Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive392

User:Pigeon33

There are severe civility issues with this user. I'd elaborate, but he has <30 edits, almost all of which that were in article space he was warned about for various reasons by multiple editors. He has harassed an editor via email to the point where he was warned he might lose his email ability, and he posted an uncalled-for remark that really had nothing ot do with anything on my talk page that was a blatant PA. AGF is out the window (and has been for some time), and I'd like an admin to look into the situation and consider some sort of action. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See my thread above: #Procedure for making a block for abuse of the e-mail function?. This is the user I was referring to. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for harassment & incivility, email also disabled for that time. He may explain his conduct using the unblock template if he wishes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For transparency, I have fully protected this user's talk page after they have posted a semi-abusive message (which I have left displayed) saying that we are abusing him and he needs the ability to block us, and also blanking the page and the block notice. I did not take this action lightly, because the original block has e-mail disabled. I will not consider another admin reversing my protection as a wheel war and will not object. If I have done something out of policy, please let me know so I won't do it again. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He could have used the unblock template but chose not to, issuing a diatribe instead. Endorse protection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society

Resolved

 – Speedy closed as a trainwreck, relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society (2nd nomination)

.

Could someone take a look into this AFD(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society). We have several new users, even the nominators' first edit was making the AFD. I just went through and labeled everyone involved as being a Single Purpose Account so far. We have IPs doing half the nominating, and some are already claiming to be leading authorities in the field. I'm not sure what message board they are all on planning this one out, and I haven't even begun to wade into the mess that is the actual article. But I just spent the last hour trying to sort out the page, and I'm guessing Admin intervention will be required in some form or another. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing was a definite ... all versions of the article after March 6 were cut-and-paste copyvios of the society Web site. So reverted. Blueboy96 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pope Barry George blocked

I've blocked Pope Barry George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef for series of edits [1][2][3][4] suggesting he may be a trollpuppet. Posting here for a review. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have me convinced until the last diff, but that was clear enough. Endorse block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Get the feeling he returned as Swirl Face (talk · contribs), link between them is the upload of a wrong photo here, which Pope Barry George (talk · contribs) had on his userpage. --Van helsing (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I hadn't actually noticed that the upload was vandalism! I'd assumed Van helsing (talk · contribs) was on a bad faith reversion spree. Feel free to revert as you please. (And btw, I am not Pope Barry George (talk · contribs). Swirl Face (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... so both Pope and you (after pope was blocked) fiddling with the unblock request of Confederate till Death is entirely coincidental? --Van helsing (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that Swirlface also attempted to close an AfD, which is precisely what I warned Pope Barry George for earlier yesterday. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another unblock request open at User talk:Martin Bean, which was also reviewed by Swirlface, here. I have reverted that review. While I am not particularly interested in the feelings of proven bad-faith users, I'm also bothered when we jerk them around by telling them they're unblocked, and then they find that they are not, etc. This is a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

...And, while possibly a coincidence, it is interesting as well that Swirl Face was registered at 23:04, 19 November 2007, just over 30 minutes after Pope Barry George was registered. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

indef block of Swirl Face (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a quick review of the above editors contributions I have enacted an indef block of the account. I have not posted this for review, but for praise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum The username appears to refer to a paedophile, per User:Swirl Face. I also note that Barry George is the name of the alleged killer of British celebrity Jill Dando, as adapted by User:Pope Barry George. Does anybody else hear distant quacking? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Praise- oh LessHorrid, we are not worthy to so much as receive your words through the medium of wiki. special, random, Merkinsmum 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all hail LessHeard, etc etc. PBG did threaten to use another sock in his unblock request, after all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Distant quacking? That duck woke me up this morning it was so loud. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add Bob from lostpedia (talk · contribs) to that? Only one edit though, but same guy, registered the account in the same timeframe. And uploaded a photo of an unknown individual to Image:Hurleylost.PNG which Pope Barry George used on his userpage and Swirl Face reverted to. --Van helsing (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let sleeping ducks lie? Is it worth the effort of a CU for a single edit, per the evidence above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet, disrupting AFD again

Andrew Craigie (talk · contribs) an account also registered on the same day, is vandalising and closing AFD's. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by LessHeard vanU. The MO is the same; closing AfDs as Delete, removing tags from articles as Speedy Delete, and copying their user page from that of an experienced user while retaining that user's name or information (thus). The registration date is unlikely to be coincidence, but the fact that this user began editing within 12 minutes of Silly Face being blocked is even more telling. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that you can't block me and you will never stop me. I have loads of these accounts, and I don't EVER intend to stop impersonating administrators. Hahahahaha Oli Mitchell (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The vandal might consider that we know where he edits from, that his employer is not likely to look kindly upon misuse of enterprise computers, and the privacy policy does all the Foundation to release IP information to deal with long term disruption and vandalism. Thatcher 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Might it be time to lay the banhammer down? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked that one before they could 'grant' any more unblocks.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Time for a CU request? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ho yes - Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser/Case/Wannabe Admin, perhaps? I know the more appropriate name is probably Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Barry George, but it pays to be descriptive sometimes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As you like... can you handle it, as I have never done it (only a real sysop would admit to that!) Please can you include the one edit user in the section above, just to make sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Any others to add? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You did get the users here too right? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did now. Is there a Longterm abuse or SSP file on that set? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser case has been filed and transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Barry George. Please add whatever data you wish, as I did not follow the issues surrounding this User:Allen Lee Remis asshat vandal. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub articles on Ontario communities

