out for those tank engines. :) IrishGuy ^talk 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kenny the Tank Engine just created Werner the Tank Engine, Craig the Tank Engine, Akira the Tank Enginew, Vandal with downs syndrome and Vandal with aspergers syndrome. The latter two were immediately blocked as username violations. Seeing the mass username creation, two of which with "vandal" in the name, should we just block on site knowing that his whole reason for being here is vandalism? IrishGuy ^talk 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support indef block on sight, though possibly subject to later review if one of the username's decides to stop vandalizing. --Iamunknown 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now the guy has 14 socks. He is just cranking these things out. IrishGuy ^talk 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support on sight blocking of any ______ the Tank Engine, at least for the time being. I'm sure he'll quit after awhile. Natalie 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit that Norman the Tank Engine was blocked way back in February. I'm not sure if this guy will simply give up. This might be a bigger problem than I initially realized. IrishGuy ^talk 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I as well support a block on site here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; users with similar names to well-known vandals are blatantly obvious, such as the "on Wheels" users or the "has a crush on Kate McAuliffe" users. Acalamari 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn! And I so wanted to be User:I have a crush on Kate McAuliffe's wheels :( Lemon martini 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Annoying Troll

Evans1551 created a nonsense article entitled I Am A Monkey. The last line of the article even noted The song was never published, but remains popular with a select few inhabitants of Crowthorne, now studying in Edgbarrow School Sixth Form (As of 2007). I deleted it.

He then began harrasing me on my talk page. He grew very incivil with comments like Let's fight fair Irishman - this is the English server after all and then decided to open a RfC because I refused to undelete his idiotic article and requested Someone please reason with this knave. To me, this is blatant trolling but since it is me he is screwing with, I don't want to block him. Input? IrishGuy ^talk 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I left him a warning on his talkpage; let's see where this goes with this. I don't think that he's being terribly incivil, but I do agree it is over the line. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he will drop it now. :) IrishGuy ^talk 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems more like harrassment than incivility, but that's pretty much splitting hairs. Natalie 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Heather Wilson

I'd like to reopen this issue which was introduced by Kzq9599 who has been subsequently banned as a sockpuppet. The last comment was:

It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. I suggest that editors review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Thatcher131 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But several editors of the page have been working (while battling Kzq's unilateral edits) to come up with a rewritten section that takes all of the focus off the spouse. The current rewrite does not discuss these allegations (see Talk:Heather Wilson#Conclusion). Therefore 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting Personal Information

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

---

User Indefblocked for various severe infractions. -- Avi 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) User User:Waldork has repeatedly posted personal information about me and my divorce situation on my talk page.

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]

• Here I left a message on his/her user page.

I have attempted to remove much of this material off my page [39]and requested that this user stop doing this [40], [41]- yet this user continues to badger me about what (s)he perceives as my divorce situation and with this most recent edit - named my ex wife by name and identified my in-laws as well. [42]. Please help me. Thanks. --Pete K 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

These edits are grossly inappropriate. I am giving the user a final warning and will block him indefinitely if there is any more of this sort of thing. Please advise if you would like your talkpage history deleted to remove any record of these edits. If so, copy any portions you wish to save to an off-line location first so you can restore them later. Newyorkbrad 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You could always just request oversight. Grandmasterka 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the level of material posted requires Oversight as opposed to regular deletion, but if the user wants to pursue it there is certainly no objection. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've sanitized the page as best I could. If there was something of import that got caught in the process, let me know, and I'll restore it. Good luck! -- Avi 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The User:Waldork just returned with another abusive post - I don't know what happened but after I deleted it, I went to the history to get the diff and it has disappeared (maybe it happened concurrently with your clean-up). Anyway, thank you VERY much for your help!

Here is the latest from this Waldork person. I'm sure this violates WP:HARASS at some point. Should I be bringing this here or somewhere else? Thanks.

Here's yet another one --Pete K 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: FYI, User:Waldork was given a 24-hour block at 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC), upgraded to an indefinite block at 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Peterm1991 (talk · contribs)

This user keeps removing cited content from G-Unit G-Unit members, saying that there are only four members. This user has a long history of introducing deliberate factual errors. What can be done. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon Comcast user (67.184.151.68)

67.184.151.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I brought this up at WP:AIV, but it was denied because there because the user has three total edits. That doesn't concern me nearly as much as the EXTREMELY uncivil and personal comments left in an edit summary by this user, which I would like to see deleted, overwritten or otherwise purged. Anti-vandal warnings have been posted on the user's talk page, and articles have been appropriately reverted, but I would _hope_ there's a policy in place for striking uncivil edit summaries as well. --JohnDBuell 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has not been given the proper set of warnings to merrit AIV and does not fit here either. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's awfully convenient for allowing defamatory statements to continue to exist in edit summaries. If it were an article or my talk page that got vandalized, it would have been since reverted. Why not an edit summary? It shouldn't matter if the person has 3, 300, 3000, 30,000 edits, any single defamatory one should be deletable. --JohnDBuell 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make a case for blocking the user after that last edit for BLP, but s/he's been given a warning now and while some may think it's an over-reaction, WP:Oversight might work here, since the comment is in th edit summary, which will remain high visible for some time. Let's see if the IP strikes again. Xiner (talk, email) 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits have been sparse, but the user seems to have a little knowledge of Wikipedia workings - would a Checkuser be appropriate to see if a registered user on that Comcast address matches? Thanks for the suggestion about Oversight, I'll see if they will take it up. --JohnDBuell 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to request a checkuser, but the response is guaranteed to be "checkuser is not for fishing". Natalie 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

"Rikki Lee Travolta", master self-promoter throughout the Internet, has been attempting to re-establish his self-edited entries on Wikipedia after his self-created and sockpuppetted articles were deleted last year. I deleted several unsourced references to him from a variety of articles the other day, including Yesterday Was a Lie. An anon, most likely "Travolta" himself, has re-added the information: [43]. I've reverted it back out again, but just want to make sure that what I did was correct. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta as a starting point for previous discussion. Corvus cornix 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, the IP resolves to Woodstock, Illinois, where "Rikki Lee Travolta" supposedly lives, based on his Internet presence. Corvus cornix 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, my removal of the Travolta link to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat was reverted by an SPA, referencing http://broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=2831. That link claims that the information comes from gueststarcasting.com, which does not appear to be a reliable source. I have re-removed that information. Corvus cornix 22:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that he has time to travel the globe and amass impressive theater credits (not to mention, turn down the role of James Bond) when he has to run his small computer company in Illinois. :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He also has a black belt in karate and graduated from college at 15. He also is John Travolta's nephew, is half Italian and half Nez Perce, but claims to be from Australia. Corvus cornix 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I actually remember when this first happened! :) I'll keep an eye out.--Jersey Devil 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD for many of User:Da.Tomato.Dude's subpages

Given previous issues which have been discussed on WP:AN and WP:ANI regarding people who do not contribute to the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia, this is nomination of a deletion request I have filed. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages. Many of you, I'm sure, will wish to comment. --Deskana (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Beavertailinc

Resolved

Not sure where else to put this, but this user has recreated an article about Gscentral.org on (I believe) three different occasions now (once under a different article name). Is there anything I need to do beside continue having the article posted for speedy deletion? Dlong 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Salted via WP:PT ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dazza619

I request a block for this user. gidonb 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV can give you a faster response. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had already found the link. Thank you, Crazytales! gidonb 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kusma

This user delete's every page that he/she finds "nonsense" This user has deleted sveral articles that I have found quite useful. This user probably deletes 20-30 useful articles everyday. it is ridicolous!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardoIV (talk • contribs)

• I find it strange that this is his second edit ever to Wikipedia (his first was to vandalize Kusma's user page.) Makes me wonder what kind of crap he is upset about getting deleted. JuJube 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after a brief look at his logs I don't see any deletions marked "nonsense". I see some A7 deletions, some attack page deletions...but definitely not 20-30 nonsense deletions. I am guessing Kusma deleted your article? I note that your edit before this was to vandalize Kusma's userpage. IrishGuy ^talk 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another annoying trollish like...person

Man, I hate this guy. First he gets annoying here, here, and HERE. Then he tried (my virus detecting agency called me) to hack my page. Clearly he must be stopped.--Big John10 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay it wasnt him that tried to hack my page. But the vandalism to Thomas Cole MUST STOP!or I shall report him here, hopefully shaming him and his entire familyBig John10 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Big John10 is a SPA, and probably a sockpuppet. Only has 6 edits, first of which was [44]. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the IP address WAS vandalizing.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. AFG, I'd like to direct Big John to Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. You don't need an admin to deal with such problems, but thank you for reporting it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:75.109.91.52

Because of edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Haunted_Angel&diff=prev&oldid=118401937 and NUMEROUS others. I will watch this guy. Letter by letter...Big John10 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the history of that article shows no edits by that IP for at least 4 months... Natalie 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff instead, which was the link given, but in a peculiar format. --Deskana (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User page: (of) Deskana for his help in posting the correct link. Thats the second time Ive done that! Sometimes I really hate myself....Sometimes I feel like paying a burly cement truck driver to wail on my face with a 2x4.But I degress...Big John10 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And you found AN/i how exactly?--VectorPotential^Talk 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found AN/I page through the magic of google. Thats what appeared when I wanted to know where to report vandalismBig John10 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:63.161.87.216

This user has vandalized the article on Latin on 28 March 2007. This user's talk page is full of warnings. Is this the proper place to report this behavior/instigate a block? Joshua Crowgey 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Tvoz | talk 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and reported the user on WP:AIV and the account has been blocked for 2 months. Tvoz | talk 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At SSP