Have an eye here. User keep on making stubbed article that has less information. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Less information than what? I'm not sure I understand the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG!! Editor creating content, in the form of stubs, of inherently notable places of habitation!? I mean, isn't this place about zapping socks and clubbing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I had looked at it. Its all stub stuffs that should be further expanded. There is nothing wrong in the massive creations. Unfortunately most of them were tagged for deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong - none of these stubs are supported by a source. Neither is the list that they come from. Articles should not be created without a source to support them as this is a good way of keeping false/erroneous information out. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am creating the stubs first. Much articles are missing. What is need to do first is to start the articles, the next step is development. This is in the same line of French communes. But I am facing problem. Special:Contributions/WilliamMThompson. User:WilliamMThompson is tagging the stubs for speedy deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. As long as it is not crufts, it shouldn’t be deleted. (User:WilliamMThompson, please see WP:INSPECTOR).
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be taking a break from tagging them, gods be praised. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Foretunately, none seem to have been deleted. WilyD 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easier to stub them first. As long as details are added after then I don't see a problem. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you have against crufts anyway?:) special, random, Merkinsmum 14:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP problem on Emma Griffiths

Resolved

Restored at a previous non-BLP version.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Emma Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just came across this article at random, but it was suffering some major BLP issues so I deleted it for now. It was entirely unsourced, focused very heavily on her personal life, and she seems to be of minor notability as well. I'd like to get some input on this, before we restore it. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't look like anything that can't be taken care of by editing. If we stubbify the article, she's got enough notability to be here. I'm sure some sources can be found for the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This version by admin Kingboyk seems reasonable. Should we restore at this point? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It still needs sourcing, but I would say that's a good starting point. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Grumpyrob

This user has persistently been trying to create an article that reflects what he thinks about plastic pipe systems. His sources for his information were wholly fabricated. He went so far as to fabricate conversation on the talk page of Plastic pressure pipe systems to try to show there was some interest in the subject. There were issues of OWN and 3RR. However, when his socks were blocked, discussion on the article miraculously ceased. The user's socks are readily identifiable (his latest tried to close an AFD on the article as snow for third contrib or so), and there have been numerous forks to various related "plastic pipe system"-type titles.

There's no need for RFCU (been done 3 or 4 times already anyway), as the socking is blatant (8 confirmed, 2 suspected), but is there anything else that can be done? MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can see to do would be to block his IP address (again), but unless it's conclusively not a shared IP, we can't block it for too long, and we certainly can't block it indefinitely either way. An abuse report to the ISP could be in order at this point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done already, you could make a request in the "IP check" section of WP:RFCU to identify and block the underlying IP. This may not be technically feasible, though. In which case, I'll watchlist the article and you can let me know if you see more suspected socks pop up; I'll try to respond quickly. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Real-world threat?

Is this a real-world threat? ["Hope I never come face-to-face with you."] --Milkbreath (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think so. It sounds like a wish to not meet the other party in RL, something that I would apply to plenty of people I've met here. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Me, too, but I think you are failing to parse the sentence correctly. It means "You should hope that I never...", not "I hope I never...". I call that a threat. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This one, though, is pretty close to a Personal Attack. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could it not mean "as a censor, you are not very good"? Seriously, though, you're right, the IP is skating around the acceptable at the moment. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this one? (Not a threat, not acceptable either though). The conversation should probably be continued up here. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone pathetic is an insult, whereas saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face is both acceptable and entirely applicable for many people I've dealt with here. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a more direct refutation or rejection of my contention, expressed above, that the correct reading in context constitutes a threat. I can only suppose that my prior comment above (13:23, 27 March 2008 ) escaped your attention and that it was in no way your intention to blow me off with your comment here. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath is true that the verb "hope" could be interpreted as an imperative in this sentence. However, that is a very uncommon usage for that particular word, and I think that's why most editors simply aren't seeing it as a threat. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I thought I was plenty direct when I said "calling someone pathetic is an insult" and "saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face" was not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just block the IP address? It doesn't appear to be contributing anything useful? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. The Holocaust remark was pretty unpleasant, although unexceptional comparatively. I'm not inclined to feed it by blocking, personally, but that's because I'm jaded having seen (and been on the end of) so much worse. On the day we came this close to losing a great editor on the back of the awful, threatening conduct of a total psycho living out its problems online like 72.76.x.x, this type of thing feels like very small fry. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Organised off-wiki POV-pushing campaign on Israel-Palestinian issues?

I noticed an intriguing interview which the Jerusalem Post ran yesterday featuring Richard Landes, a political activist and conspiracy theorist. It leads me to wonder whether an organised campaign of POV-pushing is underway on Israeli-Palestinian articles. To quote:

[Interviewer] But doesn't the blogosphere also work in favor of the radical anti-Zionists and anti-Americans? Aren't they cranking it out faster than the West can refute it?

[Landes] Well, yes, they are cranking it out faster than we can refute it - on every front - but there are certain significant fronts on which we are fighting back effectively. Take Wikipedia, for example. There's a fight going on right now at Wikipedia about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc. [5]

I really don't like the sound of that "fighting back effectively" bit - who is this "we", and what does he mean by "fighting back" (I'm pretty sure he's not talking about NPOV)? I don't have much visibility of articles in this topic area, as it's not an area I get involved with to any significant extent. However, I've noticed a sudden influx of new editors on Pallywood, an article about Landes' main conspiracy theory which I've been monitoring for a while. There has been a certain amount of disruption as the newbies have not been familiar with NPOV and V and have needed to be educated rapidly. Has anyone noticed an influx of partisan newbies on other Israelistinian articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring and POV-pushing on Israeli-Palestinian issues is like pissing into an ocean of urine. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Amused and agreed. I've lost track of how many organizations on both sides of that are trying to POV push on our articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it raises another issue. A few days ago I proposed an article, Ouze Merham, for deletion or merging (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham‎). There's currently roughly a 50:50 split between "keep" !voters and those supporting either deletion or merging. However, two things have happened in the course of the AfD which have raised some warning signs. I had forgotten to post the AfD notice to the Israeli-Palestinian WikiProjects (I'm not a member of any of them). As soon as another editor did that, a flood of rival partisans descended on the AfD and !voted in entirely predictable ways (all on one side !voting one way, all on the other !voting the other way). The whole AfD has been corrupted into little more than a headcount of partisans. It is emphatically not a cross-section of the Wikipedia community. Secondly, in the last few days a series of new editors, all with similar firstname-lastname usernames, have !voted on the article. It's an odd pattern.

The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, 29 March, any time after 19:30 GMT. It will need careful handling and a willingness to review the arguments, not just the headcount - hopefully one of our more experienced AfD closers can take on the task. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just commented on that AfD. Sorry for possibly further reducing the signal to noise ratio. Oh, and it looks like I may have given an opinion favoring what I'd be expected to given my ethnic group. Sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what your ethnic group is, so I'm not going to comment on that. :-) However, I've noticed that AfDs on political issues can end up with the discussions being dominated by purely partisan concerns ("keep because it shows how awful the other side is" / "delete because it's a lie perpetrated by the other side"). I'm really not sure what can be done about this, unfortunately. I should add that the comments you just added don't fall into that category, but all too often it comes down to ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT and whichever one has the bigger numbers wins the day. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you might consider posting your comment to Jayjg's talk page to see if he has any comment. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Jayjg's unfortunate accident with his mailing list last December, I have to say in fairness that there's no evidence that he has any involvement in the activities that Landes seems to be describing. It's unclear how Landes is participating in the activities of the group he describes collectively as "we", and there's no indication of who else might be involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything related to that issue should be placed under editing probation so that administrators can remove disruptive folks on sight. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but as soon as an admin does anything in that area, they then become classed as an "involved admin" by various parties and are harangued until they give up. There are at least five editors in that sphere who should be topic-banned, but it'll never happen. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The solution there is to hand out lengthy blocks to people who try to rules lawyer in such a fashion. Such behaviour is not acceptable. Jtrainor (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Offensive unsourced picture with no license

User Truely obstacle uploaded an offensive picture with no license and tried to use it in the subjects article. Could someone delete it? Also, I'm out of reverts by reverting vandalism and related stuff on the Fitna article (the movie) and if someone could help me out by undoing me here, this would take care of the OR which he put in as well. I've warned him not to vandalize again. thanks --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the copyright on that photo is almost certainly a lie. See [6] (knew I had seen that photo before). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image has been shot. --Carnildo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all that remains is undoing of this edit, which the same user put in (unsourced OR). I would be grateful if someone could do that as well since I'm out of reverts. thanks in advance. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the good news is that you are unlikely to run out of reverts by reverting vandalism. There are plenty of types of revert you can make without falling foul of 3RR. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at SUCI article

An edit war is going on a the Socialist Unity Centre of India and several related articles. Input from other editors would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand you have an SPA and his army of socks who talk in honorific first person and who is dead bent on having the article as his party wants it, whitewashing out every piece of criticism and adding all sorts of nonsensical eulogies and tall claims. On the other hand you have me, a banned user. Please note that the SPA claims to be a collectively operated account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

adding; And Soman a very valuable user, is hardly a neutral party in this. He has been too eager to ingratiate the SPA account and its collective army of sock and meat puppets. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no claim there in which has not been cited as of now. Puppet of User: Kuntan is doing vandalism in the SUCI page. His personal vendetta towards some individuals of the organization is clear from his own words. He is also abusive in his language. Editors, please take a stand in dealing with this puppet of User: Kuntan. He is logging in from various IP numbers every day but that does not make him a different individual. If you check his ip numbers you can see that they all are from two towns of Kerala namely Calicut and Beypore. This proves that he is the same individual.--Suciindia (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:Soman's ill-mannered comments stem from his spite at being spurned for ignorance of WP policies as well as his uninformed reverts. He just reverts and reverts and it was a very hard task to make him discuss. My efforts have certainly improved the page which Soman and the SPA comic fellow smugly shared between them with own/self published sources. User:Relata refero's intervention made soman change a wee bit. Soman is time and again relying on the puppet argument (in unbelievably cretinous manner, see his reference to two towns) in order to get around discussion of the article in the light of policies. Soman has virtually promoted this spa's honorific wei'sm and have always tried to ingratiate into their good books by reverting good faith edits. The article is about a very narrow fringe group. A party that never had a member in the parliament or any considerable presence in any of the more than 20 legislative assemblies (mostly with several hundred members). At best they had a couple of members in a couple of states. Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India. I never denied that I am the banned user. Any one can check my contributions (from the range) and find if I am an SPA or not. The question is, should WP be at the mercy of a bunch of determined apparatchiki who want to use it as their propaganda medium. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not Soman, but the comic SPA who referred to the two towns based on some pre-conceived notions. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of posting a notice here is to widen the participation in the discussion beyond the currently three involved parties (Kuntan, Suciindia and myself). That is the only way to move forward, not only in conflict resolution but also in improving the articles in question. I don't wish to evalute my own role myself, but briefly I'd say the following about the dynamics of the conflict:

• I have pointed out that there is an obvious WP:COI problem regarding User:Suciindia. That say, my feeling is that User:Suciindia does not indulge in spamming. Moreover, I must say that I personally prefer that User:Suciindia is open about their party affiliation, rather than working through anon accounts or socks.
• Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan, it is obvious that he conducts systematic bad-faith edits. He repeatedly stated his own personal dislike for this party, and it is clear that it is this particular dislike that is his motivation in the edit war, as opposed to the intention in the edit conflict rather than improving the articles in question. The recent addings of notability tags on Sambhunath Naik is an obvious case of this.
• Kuntan writes that "Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India". This is clearly wrong. I have stated that SUCI considers themselves as 'the only genuine communist party in India', a very notable fact for understanding SUCI's relation to other Indian left groups.

--Soman (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Articles that are related to the conflict: Sambhunath Naik, Probodh Purkait, All India Democratic Youth Organisation, --Soman (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• My single claim: After soman's and spa's sharing it between themselves for nearly two years it had no single third party source. My intervention brought about that. Can either deny this? "Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan", I am not allowed to use an account. I have never hidden behind anonymity. Soman's pretense of neutrality is obviated by the fact that he hides more than he reveals about the SPA. The SPA has indulged in sockpuppetry in the dirtiest manner possible.