• Dereks1x (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

A user, Dereks1x (talk · contribs), is not very happy that I have opened a suspected sock puppet case about him. Not only has the user attempted to obscure[45] [46] the evidence presented (despite a warning that comments on the evidence should be placed in the comments section), but he has now blanked a comment by a third party.[47] I started the SSP case, thus the advice or action of an uninvolved admin would be helpful here, as I believe Dereks1x is becoming disruptive. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user just left this comment at my talk page as an explanation for the comment blanking. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're pretty sure, take it to WP:RFCU. Given all the wikilawyering Derek is engaging in, I don't think anything but checkuser will end this. Natalie 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a second recommendation to do the same. Will do now. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x in turn created Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jersyko. How pointy! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this subsection down to hopefully restart a discussion. If you take a look at the SSP case I referenced in my first comment above, you'll note that more evidence of sockpuppetry has been provided by other editors, but also that Dereks1x has been wacking away at anyone that dares to provide evidence. The RFCU Ben notes above was particularly pointy, yes. There there's these two comments from today. I'm involved, so I can't block. But, to quote Dereks1x, "I, obviously don't have any control over you!!!" · j e r s y k o talk · 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another WP:POINT violation can be found here (created by a sock, no less). I patiently await community input. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more confirmed Arthur Ellis socks

Resolved

 – All blocked by Ryulong. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the next volunteer with a Block button, here are the Arthur Ellis community-banned sockpuppets of the week:

• Warfarin eater (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Retilian Kitten Eater (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis . Kla'quot 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated sockpuppet case, confirmed by checkuser, request for block

As per [48], it has been confirmed that User:Arteban1 is a sockpuppet of User:Artaxerex, used for evading a previous block imposed on User:Artaxerex and User:Faranbazu due to sockpuppetry and violation of 3RR. As the violation is now confirmed I'd like to ask an administrator to please block these accounts if that is deemed appropriate. Shervink

I have indef-blocked the sock and extended the sockmaster's original 48 hour block by three days. Any admin is free to increase/decrease/remove/alter/change this block as necessary without contacting me. - auburnpilot talk 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD

Resolved

 – Honk (well, the buses are gone) – Riana ^talk 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has quite suddenly jumped to nearly 800 candidates(!!!) Please help if possible. I'll be there in a little bit... Grandmasterka 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. Going there now. Natalie 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddle up, lock and load. -- Merope 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to put a damper on people heading over to C:CSD, but most of those appear to be hundreds of pictures from one website (all of buses; apparently someone decided to take hundreds of pictures of buses, then take the time to upload them all to wikipedia. wtf?) Hopefully those can be dealt with quickly. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that where all those bus pictures came from? I'll second that wtf then. Natalie 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just Murphy's Law in action? Just waiting at the curb, and then suddenly a whole bunch of buses show up at once... --Calton | Talk 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the delete reason for the bus images is: WP:CSD#G12 - blatant copyright infringement ? WjBscribe 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion would appear to be at the uploading user's talk page: here. Kuru ^talk 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears any permission was insufficient (prob Wiki-only). We should go ahead and delete.... WjBscribe 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So yes, delete as G12? Natalie 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and remove the pictures from each of the bus route articles... The first number in the image title is the bus route. I've already deleted routes 1-15 I think. WjBscribe 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the resolution of the discussion was the addition of the db-tag to the template used by all of the images by the actual uploader. So it would certainly appear to be the go sign. Kuru ^talk 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Jkelly confirmed it on my talkpage. I guess they are also CSD G7s... WjBscribe 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, well 200 bus images later and I'm up to route 53... If anyone cares to join the party- the theme is red London buses, the dress code is casual and the venue is CAT:CSD. Bring your own flamethrower. WjBscribe 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Locked, cocked, ready to rock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit, that's a lot of buses. Thank you, Captain Obvious! – Riana ^talk 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The buses are gone.... Thanks to everyone who helped out! WjBscribe 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That was fun. I got 85 busses... no idea where the hell I'm gonna park them all, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to everyone for the big cleanup job! Jkelly 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Iwazaki

User Iwazaki has launched what is essentially a tyrade against me, accusing me, out of many things, of being racist, and deeply mis-representing me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_Sri_Lanka#Bias_editing_by_a_user_who_hates_anything_Sinhalese

The title of his post is quiet enough, but checking through his edit summaries, they all have a similar theme, and this is not the first time I have been met with such advent hostility from said User, however, this new posting tips it. --Sharz 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S, If one of the more wikipedians who reads this could please advice me whether his message is liable to be deleted for breach of WP:NPA, I would apreciate that.

Shock site

Could some independent parties please take a look at the recent activity here? (And while we're at it, could more people please add this to their watchlist?) See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mangojuice. Short summary: after thorough research, many "shock sites" have been removed from the list as having absolutely no reliable sources. People constantly re-add sites without the sources, and they are then removed with a request for sources usually by me. Recently a user named User:Aftli, apparently a shock site owner, showed up claiming that all those people who made a single edit supporting the inclusion of information without sources represents overwhelming community support to ignore Wikipedia policies. Aftli also, I suspect, edits from User:167.206.107.110. Lots of personal attacks, threats of edit warring, disregarding of policy, WP:COI, et cetera. I've tried hard to avoid using my admin tools in this conflict, but that means I need someone else to be willing to do so. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semi protected this for now, and will upgrade it to full protection if I see more unsourced edits being introduced under "WP:IAR", but if I have to fully protect this I expect Mangojuice (talk · contribs) to voluntarily refrain from editing the article (in light of the RFC) even though it would be possible to do so with admin access.--Isotope23 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are any of them listed? If the website isn't notable enough for its own article, why list it there? --Born2x 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to report a vandalous user!

Click [HERE]and weep. Hoolp 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with; in the future, please leave a note at WP:AIV. --Golbez 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Corvus Cornix

Was doing an edit on the Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat page because it didn't make sense. When I checked the edit history it appeared Corvus Cornix removed some info that resulted in the flow of paragraphs not making sense so I was just going to revert it, but then I noticed that Corvus Cornix's edit history showed they were going through and deleting info from all sorts of sites based on their like or dislike of the individuals rather than based on facts (seems to have a big hate for the Travoltas). I'm a bit concerned by the user's actions. On their own page they admit a bad history and having to start over. I'm all for giving second chances but this behavior is looking somewhat stalker like from my outside prospective. Admin may want to watch if any more patterns like this develop. 66.99.121.245 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Just happened to note that it isn't making sense. See my comments above about "Rikki Lee Travolta". I will continue to remove the link until such time as someone provides proof that gueststarcasting.com is a reliable source. I have no feeling one way or the other about "the Travoltas", only about the hoaxer who claims that he is one without any proof whatsoever. Corvus cornix 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My representative will talk to him.Hoolp 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and who is your representative? Corvus cornix 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoolp appears to be the ANI troll. Corvus cornix 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an OTRS message from one of the Travoltas about this. Sorry, can't remember which one. Until Rikki Lee contacts the Foundation with proof of his claims, we should stick to verifiability and reliable source guidelines. Particularly related to the claims at gueststarcasting.com that Rikki is a top draw in "Joseph and the Amazing...", I did a Lexis-Nexis search last year and could not find a single review of any theater production in any major newspaper of his performance, except for a small community theater in a Chicago suburb. Thatcher131 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter

Paul venter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a personal attack against User:Berks105 and User:Proteus describing them as idiots (see also [49]). Although he was asked about it, he has, till now, not apologized but rather confirmed his statement (see [50]). Perhaps someboy might take a look on it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Block

Not sure, can we request blocks here? Artaxiad 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Who? Why? --Deskana (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me, I reverted, with no explanation my parole, please block me, see Karabakh. Artaxiad 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is proposed to be banned for one year as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Artaxiad, if you have decided to leave voluntarily in advance of the decision becoming final, it would be better if you do so in a dignified fashion rather than disruptively. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Artaxiad 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

• SummerThunder (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

• He's being very persistent tonight. His latest sock is Tubesmerit (talk · contribs) and is trying to insult me by saying I have OCD. (I might very well have it. He'd be better off insulting my mom.) Is there anything else that can be done to prevent this guy from his juvenile pranks? JuJube 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • He's back as Gainswimgs (talk · contribs) (seriously, what?) and removed this notice from the page. JuJube 08:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything to do with OCD, JuJube or me is probably SummerThunder. – Riana ^talk 08:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make a request at checkuser. Other options might include protecting userspaces, depending on the scale of the attack and/or your preference. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• He's back as Shortvisit (talk · contribs). JuJube 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

       But the cat came back, the very next day;
       The cat came back -- they thought he was a goner, but
       The cat came back -- he just couldn't stay away....
  Honestly, I think I'm seeing the history of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups being recreated here. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked his usual IP ranges for 31 hours. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of libel

Several months ago we rolled back an extensive spamming scheme involving numerous domains owned by Business English Solutions International, LLC. These had been spammed by:

• Teachabroad (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 71.201.181.10 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Besi2008 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

The user then went on a rampage, first deleting the warnings then stating the employee adding the links had been fired, then accusing Wikipedia of libel and demanding the records be deleted.[51][52]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175#User talk:71.201.181.10
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190#Block IP for one week becuase of legal threat

They must have later rehired that rogue employee because earlier this week, that same IP added back a spam link.[53] At this point, all the domains were blacklisted.[54]

Today, 76.16.54.49‎ (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) deleted the warnings from User talk:Teachabroad with the edit summary "ATTORNEY HAUSLAIB REMOVED, RE: LIBEL".[55][56]

I reverted the deletion for now and warned 76.16.54.49.