See this check user case and Soman's active involvement for the puppeting accounts. [7] And also this [8] Soman prefers that account. Good for him. About systematic bad faith edits. Soman is plainly lying. I started by discussing the issue with Soman. I discussed and Soman blindly reverted. That was the beginning. Then he and the SPA began tag team editing. That the article currently have third party source (poor and insufficient ones though they are) is the refutation of Soman's venomous charge. Soman need ot learn the basics of NPOV editing, it seems. The party in question is a minuscule organisation with merely a few pockets of influence. Without stating this fact Soman wants to front their claim to being the only genuine communist party, which is plainly deceptive. What Soman needs is some good advice on wp's core principles. Block me or not. I have by and large stuck to what an encyclopedia is (the repeated revert war to bring this to some forum,excluding). Soman's role has beenlargely to abet the other guy in soapboxing. 59.91.253.92 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've been trying to make sense of this, and haven't got very far. What banned user:Kuntan (incidentally, why was he banned? I can't find the community discussion/ArbCom case, and the only definite reason in his block log is "inappropriate username", which seems over the top for a ban) is apparently claiming is that User:suciindia, which is an admitted role account for party members of the Socialist Unity Centre of India - which is indeed a relatively marginal organisation - is exerting ownership over a set of four or five related articles. This appears to be true enough.
• He also seems to think that User:Soman is aiding in this somehow. Frankly, I have not seen any evidence of this. The only evidence Kuntan provides is that Soman used self-published sources extensively, which may be true; but this is undercut by the fact that Soman has a consistent approach across all the many political party articles he edits, which is to ensure that their own self-published sources are used, and accurately and fairly represented, and I don't see any evidence that this is an exception.
• I think more eyes are now on these articles, so their quality will naturally improve; the fact that party members are exerting ownership over the articles will have to be managed somehow; and we can hope that, now that student elections in India are over, this furore will die down slightly. In the meantime, I will try and keep an eye watch these articles myself, though some help would be welcome. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some points: 1) any attempt to portray myself as part of a SUCI cabal is doomed to fail. I was accused of being a paid CPI(M) agent (in a series of edit conflict that extended to Nandigram violence, a conflict in which CPI(M) and SUCI are at diametrically opposite sides). Anecdotically, I've also been accused of being a Sikh extremist. 2) sources is a problem in the SUCI article. I've tried my best to go through JSTOR as well as my personal library, but nowhere is there any systematic academic study of SUCI. Mention of SUCI is generally limited to occasions when SUCI has entered into electoral alliances with other parties. In that backdrop, using SUCI's own sources for describing their public positions is better that no sources at all. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I remember the extended Nandigram wars, though you must point me towards the Sikh extremism diff, as I always get a good laugh out of seeing other people inexplicably accused of bias. I've looked for sourcing myself slightly, but its true there isn't that much online. This is the sort of thing that people have studied, is inherently notable, but isn't available through a simple search - the very essence of WP:BIAS. Given that, I agree that, suitable qualified, SUCI's own publications are definitely better than nothing. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editors, We read about the conflict of interest regulations in Wiki and the issue related to the use of 'WE'. We would like to expain our stand in these issues.

The use of 'WE' is only because that the article on SUCI is about an organization and that any edits on it from our side needs to be recognized as by the party and not as of any individual. At any given moment, it is defenitely a single editor who is accessing it as User: Suciindia, however, he/she will never use a singular phrase to make the edits. This is because, we don't believe in individualism and that is our political stand, inside or outside Wiki. We live in communes and thus live a collective life. Every issue, including Wiki is discussed and approaches are formulated. Our interest, as we have mentioned it a long time back in the discussion page associated to SUCI page, is to keep up with the spirit of Wiki. Only that we don't want to be misrepresented. This also addresses the COI issue, as a careful reader will always know what was created by the party and what was not. When we initially noticed the article in Wiki about us, we realized that there were many misrepresentations about us there in. For example 'SUCI emerged as a splinter group of RSP' which is not true and this issue was discussed and settled in the discussion pages.

We also don't claim any ownership of the articles. Infact we are happy that User: Soman created articles about us and is striving for the up keep of them as he does for many other articles. We acknowledge that fact that the true owners of the article is the Wiki community who built it.

So also, the party which attaches to the 6th largest trade union in India is not a minor one. If you want to state us as minor, then you should first do that on the pages of a number of parties that are confined only to few states. That will demand a minor/major classification of political parties based on some criteria in the Indian Political Parties project in wiki. If such a criteria is formulated and applied to all parties including SUCI, we will agree to it. Recently we also sought the advice of User: Soman on citing articles in regional languages to make points only to improve the present page and not to make Wiki our propoganda medium.

We will eventually add secondary sources as references. But as they are not available digitally, it needs time to pool up and cited. One must realize that Wiki is not the only thing that we need to deal with, limiting our time on updating the wiki page. But you may have noticed that over time, based on constructive discussions with User: Soman (and not with User: Kuntan) we have improved the articles with third party citations.

After all, Wiki is not through which the working class will get to know of us. --Suciindia (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related Articles

As an interested observer, I'd like to mention two other articles also involved in this: Sambhunath Naik and Probodh Purkait. These pages have a similar edit history to the SUCI page.  This flag once was red  00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enthusiastic recent-change patrolling.

Resolved

 – All done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot200245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Complaints/requests on his talkpage in the last 24 hours or so:[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

Templating of regulars, unacceptably lax determination of what constitutes vandalism, and biting of newbies by dropping vandalism templates for probable good-faith, relevant edits. All additions to his talkpage are immediately reverted without comment. Is there standard procedure in these cases? I'm afraid I have a suspicious mind about relatively new accounts that behave like this.

Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that this user is using Twinkle and abusing it by posting the incorrect warnings. Possible abuse? -MBK₀₀₄ 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought. This user's first edit was to install Twinkle on their monobook. Definitely does not seem like an inexperienced noob. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user has accused me of "vandalism" because of my edits to design of experiments. I have a Ph.D. in statistics and I care about the subject. I added some material and cited a reference that can be found in university libraries. Two other users have said I must be wrong. I patiently explained my position on the talk page. In particular, I asked them to explain why it makes sense to speak of "variance" at all if, as they suggested, this is supposed to be about a binary comparison. I asked them to check the math. I asked them to go to the library and check the reference. User:Hot200245 has not said that he or she has done any of those things, but has accused me of vandalism. I demand an explanation of the evidence that I have committed any vandalism. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia math articles than I do. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia generally than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've commented to him several times (all erased and bad-behavior continued) about it. He actually did respond to one comment someone else made about his behavior, by essentially accepting that he had made a mistake and repeating his accusation that the other editor was the one who was wrong. Enthusiastic vandal-reverting? Good. Enough mistakes that all his edits need others to look over his shoulder? Very bad. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Urk. This user has been reverting good edits like this [15] calling them vandalism. Not good. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that edit "good"? Batman? Tan | 39 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Batman (military). Corvus cornix_talk 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is why you check a link instead of assuming. HalfShadow (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. The link did not go to a military batman, and as I have not been in the military, I was unaware of this term. The whole phrase has been (properly) removed now anyways. Tan | 39 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Hot200245 anyway. It mentions he was David Niven's batman in the first sentence of the 'Career Highlights' section. HalfShadow (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be, among others, the blocked User:Hot20024 and User:Dmits. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And now blocked indef. Nakon 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm going through his edits and reverting if necessary. Seems he targetted edits by anon IP's (including those placing links to foreign language wikis). --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What a freaking mess. Last warnings and only warnings given for good first edits. I've removed a few but there's going to be some confused anon editors out there. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is now requesting an unblock claiming they are not a sockpuppet and stating they are considering legal action against the blocking admin. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that'll sure get him unblocked faster. Corvus cornix_talk 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock declined. I'm waiting to see what his reaction is before I lock the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another request up. I'm not sure this person get it. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now that's what I call a response to an incident report. Relata refero (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I ZEE NOTHINK! HalfShadow (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SPA on AfD for Raljoball

Resolved

 – Just implement normal procedure for SPAs in AfDs. —Kurykh 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of SPA activity on this AfD, plus the vandalizing of the user page of User:Baseball Bugs Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just mark their posts with {{spa}}. No need to do much else, unless the accounts start vandalizing; the admin who closes that AfD will take the SPAs into account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a vandalism warning to the SPA which did the userpage vandalism. Hut 8.5 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion, just wanted to affirm the SPAs. Ed, you've already indicated in the AfD the sock accounts that were seemingly created for the purpose of bolstering !votes. Nice job - I'm sure the closing admin will not miss this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel kind of sorry for the SPA's, even the one that called me a "fag" (strangely, I've never been compared to a cigarette before). Without the SPA's, the "deletes" would be nearly unanimous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:i123Pie

Resolved

 – Yngvarr (c) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please intercede to User:i123Pie. This user is pastering my talk page with WP:AGF after I reported a user to WP:AIV. I've reverted their edits on my talk page as they're non-constructive.

• AIV report [16]
• History of the edits in question [17]
• Attack on my personal character [18]
• First posting to AGF [19]
• My revert of this posting [20]
• Persistant user [21]
• My suggestion to the user to take it up here [22]

I am a longstanding editor with good standing. If one were to view my contribs, there are no issues nor warnings of civility nor WP:ABF, and I resent this editor for implying as such. Yngvarr (c) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I flew off the handle, and we've apparently worked it out amongst ourselves. Yngvarr (c) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

She was not following WP:ASG, she should have told that anon. user about WP:MOS first. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to cut a users ISP

Resolved

 – An apology == the user knowing they went wrong. Warning or taking further action would be pointless and inflammatory ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture

A user called User:Police,Mad,Jack threatened to report another user, Mikkalai, to his ISP with the intention of getting them to cut his internet connection[23], while anyone who knows anything about Mikkalia knows this is meaningless gibberish from Jack it is still an unacceptable threat, can an admin please intervene and at the very least warn Jack not to make such threats ever again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And has now apoloigised [24] which is something. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Redvers. This is Mikkalai's latest[25]. I know Jack from way back and don't wish to discourage him from editing, I don't think any of us do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and personal attacks from 172.188.187.67

172.188.187.67 has been on fire over the past several days, with repeated and consistent blogspam to the OSx86 article, a personal attack on the talk page here, and now he is moving on to vandalize more articles. The most recent was to another project of mine, the Golden Bear (ship) article, as can be seen here. He also left a vandalism notice and personal attack on my talk page via 2 edits, as seen here. Something should be done, I leave the decision of what to the admins. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudget semi-protected his/her target article, so that's out of the way for the moment. The IP, as you've noticed yourself, is dynamic, so a block would be almost pointless at this point. If your user pages are being used to attack you or make you uncomfortable, a similar protection on any or all of them is available - please ask me. Rest assured, s/he will get bored eventually - they always do. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The larger problem seems to be, though, that they followed me to other articles I had worked on and vandalized them as well. Seems like they might've calmed down a tad for now, but then did before too. *shrug* we'll see what happens. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Semperfi76 Person vs. man

I just warned User:Semperfi76, so if he stops then a block is probably not in order. But an eye needs to be kept on his edits. Check any of his contribs and you will see my point -- replacing "craftspeople" with "craftsmen", "congressperson" with "congressman," etc., in places where it is not particularly appropriate, and occasionally in places where it breaks a template. I will try to keep an eye on the edits and will report back if he continues after the warning. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the quaintly old-fashioned sexism (the guy must have been born in about 1822 to be worked up about these things), the cut-and-paste moves from the bias-free usage to the male usage were annoying. I've reverted them, but with brute force - some minor edits were lost, but that was far easier than getting deep into history merges for such a small matter. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets wait for the next move. I've watchlisted his talk page to see if this starts again, but lets see if the warnings do their job before we jump on any blocks or anything yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have only so much time to spend on Wikipedia to watch editors like this, and REDVERS and Jayron are names I recognize and hold in esteem. I agree the time is not right for a block, but getting two pairs of trusted eyes to help monitor the problem is wonderful. Thanks!!--Jaysweet (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipissing University Student Union

Resolved

 – Closed as merge into Nipissing University. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This AFD has been opened for way too long (14 days/2 weeks). It needs the attention of a uninvolved sysop. nat.utoronto 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference: in hopes to keep the notice board a little less "full" the proper place for a request like this would be WP:AN, no worries though. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam linking by User:NostalgiaVista?