Because all of the statements that were offensive to 71.201.181.10 et al were statements of fact verifiable by edit histories, I don't think the claim has much merit, however I don't pay the legal bills around here.

Since this involves a claim of libel, I thought it best to make note of it here where high-paid admins would know exactly how to handle this matter. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wikipedia:No legal threats comes to mind. Also... what 'high-paid admins'? :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Courtesy blanking, leaving the history, with a "this page has been left blank". That should satisfy all but the most weaselly lawyer and still send the message we want to send, namely: fuck off you spamming bastards. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done -- thanks for the advice. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Frederic Osborn School

Sir Frederic Osborn School The users sparrowpaul (a repeat offender) and n8talie are deleting and abusing the topic above. I strongly advise that this topic is protected from edit as it seems to be constantly abused. Richardson1975 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They seem to have deleted some rather controversial uncited allegations. If you want to restore them, please find some reliable sources for those allegations, and add them to article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

AN/I troll?

I vaguely remember the existence of what was known as the AN/I troll. I do not know the exact details, but, IIRC, they were new accounts that sprung up on AN and AN/I. Not assuming any bad faith, but this fella popped up today and his only edits have been to or about AN/I. Are the patterns similar or am I wayyyy off? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The same, IMO. He's been around a bunch today. Here's some others:

• SantAnnaOOPS (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• CharlieLump (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kelly'll (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Hear ye! Hear ye! (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

And I'm sure there will be more. Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked him then. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Add Hoolp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that list--VectorPotential^Talk 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007, again (!)

Parker007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user has exhausted the community's patience, and most certainly my own. I'd like to know if there is a good reason not to block him again, possibly indefinitely. I happened to notice that he moved his talk page to User:Parker007/article then blanked it and tagged it as {{db-userreq}}, and successfully duped the CSD folks into deleting it. I've restored his talk page history and moved it back to the correct location, as it will likely be referenced in future discussions. —freak(talk) 06:27, Mar. 28, 2007 (UTC)

The guy doesn't seem to stop his bot editing, despite many warnings. Maybe a block in accordance with the Bot policy? --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to have stopped using a bot...for now. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the problem that the bot is bad, or just that it's unauthorised? Unless it's uncorrectably bad, I suggest we should be encouraging him to improve it and seek authorisation. Carrot and stick, as it were.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Parker007_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_trolling.3F_WP:POINT.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Endgame1 Regards, Ben Aveling 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

Today's DYK featured article William Tecumseh Sherman has been under continious attack! Needs at least semi-protection. -- Camptown 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected until 23:59 UTC today. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Elastic_Input_Rascer appears to be on some kind of rampage

See contributions [57] - Basically He's making no-hoper deletion nominations, being uncivil when called on it, and generally exhibiuting weird or trollish behaviour. A block or (more likely) ban would probably be a good idea. Artw 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the signature and the first edit summary ("I'M BACK!")[58], it's possibly indef-blocked Mike Garcia - or someone pretending to be him. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged by User:Mike 7 two minutes before my note. Bonus points for speedy response. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the User page? If he is Mike Garcia, he doesn't need multiple User pages. If he isn't, he doesn't need to copy somebody else's User page. Corvus cornix 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed (talk · contribs)

I find 3RR kinda confusing, so could someone explain to me whether Ed has violated it at Wikipedia:Esperanza? He's made 4 edits in about thirty minutes but one wasn't technically reverting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article has now been fully protected at Ed's non-consensus version and it is unlikely such protection will be taken off again, can it be put back to Steve Block's version of February 28? That's the "stable version" which was originally written in January after the MfD. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means revert back if necessary, as I protected the page it's not right for me to do so, so I'm passing the buck Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, I reprotected the page for edit warring for 3 hours until Majorly has time to review it as he unprotected an hour ago, by all means unprotect it, or extend the protection if it's desired (You might wish to check the current version as well) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in violation of 3RR. The first edit was made to implement a compromise, the other 3 were reversions. The problem here is that YOU keep reverting without valid arguements. YOU revert because you claim that the essay was approved by a consensus established 3 months ago! I'M reverting because I firmly believe that the essay is biased.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate and ironic that a project dedicated to peace and understanding is causing conflict four months after it's death. The parties should move off user talk pages in favor of the Esperanza talk page, where the debate can be more "in the open". PTO 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh...it's not my fault. Back in December, there were talks both on WP and IRC to just let Esperanza naturally die down. It's too bad that an MfD had to be posted!

I ask that all admins dealing with this situation actually read my compromise attempt and judge for themselves whether my edits are harming the encyclopedia in any way.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise between what exactly? Every single person besides Ed is cool with the orginal version. Why should something have to harm the encyclopedia to be stupid? Why won't you realise that no-one's interested in any more changes to the essay? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Dev920. You need to pick your battles wisely, Ed. This really isn't something worth edit warring over. PTO 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just offered a truce to Dev. PTO, I'm sorry, but I just was never raised up to back down in fights. It's a Filipino-American thing: we always fight and compete; deal with it. To back down is a sign of weakness.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please restore orig version of Wikipedia:Esperanza and fully protect per truce offered on User talk:Dev920 and acceptance at User talk:Ed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which version, the version which Majorly originally protected? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By that I mean this version Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That one will do. If anyone has a problem, take it up with me on my talk page. However I belive this resolves the dispute. (If there is any problems with this I will revert to the version before I touched it) Viridae^Talk 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Viridae for sorting it, to everyone else, please don't edit war once the protection expires Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith, anonymous, incomplete AfDs

An anon user 68.236.21.101 (talk · contribs · logs) just added AfD templates to several clearly notable Penn State-related articles but has not created appropriate deletion discussion pages. Process would dictate I must leave the templates on these articles but if the nomination is incomplete or clearly in bad faith can they be removed as vandalism? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Vandalism that identifies bad-faith {{afd}} tagging as vandalism. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, anons can't complete AfD nominations, they have no way to create a discussion page, oddly though, there is nothing in policy that bans anons from creating AfD pages, they just have to be creative about it. All I'm saying is don't discount an anon AfD as vandalism just because they can't create a discussion page, that's a technical limitation, not policy based--VectorPotential^Talk 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr eisenburg

Can someone terminate this CSD ASAP as it contains seriously offensive libel. exolon 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. exolon 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter SEGA

A few months ago, a sockpuppeter was found to be SEGA (talk · contribs) through a RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA) and two more cases since then have led to 40 sockpuppet bans (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SEGA). I had recently made a third case, but it was declined because there was not ArbComm banning. Since then, there seems to be rampant escalation of sockpuppets again at User talk:Moeron, Marc Daubert, Parlor Tricks, and Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg including, but not limited to, FroBro22 (talk · contribs), Roe.mon (talk · contribs), LipidInterpid (talk · contribs), 68.112.20.9 (talk · contribs) (which is very close to the SEGA IP blocked, 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs)), WomanManWomanMan (talk · contribs). Besides the very similar editing manner, almost all use harsh edit summarys. The recent issues stem from Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg, which I tagged for speedy deletion with the summary "Repost of previously speedy deleted Image:DaubertAlbum.jpg; not an actual cover, but a cropped and doctored version of also deleted Image:Daubs.jpg." This is not the first time this image has been uploaded and deleted though, since it was also called Image:marcdaubert_part2.gif. I also had WP:PRODed Parlor Tricks, which I may send to WP:AFD now, since there is NO information anywhere about this album besides mirrors of Wikipedia information and http://www.marcdaubert.com is pretty bare. What I would like to know is, what should I do or where should I bring this up besides RFC, since it looks like it would be declined again? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could head to WP:CN and see if there's support for making a community ban explicit. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Luna's suggestion. I will also note now my endorsement of a community ban, because this person has far exceeded my patience limits, and I am pretty sure a lot of the community's as well. Daniel Bryant 10:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look into that. As for recently, look at the contributions of MoRonHater (talk · contribs) and EditPolice (talk · contribs), both who have targeted articles I have created with WP:PRODs, perhaps stemming from my PROD of Parlor Tricks. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with rollback or other quick way of reverting can undo the prods by MoRonHater (talk · contribs). Given the prod "reason" and this information, they are pretty clearly bad faith prods. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank, I appreciate it. As per suggestions here and for anyone interested, I start a page at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Community ban on User:SEGA. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at Philosophy of mind

InternetHero aka 63.135.9.214

versus

Lacatosias, Peterdjones, Edhubbard, brian0918

InternetHero repeatedly adds OR unsourced weird content, and blanking other people's complaints on their own talk pages. He's reverted over half a dozen times, and about to break 3RR. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-27 23:02Z

Incidentally, this report should have gone to WP:AN3RR. No technical 3RR violation visible in history, even making the obvious assumption that the IP editor is the named user. However, the behaviour is clearly disruptive, so I've left clear warnings on the user's talk page and the article's talk page. Further reversion without citing a source should lead to a block. GRBerry 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(adding an archive bottom tag because it was making the whole page show up purple ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) )

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

User:British Commonwealth Numismatics

Resolved

I believe that this is User:Aidan Work who is banned. My reasons are that he just created Postal Orders of the British Field Post Office in Kosovo. Aidan Work had created a series of Postal Order articles, most of which are now in Category:Postal Orders. I recently requested deletion for several of them which had no real information in them. The ones that remain needed a lot of work and are still generally not great articles. He also had a pattern of using "British Commonwealth" instead of "Commonwealth of Nations". Ingrid 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Highly unlikely to be anyone else. WP:RBI applies, blocked, now reverting. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again I find an indef-block but no WP:BANNED entry for Aidan Work. When and where was the ban declared? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal

User has been warned against involvement in the case of Natural History of South Asia mailing list (with which they have a WP:COI) and their disruptive edits to associated articles, talk pages and deletion debates. Despite this, the user continues to troll the article talk page. Chris cheese whine 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Horrorfiend138

• Horrorfiend138 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User has had nothing but unhelpful edits since registering. Does anyone else think an indefinite block is appropriate here? Been given many warnings to change his behavior and has already been blocked twice. VegaDark 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support it. I don't see anything productive about his edits. IrishGuy ^talk 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by user

Resolved

 – User informed of legal threat policy, and article properly attributed to prevent copyright violation

[59] by User:Chacie DGG 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Put a warning on the user talk page. If he continues to do this, after final warning, report him here again. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

However the user was correct that he page was a direct copyvio. I will inform the user. -- Avi 06:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

Banned User:Scottfisher appears to have another sock puppet User:71.80.39.237; possibly a second: User:216.193.137.98 (based on contributions). Andy Mabbett 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nudge Andy Mabbett 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

More from Mad kemist/Curious Gregor/Tim.Boyle

Mad kemist, a banned sockpuppet of Curious Gregor has replaced his talk page with a copy of my userpage, complete with commented-out blocks of biographical material [60]. This is not as flattering as Tim.Boyle & Curious Gregor's copying the commented-out material (e.g. the "ceci n'est pas un userbox" joke) from my page onto theirs (Tim.Boyle 16:07, 25 March 2007, Curious Gregor 18:16, 27 March 2007, Mad kemist is clearly just harassment. Note: I do not claim that the User:Curious Gregor/User:Tim.Boyle code copying is in anyway inappropriate. Tim.Boyle has explained that his userpage was created with code contributed by Mad kemist, a student that had been impersonating him on Wikipedia 12:25, 26 March 2007. I'd be more than angry if a grad student was banned from Wikipedia while impersonating me, Tim.Boyle makes friendly userbox change edits to Mad kemist's userpage 10:21, 26 March 2007. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete I found I liked your layout and realising you knew how to write wikicode I used your page as a basis of mine. I had not realised there were editted out bits, but as they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS does anyone else find this Curious Gregor userbox to be unnecessarily inflammatory? [61]:

This user despises people who use American spellings.

Pete.Hurd 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact, I am from England and the corruption of our language by America is a massive bugbear of mine that induces great fury. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes should not be used to promote hate, or dispising. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Off main subject But can they be used for humour without everyone getting upset?

NO!	This user is proud NOT to be an American...They'll kill us all!

as seen on my user pagePedro |  Talk  15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

YES!	This user is proud to be an American...We'll kill you all! Muuuuaaaaaahahahaha!

WAS 4.250 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last one could be funny, depending on who uses it, but all three are divisive and inflammatory. An MfD would probably be best. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You see, I find the recreation of that box by WAS 4.250 to be very funny. I think we spend too long looking at what may offend certain groups and not enough time building an encyclopedia. If you find any of the above divisive and inflammatory I might sugest Wikipedia isn't the place for you (not a personal comment to Deskana - a general one). There's far more mud and rocks slung around this place in edit wars that really is inflamatory. I seem to remember a lovely war between User:Jeffpw and User:Zoe (now retired) when she (as an admin!) removed content from his user page. Anyhow, I guess one persons humour is another ones insult and this is off subject. Just shoving in my 2 cents (or pence!!!)

Asucena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting confirmation/discussion from my fellow administrators regarding my actions in relation with user:Asucena. The user keeps on editing in what appears to be violations of WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:POINT. Most recently, the user re-added POV edits to the article Move America Forward four times in 24 hours. The user is well aware of 3RR. Further, the user is returning AfD tags on an article closed as keep. Please note the edit summary. Lastly, I think I am trying my best to be respectful and cordial, and the user decides to remove explanations of policies that they are actually well aware of, calling it censorship. The last is not much of an issue, for there is a record of them having seen it.

I have placed a 48 hour block for the combination of violations.

With the user a self-professed employee of the PNA, I am bringing this up here for a more thorough discussion. Thank you. -- Avi 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The block looks like a good call. I'm concerned about the surrounding dynamics. Has anyone checked the bona fides on this editor? Note the links from this Signpost tipline:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Wikipedia:_target_for_jihadists.2C_source_for_U.S._Government_intelligence Also, Grace Note's persistent and aggressive refusal to WP:AGF has been fanning the flames. I've already asked that editor to tone things down with no success. More eyes and more opinions would be helpful here. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on your talkpage, Avi, an admin blocking a user they are involved in a content dispute with is not a good idea. You don't seem to accept that, which is a worry. I believe the block was entirely justified, although 24 hours would have been sufficient, but I think you should have noted the problem here and allowed someone else to make the block. Allowing yourself to be painted as abusive is not a good idea when dealing with a troll.

Durova, I have left you a note on your talkpage. Your comment is entirely unacceptable. People have to be permitted to disagree with each other without then finding that the people they disagreed with mischaracterise them and attack them in other places. Grace Note 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to Grace Note at my user talk page and have no apologies for the comment above, which I believe is merited by that user's actions. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw setting up an offensive userpage

I'm not sure if this is really against some policy, but I somehow feel this is surely against the project spirit.

user Jeffpw has settup an (IMHO) offensive message on his user page[62] (using an equally offensive edit summary), where he equates "well meaning wikipedians'" to an anus.

I have edited his page to something else, and left him a message explaining that the previous version of the page was not a good thing.

He removed my comment, and some others, classifying them as "useless garbage" in the edit summary[63]. and reverted his user page to the (IMHO) offensive version[64].

I proffered to ask for some intervention here instead of edit-warring over this user's own userpage. As I said, I don't know for sure if some policy was violated, but his page simply doesn't seem ok.

(User:Jeffpw's last edit summaries seems to show that he's not in a good mood lately. )

--Abu badali ^(talk) 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, while you were probably typing this, Jeff changed his userpage as a compromise. Your description is no longer accurate nor is his userpage now offensive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He just moved the attack elsewhere, now directly targeting me.

I no longer have the guts to deal with this kink of behavior. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) 3 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup. See this edit summary. Corvus cornix 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm he seems very agitated. I've reverted and protected for the duration of the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The message at the top of his talk page doesn't give me the confidence he'll make any attempts at cooperative editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check for yourself and assume good faith. Jeffpw 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need is some hope. --218.186.8.10 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that is probably the most astute observation made yet in this fiasco. Thank you, anon IP. And my apologies to the community for being offensive. I have shared with a few people what is going on with me, and wil try not to take my own problems out on anyone else again. This is my last comment on the subject. Jeffpw 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you never took Spanish. Now, if you excuse me, I have to investigate a cookie problem. --218.186.8.10 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Last comment by me mysteriously has disapeared and been salted???? Hmmm...WP:CABAL.. User:Jeffpw is a very solid editor, and although the block was justified (IMHO), the current state of his user page is way calmer than a lot of user pages round here. Isn't this debate now flogging the deceased equine? Pedro |  Talk  13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Brandt

Revisiting this thread, Daniel Brandt is again posting to Talk:Daniel Brandt; some editors have tried to remove his comments while others have reverted them [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. Once and for all, does "banned" mean banned (in which case several editors need a trout slap), or does "banned" mean banned (unless you are Daniel Brandt). Thatcher131 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think that banned users shouldn't be allowed to edit , at all, for any reason. If he has something to say he can email the office. Allowing banned users to enter into discussions sends entirely the wrong message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Venus Envoi and user:Kangaroo Courtier are SPAs, probably Brandt. Don't know about User:Weena Eloi ... Corvus cornix 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the talk page for two weeks and posted a request that Mr. Brandt submit WP:BIO issues via the Foundation. Any living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia biography article has a legitimate right to raise that type of issue. The proper venue for a banned editor is via the Wikimedia Foundation. Let's choose our words carefully and avoid making a bad situation even more confrontational. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa and Durova completely. Brandt does not become an exception to the rules just because he makes more of a fuss than anyone else- posts by banned users should be reverted on sight. He is free to email his concerns... WjBscribe 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned means banned. If he wants to correct factual inaccuracies he should use back channels. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the bad blood that already circulates here let's express that diplomatically. The article talk thread about this started on a sour note. Mr. Brandt has as much right as anyone to express his BLP concerns. Let's point him in the appropriate direction for his circumstances. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He knows already. This has been ongoing for ever! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