The above newly created account seems to be doing little else but adding a link to the external links section of various articles which indicates that they sell copies of the radio programs, primarily, the articles are about. What should be done with the links and the account? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links, we are not free advertising space. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And if someone would warn the user for spamming, then we could look at removing the user when they continued. Whilst they are left to edit unwarned, little or nothing can be done. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There we go, issued then with both a {{welcome}} (if they're selling such things, they may know something about them, useful for article building) but also a {{uw-spam1}}. So now they're better informed all round. If they continue, keep upping the UW-templates, then off to WP:AIV if they go past UW-4. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, I deleted this as a WP:SYN. In essence, the editor who added attempted to legitimiza a driving technique that he is advocating using sources that mention something similar but not quite the same thing. He thinks that I have something against him, and seems to not understand wikipedia policy. Can anybody lend a hand. In essence, I would like to see a reliable source documenting that driving technique. Thank you so much, Brusegadi (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the statements the editor made are true, however I don't know that the cites back them up (I didn't look). And I don't see how they are relevent to the article where you IMHO properly removed them. These are also techniques that typically aren't taught to beginning drivers. Drifting is tailgating, and tailgating regardless of the gearshift position is bloody stupid anywhere other than an oval track with professional drivers (and merely dangerous there). Its true that it will buy you gas milage in some cases. If you live to enjoy it. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the techniques, but my point is that the sources are poor and I just wanted someone to let him know that. I am trying to avoid an edit war. To do that I need either him to provide better sources or a third person in the talk page to explain what a reliable source is (I tried.) The sources were websites about driving in the snow, but not about saving gas... (synthesis.)Brusegadi (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

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.

---

Archiving - too much troll food. The first edit should have been reverted and ignored.--Doc^g 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How are the following "cabals" appropriate for Wikipedia?

• User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal
• User:RyRy5/Cool Cabal
• User:ComputerGuy890100/Road Cabal
• User:Diligent Terrier/Smiley Cabal

Wikipedia is NOT a social networking site and these serve no purpose but to cause server overload. They should be speedily deleted by an admin and their creators warned, because if we put these pages through an AFD all the "members" would vote keep. Wikipedia should not continue on this trend towards MySpace and Facebook. --End the Madness (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell-o there, Mister Single-Purpose account! HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being called that because I am protecting the integrity of this site.--End the Madness (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the giant banner with the word "humorous" highlighted doesn' t mean much, this is not the kind of stuff that belongs in AN/I this is maybe MFD material, Mr. SPA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Server overload is not a concern. This is a communal effort in building an encyclopedia and folk are permitted to have a few light hearted moments. Can you provide any evidence that these nunseekrit cabals are detrimental to the community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I did as the user's name suggests and ended the madness. Autoblock not enabled, if this user has another, productive account, they can go back to it. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. A single unpopular idea expressed politely is not reason to indefinitely block someone. --Onorem♠Dil 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the contributions? The guy is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, single-purpose accounts were a no-no. HalfShadow (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only sort of. WP:SPA is informative, not policy, but even WP:SPA has a large measure of "look before you leap and don't bite the newbies" to it.