I don't see what the big deal is, if he's only editing the talk page of his own article, and only doing so to correct inaccuracy or point out unreliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He should be allowed to point out problems with his article on the talk page, banned or not. The letter of policy doesn't matter; we aren't robots, we are able to think and adapt as the situation requires. If we are going to insist on having an article against his wishes, we should at least have the common courtesy of allowing him to edit the talk page. There is no reason to remove his comments just to be vindictive, while claiming "Oh, it's policy, I have no choice." You do have a choice. Just let it go. Frise 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned == not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. Should he have concerns, there are e-mail addresses he can contact. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Thatcher, Theresa, JzG, and Deskana, and I'm finding it hard to understand why people keep restoring his posts instead of just accepting that as a banned user he can e-mail his concerns to any admin and/or to the Foundation. It's not as if upholding the rule against letting banned users edit has to lead to inaccuracies in the article. There's a certain procedure he can follow if he wants to report a problem. Let him follow it. ElinorD (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple: If it is so absolutely imperative that he be allowed to edit, then figure out some way to get him officially unbanned by arbcom/the foundation, either from just his talk page or from Wikipedia as a whole. Until then, stop violating policy and common sense by letting the banned troll post. --tjstrf talk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is he only needs to post and then to a large extent whether or not his posts are removed is irrelevant because as long as they remain in the history anyone can look at them and decide whether his BLP concerns are worth investigating and/or acting upon. If the wikimedia office are willing to present his BLP concerns to the editors on the talk page (removing legal threats, personal attacks on third parties etc) that would be great but if not then I would rather see his edits on the talk page though I dont support the restoring of these edits iof another user removes them, SqueakBox 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am aware that Mr. Brandt has already been informed of the site's banning policy and I see no need to either carve out an exception for him or to wring our hands about it. There is nothing special going on here; people get sitebanned all the time and people who are the subject of Wikipedia biographies contact the Foundation all the time. A calm and evenhanded approach is best here. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Banned means someone isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia. This doesn't affect their ability to report BLP or accuracy issues which can still be sent in through email. He's still able to share his concerns if he's banned without posting to the wiki, so I don't see a reason to compromise the ban to allow for something he can already do while banned. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article talk page is not the same as editing an article. AFAIK, the talk page of his article is the only place he edits. How far are you people willing to go to continue to persecute this individual. Killa Kitty 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the word persecute. I have had no involvement in this issue other than to semiprotect the talk page. That certainly doesn't count as persecution. Durova^Charge! 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt policy

User:Veesicle has made a proposal on this talk page suggesting that the banning policy should be amended to allow people to comment on articles about themselves. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Frise

Resolved

 – Invalid request to block. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is not for this purpose.

Frise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used her first edit in nearly a month (of an already sporadic editing history) on an admin's talk page regarding a new editor's block.[70] As a non-regular contributor and a person who is also interested in changing BLP (as the others sock puppets related to that block) it is strange for a non-interested person to make his first edit in a while back on an admin's page citing that checkuser. Her first ever edit was removing material citing BLP, which is pretty good for a new account to know for their first edit.[71] Her second ever edit was the redirect of his talk.[72] User was asked if he had any other accounts, but declined to reply.[73] A check user did not show any connection IP to the other sock puppets.

I find this user's editing interest in a blocked sock puppet, advancing editing skills, and refusal to reply if she has another account to be troublesome. WP:SOCK is not forbidden, but for the sake of transparency it would be nice if a temporary block on the account would force some accountability (meaning telling what her other wiki account is). Arbustoo 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me get this straight: You have already had me checkusered, but it turned up nothing. So now what you want to do is have someone block me until I cough up some username that doesn't exist, so you will know if I'm doing something that's not forbidden. And all of this is because I have advanced editing skills and defended a guy who I feel was improperly blocked. That's... something. Frise 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Frise, a check user means the IP doesn't show a connection. That's all it means. Feel free to explain why your first edit in a long time concerned the banned account and why you cited policy in your first ever edit. Arbustoo 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Frise here. The argument seems to be "He is doing something acceptable, and a checkuser result confirmed that it wasn't abusive, but we should force him to stop doing it anyway". That is very strange. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of openess, when inquiring about a sock puppet block you should admit your other accounts. WP:SOCK allows role accounts in certain instances. While it is not explicitly forbidden, in this case the edits/socks are tied to User:BryanFromPalatine, a perm. banned/disruptive sock puppet, and Frise is arguing to unblock another BryanFromPalatine tied account, which admitted to having, but did not give the name of the previous accounts.[74]. Arbustoo 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this extremely strange... If the user doesn't want to admit his previous account, (if he has one), and has all legitimate edits on the current one, I don't see any reason why you are bothering him. Im pretty sure it is covered under Right to vanish. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some blocks for review

• Kzq9599 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• WPBio (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
  

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599:

• Jpgordon blocked Kzq9599 as a BryanFromPalatine sock
• I blocked WPBio for following in the footsteps, edit warring at WP:BLP, tendentious editing, and because it is inconceivable that this editing pattern and this choice of articles would come from a genuinely new user
• I blocked NeilinOz1 because he is editing using proxies, editing disruptively and again following in the footsteps.

Please review. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse. The checkuser case makes a compelling argument and the three users' focus and prose style are near-identical. Even if they aren't meatpuppets, it's clear that they're here to push a POV with wikilawyering. Good blocks, Guy. A Train^{take the} 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse all of the above blocks. WP:DUCK. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that WPBio was not a sockpuppet. Why was the checkuser case used as evidence to block him? Why are his user and talk pages protected so that he can't even appeal the block? He already stated on his talk page that he isn't a new user. He's edited in the past. Also, he has not edit warred at WP:BLP. Frise 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because his editing pattern is identicval to that of a banned user with a history of ban evasion. Editing from a separae IP is not that hard. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, Guy, BryanFromPalatine isn't on WP:BANNED, he's just indef-blocked. If you could point me toward a reference to verify his banning, I'll add him to the page. Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people aren't listed on WP:BU because the edit sometimes falls through the cracks. In this case see here. Thatcher131 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

2843 fair use images on 4247 userpages

I have scanned every fair use images and found all of them that are being displayed on a user page. There are 2843 fair use images on 4247 user pages. The full list of such images and the userpages they are on can be found here: User:HighInBC/FU_in_userspace. It is complete as of today. Images in Category:Fair use images used with permission have been filtered out already. So if you are bored, that is something to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get cracking on those. Is there any way that we could get a public service message in the Signpost reminding editors that fair use images are a no go for userspace? Failing that, HIB, do you want to post a reminder at the Village Pump about this? A Train^talk 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats the beef with this? Can we just go removing the pictures from userpages, or do we ask the user first? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can remove the images immediately - after all, it's copyright law we are dealing with. Of course, I think we should tell the user when we remove the images why we did so. x42bn6 Talk 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals last year. But prepared to be flamed regardless. --Iamunknown 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a template, Template:FUUser to leave on talk pages of users who have images removed. Any input and improvements are welcomed. A Train^talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think userspace should be in there somewhere, because the images might be on subpages which technically aren't their user page. But I think this could be confusing because not all newcomers know about namespaces. x42bn6 Talk 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thought. A Train^talk 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also: If you're going through HiBC's list, don't forget to remove images and users from the list once you've purged the images. A Train^talk 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot 3. Picaroon 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a list of all fair use images in all namespaces except the main (minus the exceptions)? --Iamunknown 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The query.php interface lets you specify a single namespace or all of them. I can alter my script later to list all namespaces other than the main space, but there will be many more false positives. I thought I would start with the user space as that is where most of them seem to be. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User HighInBC put this not on his report page "Important note: some templates such as {{Money}} put an image in the fair use category even if it may be appropriately licensed or in the public domain. I will be attempting to screen out these categories as best I can but please check to be sure an image is only fair use before removing them from a page." And yet when I logged in someone removed a PD image tagged with the money template from my userspace (I uploaded, which is why it is in my gallery.) If people are going to take this task on as busy-work, don't do it as a bot, ok? SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• A minor idea, not from an administrator: rather than removing the image, how about replacing it with an image which has a big picture saying "Sorry" and smaller "click for info why your picture was removed". The linked picture, would explain about the rules in an apologetic sort of way. Might reduce the rage from editors many of whom acted in good faith. Notinasnaid 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AGF on username policies

I understand that Handicap on wheels, who also happened to be at my house yesterday :( , had a username similar to Willy on Wheels, and his block was completely justified. [75] But aren't we supposed to be assuming good faith with all editors? This user picked the name "Handicap on wheels" because--well...he's handicapped and on a wheelchair! Is it possible to change the blocking policy to say that an admin can't block on sight until a suspected vandal edits? --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock because this still implies a vandalism account, and will distract people from the encyclopedia, any On wheels, post or pre fix will do the same Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But any user with an *oW suffix should be given the same benefit of the doubt as with any other user. That is the principles established in WP:AGF--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when we've had so many issues in the past with it, and not when it's clearly written in policy that any name which implies a past vandal is blocked on sight. However hard people try to assume good faith with this name, many will still see it as a Willy on wheels vandal Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames referring to illnesses or disabilities are not allow either per WP:U#Illness. The admin should have done a soft block for a username, I have changed it so a new account can be made. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another example of how people block with ACB on. I'm also finding a lot of reports on WP:AIV for usernames that are not blatant violations of the username policy, but are perhaps not even violations at all. --Deskana (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The same may be true for WP:RFCN, it sometimes seems as if there is an insular group of well-intentioned but quick-triggered folks who are blocking (or advocating the block of) usernames that are not reasonably offensive. The "someone might find it offensive" argument seems to be very popular, and I urge wider watchlisting of the page to help make sure that good noobs aren't being chased off. It's often very helpful to have outside insight in these discussions from people who aren't part of the daily WP:RFCN grind, one reason I've begun participating lately, but I'm just zis guy, you know? And the longer I stay there, the more I risk falling into a rut too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RIght now RFCN looks more like a battleground. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've pissed off the American Bar Association

Apparently. I deleted the page Michael S. Greco that was a blatant copyright infringement off their website, although it was clearly a notable person. It was created by the account User:ABAORG (Username vio?) Anyway, then I get this email from them:

Dear Swatjester:

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's media board and practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by you or someone using your member name. The reasoning given for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and an expert on copyright infringement as a practicing attorney, I would like an explanation behidn this lien of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his activities as president and in his practice in Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association.

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, J. Nichols.

So, what to do? I replied and told them that the page was deleted because it was GFDL incompatable due to lack of attribution. I did not mention the Username issue nor the conflict of interest issue, I'll leave that to someone else. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what happens, the ABA should not be editing their own articles. Tell them that they need to release their website into the GFDL as well. Oh, and be careful with the ABA. They might take legal actions.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't "need to release their Web site into the GFDL." All they have to do is post a statement on the talk page licencing that particular biographical text under the GFDL. Of course, that means that the text can then be edited, rewritten and modified as a Wikipedia entry. FCYTravis 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• They've be maintaining a page about Mr. Greco and want it restored because it is essentially used as an advertisement for the American Bar Association and his "blue ribbon commission activities"? Sounds like an extreme corporate conflict of interest. You may wish to explain to them that we are attempting to develop and neutral encyclopedia (maybe don't give them that link, it's a bit much) to give away free to everyone. To do that, we try to develop our own articles and discourage editors who may have a conflict of interest from editing articles related to that interest. --Iamunknown 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple instances now where User:ABAORG claims that the ABA maintains this article, as if it is some sort of ownership.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a real lawyer would know his request has no authority behind it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, C-SPAN caps are NOT in the public domain. It is not government-owned, it is owned by a consortium of cable companies and was created to placate the FCC. Common misconception, but the fact that it holds copyright over all its broadcasts was clearly revealed in the fallout of the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I will say that the quality of the writing and argument is pretty far from anything I've ever seen out of any lawyer in the firm that I work for... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously, Swatjester and HighInBC type faster than me. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:[email protected] them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd forward that e-mail to the Foundation and request advisement. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be okay with you all if I rewrote the article? I'm not an admin, so I'm less vulnerable to the ABA's claims of unilateral action. However, you admins might be more open to attack.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how being an admin or not being an admin has anything to do with it. It should be acceptable for you to rewrite the article. Go for it. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's up on eletion review at the moment now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, what's the foundation's email? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I deleted the offending images too, two of which contained explicit copyright notices in the image and no licensing information or FU rationale, and one of which was a C-span screen capture tagged as "public domain". I'd think a lawyer would understand the concept of that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the simplest way.[76] Note your username in the heading and what this is about, possibly send it attention Cary Bass. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can hook this guy and the Hamas chick up, and they can edit each other's articles? - Crockspot 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like it's a hoax too, because when I forwarded it, it showed the email for ABAORG as ahannigan123 at yahoo dot com .Doesn't seem like a J nichols or the ABA to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Email the ABA anyway...they might have some interest with the article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If this email came from the person in claimed to, the key point would be "the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page" -- under WP:OWN no one person or entity "maintains" any wikipedia page, it must be released under the GFDL so that it is free for anyone to edit, If this is a Hoax, as seems not unlikely from the above, it can simply be ignored. Contacted that ABA to tell them that someone apparently copied their web pages and someone else claimed that this was authorized, but wikipeda has deleted the copied content seems like a reasonable idea. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:LuckyandLucky

Problematic user who seems hellbent on changing every instance of "Korea and Japan" to "Japan and Korea". He is also an active member of a 2channel thread called "Let's make resistance to the Koreans filling Wikipedia with false information" (approximate translation), whose entire purpose is to give birth to new meatpuppets and single account users, just as this one. [77] here he identifies as this user and writes: >>237にまっかちゃんが光臨してるよ。

Korea and JapanをJapan and Koreaにしただけで、SocksPapetっていう理由でRVしてる 典型的なコリアンを、彼は中立なんて擁護してて笑える。

スウェーデン云々も、ザパニーズ代わりに使ってると思われ。 本当に分かりやすい朝鮮人だよな。マッカちゃんは。 Translation (approximate) "237 (another user), you're being fooled by Mackan. All I did was changing "Korea and Japan" around to "Japan and Korea", but he reverted me with no other reason than "SocksPapet" (sic). He's a typical Korean and that somebody could call him "neutral" makes me wanna laugh. He's just pretending to be Swedish, and nobody will be fooled by that act". Obvious single purpose account/meatpuppet. Mackan 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Account

This user has reverted/deleted/re-worded TechCrunch#Criticism 17 times. In fact, that is his entire contribution to Wikipedia. His reverts are in direct violation of the agreed terms of this Mediation cabal, which he declined to participate in. The purpose of the mediation cabal was to determine the wording of TechCrunch#Criticism, largely for his benefit.

The user has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage, and every effort has been made to engage him in reasoned discussion. I submit this account only exists to vandalize TechCrunch#Criticism and suggest that it be deleted.

Any response is appreciated, we have been trying to deal with this since January 23, and we are exhausted. Thank you, Jonathan Stokes 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I notified him about it, hope he takes it to heart. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user does not seem to respond to any sort of response. He/she appears to only edit the article and its talk page. x42bn6 Talk 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon, may I point out that his editor is not a vandal, but a tendentious editor. Although it may appear that I am splitting hairs (because we do not want editors from either category), down the road it will be important. If this editor does not change his ways & is indefinitely blocked, we'd look foolish if when he complains that we labelled his edits as vandalism & argued that we didn't respect his POV. (All of the worst pains-in-the-behind do this.) If we say that this is a single-purpose account & that he has refused to engage you in conversation, so we had no option except to block him, then he looks foolish. ("I was blocked on Wikipedia. They're all jerks!" -- "Did you try to discuss your opinions with anyone?" -- "Well, er...") -- llywrch 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Llywrch, x42bn6, and BuickCenturyDriver. So far, the user has stopped editing, so with any luck, this will become a non-issue... Fingers crossed, Jonathan Stokes 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Username "Cockerstar" inappropriate?

I indefblocked Cockerstar (talk · contribs) on the basis of inappropriate username. I then got an email from this user saying that his name has something to do with a paintball gun called an "autococker". I am aware that "to cock" can be a completely non-sexual and non-offensive verb, but is the username "Cockerstar" appropriate? Thank you for your input. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure myself, but you could post the name at WP:RFCN for input from others. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a legit thing: http://www.google.com/search?&q=Cockerstar paintball - Denny 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Cockerstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s one and only edit was vandalism, shouldn't that supersede any discussion about their username?--VectorPotential^Talk 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. Look at his one contribution: [78]. Either the Aztec scholars have a big surprise coming to them, or we should keep him indefinitely blocked per the Wikipedia:Username#Blocking section on borderline inappropriate usernames coupled with vandalism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Er ... what VP said. Darn slow 'net connection. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I was thinking that one edit could have been a test. Maybe I'm taking WP:AGF too far.. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see the contrib. Nevermind then. Who knew the Mayans worshipped a guy from the United States that apparently is a paintball star? - Denny 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, the username is not offensive. If you want to indefinitely block someone over a single case of vandalism, then I can't stop you (even though it's grossly inconsistent with typical practices), but autocockers (or cockers) are extremely well-known in paintball. I can see the logic in asking about it. Blocking based on it was incredibly premature and inappropriate. And using it in any capacity to decide whether or not to unblock is just plain wrong. If you think that indefinite blocks based on a single act of vandalism are very typical and normal, then so be it. But, if not, then you really need to lift the block. Bladestorm 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments here and at WP:RFCN, I'm unblocking this user. There seems to be a rough consensus that the username is ok, but the vandal edit was not (obviously), but since there was only one edit, I am unblocking. Cheers all, Fang Aili ^talk 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nifty! Thanks. :D Bladestorm 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is more of a point of clarification, but aren't usernames using two-way words in questionable ways also verboten? I mean there are lots of words for everything from cats to sports equipment that also are euphamisms... Wintermut3 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about WP:SPS#Self-published_sources and vandalism in Tamilnet

Some editors are continually trying to remove a source since the inception of the article. One of the current one removing the source was even banned for violating the 3RR rule. They are trying to remove the following peer reviewed article.

“Mark, Whittaker (2006-08-31). "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet". Anthropological Quarterly’’.archive of article

Anthropological quarterly is peer reviewed journal not a self published magazine. The author Mark Whitaker. Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of South Carolina. Can an Admin get involved to resolve this dispute as it looks pretty much like WP:Vand and using Wikipedia as a Battleground because of personal opinion. Thanks RaveenS 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sethdoe92 (talk · contribs)

This may just be a simple joke, or it may be something more sinister, but this user has just commented on JuJube's Rfa and Cla68's Rfa with some fairly trollish remarks. All looks well on the surface, but it's those hidden comments which concern me. Looking over the user's contribs, there doesn't seam to be much constructive editing. Any idea's? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now he's nominated someone for adminship and attempted to "bribe" Ryan. It's a kid, I'll bet, but he's pretty disruptive. I'll have a talk with him. A Train^talk 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with User:J intela

I seem to have a problem with J intela harassing me. I suspect that J intela, Aaab123, Envireprortector, User:69.113.0.225 and User:69.74.164.10 are sockpuppets. I say this because the latter two users are brand new and have only contributed to an article that J intela is editing without discussion and my user talk page and one of the IPs is a shared school IP.

An attempt to circumvent WP:3RR, I feel, is supported by J intela's edit, 69.74.164.10's edit, and Envireprortector's edit.