On this particular block ... speaking as a non-admin, I don't know if I'd have banned Madness, but I certainly don't know that Guy's decision was a bad decision. WP:IAR can cut both ways--as "End the Madness" just discovered. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, simply being a single purpose account wasn't a reason to indef block. --Onorem♠Dil 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it likely they would have contributed anything worthwhile? No. Is it likely that this thread was going to achieve anything? No. I still think it's a bad block of someone who simply had an unpopular opinion. --Onorem♠Dil 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spas are not blockable for being spas - all accounts by definition start out as spas. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, this was an encyclopaedia, not a social network. Making your first edit to a meta-page discussing what looks awfully like anold grudge against someone - or maybe just being pointy - is not one of the things I think we ought to encourage. The individual has clearly edited before, let them go back to their main account. Unless, of course, it's banned or blocked. Nothing to do with the opinion, which is simply ignorable, and everything to do with not encouraging trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How ironic that others using WP as a social network is exactly what they were trying to stop, and reporting something they do not feel to be useful to the growth of the encyclopedia is not social networking. THe block is invalid, please overturn it. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this was not a good block. Kelly ^hi! 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked there is a procedure to be followed when blocking editors; I have placed a {{subst:uw-block3}} template on their talkpage so at least they are able to explain to an uninvolved admin why they should be unblocked - if they so desire. Guy, when defending the encyclopedia against the Forces of Evil please try and follow the policies and practices that the community have decided that we all are supposed to adhere to. There's a good chap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought this sort of thing was addressed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even close to being addressed, but it is certainly the sort of thing being commented upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean my failure to assume good faith of an accounts whose first act is to report some harmless user pages to the admin noticeboard is considered an issue by people whose opinion is worth hearing? I'd be faintly surprised, to be honest. I don't think more than a handful of real Wikipedians seriously consider that "brand new editors" whose first action is to troll the admin noticeboards require arbitration before we can quietly show them the door. Like I said, it entirely implausible that this is genuinely this user's first action on Wikipedia, he can go back to his original account and then we can accurately establish the basis of his dispute. Seriously this one absolutely screams sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I thought you promised to do better at throwing around bad-faith terms like "troll" and "sockpuppet". Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. A brand new account comes on ANI, citing Wikipedia policy and process to get a bunch of user subpages deleted? Odds of being an actual good-faith brand-new user: 0.0000001%. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. And I'm reporting all participants in this conversation to the cabal immediately. Fnord. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? -- Naerii 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Back the the topic at hand, and ignoring whether the messenger is a single purpose account — have these pages been to MFD yet? I can't see how they support our mission, but I can see how they violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh leave it, nominating them for deletion will cause more wailing and gnashing of teeth than it's worth. -- Naerii 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at one of the people running it an they are a productive editor. If the same applies for the rest its not worth upsetting them. Viridae^Talk 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that things that do not contribute to the mission can be seen as bad. But in all reality, do these cabals detract from the mission? Justin Eiler (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All now listed at MFD - surely that's quicker and less hassle than the drama being played out here, right? George The Dragon (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If otherwise productive users want to have a little club on the side, there's nothing wrong with a little social atmosphere. Now that they are at MfD, they might as well go through the process, but I doubt much will come of it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always viewed WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a restriction on unduly concentration on the editor's userspace instead of working on the encyclopedia. If these pages do not distract editors and do not detract from the collaborative atmosphere of the encyclopedia, then WP:NOT#MYSPACE should not apply. —Kurykh 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The concern isn't about the collaborative atmosphere. The concern is that we want the media and others to see our editors as professional, mature contributors (regardless of their actual age). Things like this make our editors look immature and unprofessional, regardless of their age. What news reporter is going to take Diligent Terrier seriously after looking at these pages? If our user space looks like a game, it's natural for others to infer that our content pages are only a game as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is by definition informal and casual in order to reflect a more inclusive atmosphere for laymen such as us to contribute. Wikipedia is not meant to be prissy and uptight and prudish rather than actually being helpful. We are not Citizendium, trying to maintain a "learned scholars only" type of thing (not that I have anything against them or what they are doing). By adopting the "anyone can edit" banner, we have eschewed that sort of mentality in favor of a laid-back, Google-workplace type of thing. On the media's view of us, if we're going to keep on worrying too much about what others perceive us as, this project isn't going to get anywhere. —Kurykh 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Our mission is to create a free encyclopedia. Certainly others' perception of the product we create is at least a tiny bit important... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course I'm not saying disregard our dignity entirely. :) I'm just saying don't overemphasize it, given our mission and our means to achieve it. —Kurykh 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got some work to do, then, Carl. Here you go: Category:Wikipedia humor, and when you've finished you canmake a start on Category:Wikipedia essays, since we wouldn't want to give the impression that any action is outside of a rigid set of rules codified and voted on by t'committee. Or is it teh cabal? Guy (Help!) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

70.113.74.123

Resolved

Nothing but vandalism from this IP address, who has been warned several times. [26] Can someone take care of this? Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours, but if you encounter this sort of abuse in the future, the proper venue for the complaint is here. —Travis^talk 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rogereeny. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism problem

Resolved

 – Please take to WP:AIV if they continue after final warn, Tiptoety ^talk 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

68.191.179.217 is making vandalism in articles. A few users warned him but he simply doesn't care, he continues to vandalize. Just check his talk page. I'll warn him, and if he vandalizes wikipedia again, he should get blocked.

--Mr Alex (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, simply report the anon to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo

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.

---

New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [27].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, nudity <> pornography, but [28] is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks guy. -- Naerii 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Good block. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit late, but I must agree: good block. Yes, the mention of genitlia in the filename (or is it in the description) is a dead ringer. That having been said, still, a nude image of a child does not necessarily equal child pornogrpahy. Take, for instance, the cover image of the Nirvana album, Nevermind. As DeadEyeArrow mentioned, that image (as well as many other album cover images) is not child pornography. Of course, that says nothing about the image in question though.

As far as calling the authorities goes, rio de oro, you're jumping a little ahead of yourself. Not that it matters, but you don't come across to me as a U.S. citizen (based on your use of British spelling and lack of knowledge of U.S. law). So just for your knowledge, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service would probably not be hunting down child pornographers and/or pedophiles. That is the job of local law enforcement and, in the case of large illegal rings, the FBI. Regardless, though, Jimbo and the executives and directors of Wikimedia are not responsible if a user posts illegal material. Wikimedia cannot possibly know what's on every page of the site at every moment. Of course, if one of them does see something illegal on a Wiki page, s/he must take action -- and I'm sure s/he would. But there is not a legal expectation that they (or the operators of any other large sites -- e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft message board sites) be psychic! So don't overdo it, Rio! Your tone is way out of line. You're not against anyone here. We're all on the same side, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any child porno or pedophile supporters here. So please pipe down a bit, and I'm sure we can all get along. ask123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Wikipedia's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy has been a staunch opposer of what he calls pro-pedophile activism, but he doesn't speak for most editors on this matter. His actions regarding such things might be supported, but this is due to the presence of activism in general, which is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We call that POV-pushing, and it wouldn't matter of the POV was pro- or anti-pedophilia. In response to Edison, no, the photo probably wouldn't have been deleted based on its title or description, assuming this wasn't sexually explicit (ie. depicting a sexual act or an emphasis on the genitalia, which is the difference between pornography and plain nudity). The user would have been warned or blocked for the context the photo was used in and/or for the associated text, however, as was done in this case. The deletion of the image, while motivated by its perceived pedophilia aspect, was separate and justified due to the license issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:25, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Edison, I don't think we have a single written policy that covers the situation, but it's what we do. We aren't a hidebound institution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy schmolicy, as you say. Actually Foundation and ArbCom are pretty firm on this, though. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted

AFAIK, Jimmy Wales is not a member of the Taliban. Count Iblis (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who posts x rated images of kids is going to be reported to the police and Interpol. The doctor posted X rated images, and its against the law. I can support my claim , (ex. What if this doctor guy was a pedophille and some how gets a "turn on" from this paraphillia , or this images could be victims of sexual abuse. Anyone how doesnt agree with this are contributing to pedophillia, and will be prosecuted by the highest extent of the USA law , and INTERPOLRio de oro (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.