In addition, J intela's contribs (note the 15 consecutive posts to my talk page), Aaab123 contribs, and 69.113.0.225's contribs show not only similarities between these accounts but what I think is a concerted effort to harass me. Thank you for your time. --Chuck Sirloin 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

False report of living person death

Anon user IP 68.42.110.138 reported on March 19, 2007, that Ed Walker had died. This is false, as I have personally verified by phone call today to radio station WAMU-FM, where Mr. Walker still is very much living and does a weekly radio show.

I have completely re-written the article in question, which was woefully in need of improvement anyway, and added a BLP tag (which it lacked before).

Just thought you should know, given the recent unfavorable publicity Wikipedia has had over similar instances. (WAMU-FM was unaware of the false info. about their radio personality in Wikipedia until I called to verify this) JGHowes ^talk - 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with a similar incident on RC patrol - a report that Jason Priestly committed suicide (diff). I hope it doesn't become an elephant-sized plague. YechielMan 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It happened again with Mistah F.A.B. (diff). YechielMan 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed username block

James Hetfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see James Hetfield), formerly Wesborland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wes Borland). This is a good faith editor, but he's using the name of a famous person in contravention of WP:USERNAME. The user was warned of this issue a month ago but hasn't acted.

I will block the old account immediately, and propose blocking the current account James Hetfield (talk · contribs) subject to approval here. --kingboyk 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd support it, but wouldn't WP:RFCN be a better place to discuss it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really, that seems to be a debating shop. There's no doubt that this name isn't allowable; I simply want to be sure that it's proper to block as opposed to some other softer measure. --kingboyk 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ny only concern with it is, the {{UsernameConcern}} template says that if the user doesn't agree with it, it should be taken to other forms of dispute resolution first before blocking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Has this person just been asked politely to choose a new username and make a request at WP:CHU? That seems the 'softest' option. WjBscribe 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he was advised of that in February. However, I've left another message advising him that he'll need to think of a new username. --kingboyk 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going for that option then, I'd say leave the account open for a few days and Username block if there's still no response, it can always be unblocked later Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just wait till he does his next edits after the notice is given? If he goes idle a week or three and gets blocked in four days for not replying it sort of defeats the purpose of asking. :) - Denny 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

24.218.135.18

This is a transcript of the attempted blocking of this user:

• 24.218.135.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-Keeps tampering with his talk page and removed a comment from mine when I undid his reversion.--Jorfer 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• 3 months between edits? I'm inclined to believe that their ISP really did re assign them an IP with pre existing edits to wikipedia, it's happened to me in the past--VectorPotential^Talk 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why would he come after me then? Also, he has posted taunting on his talk page before. He put a deltion template on his own talk page so he would not be blocked and take it off later most likely.--Jorfer 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors are given great latitude on their own Talk page. Why would this be considered vandalism? --ElKevbo 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He removed comments made against him to keep from being blocked last time and this time he is trying a new strategy.--Jorfer 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He's almost certianly a new user, on the same IP. Why would he contribute constructively for 5 months before resorting to vandalism? To throw us off the track? The edit made to his page in October 2006 was clearly made by a different user--VectorPotential^Talk 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems this person is trying to cover up his actions by replacing his talk page and now attempting to delete it. Tracing the IP gave me Berkeley, California so if this doesn't change in a while well know.--Jorfer 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking into it, it is probably a coincidence that a comment was removed from my page the day after I reverted his talk page, and it seems to be a shared address dynamic IP.--Jorfer 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't really look like a sharedip, are you quite sure? To me, it just looks like an ordinary dynamic IP that changes owners every few months. Either way, there hasn't been a single act of vandalism from this user for several dozen weeks--VectorPotential^Talk 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Except the removal of a comment from my page.--Jorfer 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite once more

Can somebody have a look at Deucalionite (talk · contribs) and take action if deemed necessary? Deucalionite seems to conceive of his activities on Wikipedia as some kind of breaching experiment, as stated now on his userpage: "any questionable/dubious statements or actions on my part are solely for social experimentation purposes (i.e. studying various user-to-user behavior dynamics, facets of the inhibition effect, HCI dynamics, etc.)" ([79]). He has made similar claims before: [80], [81]. Exactly what kinds of disruptive behaviour he is envisaging is not clear at this point - he's in fact been relatively well-behaved recently. Back when he made those earlier rants it was when he had been caught red-handed at plagiarism and copyright violations. And in fact, among his latest few contributions there are again two dubious pieces. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but they are both very close paraphrases of their respective sources, so close that I would qualify them as plagiarism: Battle of Steppes from [82], and Battle of Mergentheim from [83].

I've had rather painful dealings with Deucalionite about similar issues and he's not been on speaking terms with me since then, so I'd rather not be the one to approach him this time if it can be avoided.

Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Spanish language

Checkuser has confirmed that Ferreterrera (talk · contribs) and El Rojo (talk · contribs), both participating in the edit war at Spanish language, are the same person. Can an administrator please take care of this? Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Username of famous person? User:SteveLamacq43

I noticed User:SteveLamacq43 has the same name as Steve Lamacq who is a famous radio DJ in the UK. Looking at his edits I don't think it can be the same guy, unless he edits Wikipedia when he's on air, and it's an unusual name. 172.159.215.5 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It could just be his name. A lot of people have the same name. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is an unacceptable personal attack by User:Belbo Casaubon: [84]. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours and suggested a cool down, after checking the contribs, there was more than one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Burkem, Burkem17

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

An indefinitely banned user, Burkem (possibly a lunatic, but I digress), is admittedly evading his ban, as the user Burkem17, as you can see here. Charles 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueking12

Some advice is requested for Blueking12. He registered today and all his edits are adding various tags to articles...most of which are nonsense [85] [86] [87]. Some may be due to not knowing what he is doing, others seem like outright disruption. I have him a vandal1 warning and he seems to have stopped since then. Any ideas? Does he look like a past editor who may have been disruptive? IrishGuy ^talk 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the tags added in the diffs provided makes me believe this is not a "new" user. That said, there's no reason not to WP:AGF, but I'd think it would be right to leave the appropriate sequence of templates if the user continues to add inappropriate tags. --Onorem 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting myself

Please let me know if this edit I made was the proper thing to do. The anon admits to be a previously-banned user who has been making accusations of murder against Anna Nicole Smith's boyfriend, and has now engaged in an anti-Semitic rant. If you feel that my action was improper, please let me know, and I will add it back. Corvus cornix 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You were correct. --tjstrf talk 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Benji1996

Please review the user history for Benji1996, especially the repeated nonsense related to Jimmy Buffett as being a children's musician. The user clearly has some sort of agenda and has caused several folks to waste a lot of time reverting nonsense. Some sort of block appears to be in order. I did not post this to the AIV page because they usually say to go here instead, so I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place. 1995hoo 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Vunvjorhimm

Vunvjorhimm (talk · contribs)
With his/her sock puppets they are making a mockery of the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entarians. Also the article in question needs to be deleted. It has been tagged as a speedy delete forever.--Bryson 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Full list of socks seen so far. User is also adding citations to sources which do not actually say any of the things he claims them to say in violation of WP:ATT.

• Vunvjorhimm (talk · contribs) [88][89]
• Hessosuwonae (talk · contribs) [90]
• 153.90.117.3 (talk · contribs) [91]
• 153.90.125.166 (talk · contribs) This comment [92] on Talk:Koreans almost identical to what Vunvjorhimm said on the Afd
• Flyingdannish (talk · contribs) [93]

Can this be reported to Montana State University as network abuse? cab 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BboyKT

Someone needs to check out the recent activity at the user page of BboyKT (talk · contribs). There seems to be some sort of name-calling war going on between said user and an IP address 24.64.167.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user in question has only edited their own user page, and such edits seem entirely non-productive and pointless. This may need looking into by an admin. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to think that Wikipedia is a free web blogging website.... Just give the user a note about WP:NPA or WP:NOT#BLOG and notify an admin if the user continues in having no contributions to Wikipedia. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done just that. I left a welcome template and a friendly personal note about proper use of userpages at Wikipedia. If the situation doesn't improve, I will be back to let y'all know. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforce Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

The decision reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books does not appear to have been enforced. Seems closing admin, IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) (who has since left) indicates that any user with less than 100 articlespace edits should have their autograph pages deleted. Can someone do this? Not a dog 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way I am going to be the one to check users' editcounts, delete the page, and probably have to deal with the user's injured feelings afterwards, and/or someone having their page deleted, then making enough edits to go over the 100 barrier and asking to have it back again (possibly making obviously useless edits purely for that end). In fact in writing this I've worked myself up to the point where I almost think this close should be reviewed, it being horribly against the goals of our project to say that once you've made an arbitrary number of edits to articlespace, you can have a certain type of page which has absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopaedia as a reward. Thing is, I don't really care. Oh, what the hell, I'll go and open it now before anyone goes and creates a shitstorm over these stupid things. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Autograph_books. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did look at the first 8 or so and none of them had under 100 edits. Viridae^Talk 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

None of them had under 100 edits total, or none of them had under 100 edits to articles? Natalie 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Boatnick is a sock...

Could someone have a peek at Boatnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Given that his very first contribution was to add a template with the edit summary "This Biography is bias and in need of work. Currently a wiki gang of Dem's own this article with lame sockpuppet excuses, effectivly locking out efforts to netrualize the POV pushers.", I have a strong suspicion that this editor is a sock of somebody.

He's gotten involved in an edit war on Peter Roskam. Does anyone recognize this editing pattern as belonging to a specific puppeteer? If there's someone who recognizes this as a definite sock, please jump in and block. I don't have time at the moment to investigate properly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely a sock of DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On his second edit he removes an edit made by his nemesis, Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the basis that he has been banned (which he was, today, though his edit was made several months ago, and removal of edits by banned users is not retroactive). Guy is the expert on this conflict, so he'll be able to confirm, methinks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, agree with above) Given that he went after User:BenBurch and User:Fairness And Accuracy For All ([94], [95]), I'd suspect User:BryanFromPalatine. Regardless, the User:Boatnick account falls pretty close to the category of "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet", which (per WP:RFCU) warrants a block without the need for checkuser or further investigation. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack block—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Collins Chronicles

Resolved

Creator of the page has removed the speedy deletion tag five times now. He is also requesting that an admin email him about the article before deleting it. Obviously, third opinion here, and whoever deletes this should grant this request and tell him what's wrong. Hbdragon88 06:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, AuburnPilot. Situation resolved. Hbdragon88 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First I was Lukas Pietsch, now I am Aucaman

[in a private email, I have been accused of being a sock of Aucaman (talk · contribs) b]ut I am not Aucaman. The similar editing topics creeps me out, but I'm still not Aucaman. What should I make of this? What should I do? Is a gang waiting to RFC me? And these [96][97] ? The Behnam 11:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it will suffice if you put a clear statement on your userpage that you have not edited under other accounts (or, if you have, not abusively, and that you are not Aucaman), and require of your accusers that they come up front with their allegations instead of conspiring behind your back. You can encourage them by opening an Wikipedia:Editor review on yourself. If your critics think they have good evidence, they can request a sockcheck. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting private emails is totally innapropriate, incredibly bad netiquette. Let me state for the record that as I am looking into User:Aucaman's edits, I am starting to get convinced that User:The Behnam is indeed User:Aucaman who is apprently banned from editing Iran-related article by the decision of ArbCom. There is a lot of evidnce that would suuport this assertion, for example I was looking at User:Aucaman's talk page today, and I saw a message invinting him to vote on an AfD [98], then a just few hours after that message User:The Behnam shows up on the same AfD to cast his vote [99]. This was eight days ago, before User:The Behnam knew that anyone suspceted him of being User:Aucaman. Conindece? Could be, but there there is just too many such coincidences to be just coincidences. User:The Behnam is acknowledging that himself. --Mardavich 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is absurd. I was also notified User talk:The Behnam#What's your idea. This sounds like another Iranian conspiracy theory. The Behnam 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And where do you get the idea that I would respect the privacy request on your email? Do you really think I'm going to change my editing habits just because it bothers Iranian POV-pushers and they are setting up a false accusation against me? You've gotta be kidding me. The Behnam 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't say you are "starting" to think this way. You have thought this for awhile; it finally explains why you put quotes around my name [100][101]. The Behnam 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or was that during the Lukas Pietsch era? The Behnam 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen more evidence, and there is a lot of similarity in POV and editing pattern between these two users, on the same articles, sometimes the same section of the same articles. All just a coincidence? Could be, I'm not sure, I just hope that another user who is more familiar with these two users starts an RfC, so the community can see all the evidence and judge for themselves. --Mardavich 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You mind sharing your gang's evidence? The Behnam 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be polite, thank you. I've seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But since I respect people's privacy, I will not be copy/pasting people's e-mails here, you'll have to wait for the people who have collected the evidence to post it on their own RfC. --Mardavich 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to take the "evidence" from the emails yourself. The Behnam 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Although I am busy now, I might start the RfC myself. --Mardavich 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be interesting to see what conclusions your gang has imagined. The Behnam 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please block an impostor

Resolved

Please nuke and block User:VaIIentinan which is an impostor account created today, including a complete rip-off of my user page. I don't doubt for a second what the creator intends to do with it. I'm not really surprised things have sunk to this level given that one particular user likes throwing shit in my general direction. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

done. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin rules?

When there is an editing war, I thought administrators are supposed to be neutral parties, or help with straw polls etc. That was true for months on the "breast implant" page, with a plastic surgeon making revisions to emphasize the benefits of breast implants, and several other editors (an epidemiologist, a doctor, and an editor of a women's health book, among others) making footnoted revisions to point out known risks, etc. Currently, an admin, JFW -- also known as JWolff, is taking the side of the plastic surgeon (droliver) and reverting everything that the other 3 editors (DrCarter, OBOS editor, and DrZuckerman) change, whether one paragraph or 20 paragraphs. We've tried voting on one paragraph at a time, but droliver always objects and changes it back to his preferred version, and the administrator has taken droliver's side and also reverts it back. Two other admin used to help but are no longer available. Even direct quotes from peer-reviewed scientific articles have been deleted if they indicate risks from implants. Can someone else help with this? As the author of 4 books and dozens of peer reviewed articles, I am accustomed to dealing with differences of opinions, but usually knowledge and information have some impact. I think it should on wikipedia too, shouldn't it? Drzuckerman 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see dispute resolution. Admins are also editors, and as long as they don't use admin tools to support them in a debate, then we simply treat them as such.--Doc^g 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll wander over and have a look, this one has been subject to various attempts to push unproven claims of harm over the months. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• No comment on the specific dispute, but admins are allowed to have opinions and act on them, so sometimes they are going to get into content disputes. They just can not use admin powers (such as blocking, page protection, etc.) to gain any advantage in said dispute. Admins are also subject to rules about edit warring and POV pushing, same as with any editor. --W.marsh 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, no use of admin powers, nothing to see, just a case of intelligent people behaving foolishly. Talk page, people! Guy (Help!) 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

perhaps we should do the decent thing......

there's been a terrible accident in sydney, killing several people, and one girl Morgan Innes is still missing, and unfortunately maybe also dead. We've got an article there, with a 'we're considering this for deletion' banner - i don't think this is appropriate and would support any rules ignoring admin deleting this article - or at least somehow modifying it so we can appear suitably sensitive - please. Petesmiles 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's clearly going to be deleted as so far every vote is for deletion then would you support me simply deleting the page right now? That would seem the most sensitive thing to do. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be great - thanks. Petesmiles 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and speedied it as an A7 BIO and closed the AfD. I hope everyone will be okay with that but it was pretty distasteful given the circumstances and, as Theresa says, it looked like it was going to be deleted anyway. Sarah 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. Deletion is the Right Thing. This is for Wikinews anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kjartan8

I'm involved with trying to calm down an edit war over at Talk:Direct Action Day. Both editors have been straying close to the line with regards to civility, but I feel user Kjartan8 has now stepped over the line with this reponse. The Kinslayer 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for making such comments (in response to this extremely offensive remarks made by the other party [102][103], but I see that it is not justification for retaliation). I promise to behave more calmly in future. Kjartan8 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As an addition, I request examination of the conduct of the other party (who is using multiple sock puppets to frustrate the matter see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Teabing-Leigh) in various webpages Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_racism,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_views_on_race and his disruption of peaceful editing on wikipedia there and on Direct Action Day, which has been turned and made useless because of recent edit-warring and 3rr violations by him .Kjartan8 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan is making abusive personal attacks calling me all sorts of things under the sky. Kindly restrain him. My only aim and objective is to bring balance to hopelessly onesided and biased article, in which the Kjartan is "questioning" the validity of even sources that are clearly infront of him. 202.163.67.241 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will comment on content when necessary, and particularly when the edits are clearly in bad faith and supportive of extremism and hatred, as is evident from this editors intense disruption in multiple articles, and his use of sock puppets. Good afith assumption fails beyond a certain point. Kjartan8 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this diff shows just how sincere Kjartans 'apologies' actually are. The Kinslayer 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All right. I will distance myself from this issue for a short while for my temper to cool off if that's what it takes. I urge the sockpuppets of T-Leigh to do the same, although I suspect that this will not happen Kjartan8 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More personal Attacks by Kjartan8: He is still abusing me and being extremely uncivil. He has also admitted that he does not actually verify the sources before declaring that they've failed verification. Talk about WP:Goodfaith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see my assessment in the talk page before you get swayed by his half-truths Talk:Direct_Action_Day#Issues_of_misrepresentation_in_detail. His "source" is not primary and is some arbitrary website that does not satisfy academic criteria. Thus, it has failed verification. He has since "changed" the reference to include the primary source, which I am trying to verify independently . To avoid confusion, I suggest moderators to monitor the ensuing discussion in the talk page from now on. Kjartan8 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Personal Attacks from kjartan8:

He continues to abuse me ... using terms like madrassa, religious fanatic, mullah, sockmaster, deobandi madrassa, jamaat-e-islami... terms I have explained on the said talk page as being extremely offensive to me for several reasons. Kindly restrain him. 202.163.67.241 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of this ip (ie T-Leigh's sock puppet) choice remarks are below:

"All Bengalis were complicit in the massacre" (Racism). P.N Benjamin (a Christian) is a "partisan Hindu/Sikh" (delusion). "Hindu industrialist-funded Hindu gangsters" did it all [104].Numerous disruptions of wikipedia, inability to reason coherently or sensibly, and numerous other traits characterize his edits. Beyond a certain point nobody can take this much trolling. Kjartan8 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan, Now when and where did I make these statements ? Surely you can show us. I never made these statements. 202.163.67.241 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chensiyuan

Nine of his last ten uploads were improperly tagged, and were actually non-commercial use only (or non-commercial plus no-derivatives), not {{cc-by-2.0}} as he claimed. Additionally, none of these images would be usable under any fair use rationale. I have attempted to explain the reason for my actions but I feel that he either does not understand or does not care. His ignorance of and/or disregard for image use policy makes me suspicious of his previous uploads, though I only looked at the ones from March 2007 so far. — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)