I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?” —Travis^talk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:

• Valid Keep votes: 9
• Valid Delete votes: 5
• Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn 92.46.72.14 was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
• Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
• Other votes:

• Possibly rename: 1
• Possible move (destination unknown): 2
• Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1

• Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!

Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I came here for help when this started to look bad, didn't get any, and tried my best to handle the situation, leading to endless frustration, even more gigantic rants (check Hans Adler's talkpage for even more fun!) and me looking a bit like a prick even though all I'd ever been doing was to keep things in order (hell, I voted delete just like the nom wanted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?

• Support —Travis^talk 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support and volunteer as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the creation date for the discussion and noticed that it was done on March 20, not March 22 as signed by the nominator. Therefore, according to this discussion, I went ahead and closed it. —Travis^talk 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last word?

I left a long comment on the talk page after User:TravisTX closed the AfD. I'd just like to say here that I don't think either User:R_Physicist or the JSC Kazakhtelecom anon identifiable with G. N. Nugmanova (a collaborator of Ratbay Myrzakulov) was nominating or editing in bad faith. I don't know either of these parties, but I do have a friendly interest in expositioning related mathsci topics, and as my comment shows, despite long experience (in 2006) with AfDs, this was an unusually difficult case. One of the enduring problems with Wikipedia is that thoughtful comments in such AfDs, which often have much wider applicability, are lost to the community as soon as the discussion closes. ---CH (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will say that good faith contributions can still quite easily be disruptive ones. Simply, R physicist may have been trying really hard to get across his expert opinion, but when he starts dropping longwinded essays about the nature of Wikipedia, especially when they stoop so low as to take pot-shots at Jimbo Wales, his behavior has crossed the line into "really not appropriate" territory. But yeah, so maybe he meant to do that all in good faith, but refusing to stop disrupting the AfD is the real problem. As an expert, he is entitled to alot in his career, in real life, etc. But on Wikipedia, experts do not get special privileges based on merit. This has been sacrificed to allow true consensus-based encyclopedia-building. Yes, experts are sometimes bogged down with nonsense from uninformed people. But sometimes "experts" aren't really experts, or they don't really have a good sense of what they're really supposed to be doing here, or (worst of all) they're completely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I granted R physicist as much good faith and generosity as possible, and was completely willing to do so. But he refused to work within the guidelines of how we build our encyclopedia, and that just doesn't work (clearly). No amount of merit or expertise gives someone a free pass to disrupt AfDs or otherwise impede others' efforts to properly build Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that R physicist came at this one head-first and got so heated, but he was told repeatedly not to disrupt Wikipedia, and he outright refused. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I was leaving some comments, User:R_Physicist joined myself in the ranks of the Departed. To repeat, I don't know any of the parties in this matter, I simply thought some of the comments in the 2nd AfD were worthy of comment as a contribution to much needed wikireform. Cheeser1, one point you might be missing here is that one argument for reforming the ruleset is that otherwise good users are less likely to wind up giving the appearance of misbehavior. (Admittedly, I didn't look very hard at R_Physicist's edits due to lack of time, so you may have seen something I didn't--- I was struck by his/her departure just after I added a brief comment to his former talk page, which I presume was a coincidence.)

It is a sad and telling comment that my arguments from 2006 (a few tiny traces of which can be seen in this old page) have been lost to the community. Why? See step one in my advice here. Is it really any wonder that when people ask me about Wikipedia I send them here? I wish I thought there was a better place, I really do.---CH (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD process is not the place to stage disruptive "wikireform" - especially when others ask you to stop and you make it 10 times worse instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as [29]. DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

if we want analogies, I'd compare it to provoking an avalanche. Each justified though angry reply from established editors here was followed by another very long defense. Experienced people should know better than that. They at least should know to confine the discussions to the merits of the article. DGG (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you're confusing my posts with R physicist's. I attempted to keep the AfD on topic, related to the merits of the article, by repeatedly moving (not even removing, just moving) polemical and irrelevant essays, rants, etc. to the talk page, where they are at least slightly more appropriate. Outside editors repeatedly complained of the horribly convoluted state of the AfD, and I attempted in good faith to clean it up, and like I said above, apparently it makes me look like the bad guy. Fine. I'm evil. At least I tried to stave off what has been thoroughly determined to be an extraordinarily muddled, disruptived, messed-up AfD. God forbid I ever step in to try to clean anything up ever again. Next time a flock of what are now admitted meatpuppets steps in to gravely disrupt an AfD, I'll just ask you to step in and make sure nobody cleans it up. And you're the one with a mop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, you did snap somewhat, and it's not out of line to point that out. I think it was understandable that you snapped and were rude, but that doesn't make it right.

On a secondary point, admitted meatpuppets? Where's the admission? I don't doubt you, I just want to see it, maybe feel some closure to all this mess. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the relevant RFCU, we establish Proscience=Antignom, and that the IPs originate from the same locale. Only after that was determined did Proscience jump in and demand that s/he and his/her expert spouse be given two !votes worth of leverage in a debate that constitutes their first, and only, contributions to Wikipedia. Actually, they expected to have all the say in the matter since they're experts, and when they didn't get what they wanted, we got lengthy essays about the failure(s) of Wikipedia (from several parties). Fishy as all get-out, and disruptive to boot. Considering the kind of outbursts that go without question (or with very little question) on the part of admins who are attacked for trying to clean up, fix, or otherwise un-disrupt a situation, I find it sad how little support I received from the mop-wielding Wikipedians (I asked and was basically ignored), and how much I've been blamed for actions whose blame rests solidly on others' shoulders. DGG, the only admin who seemed involved when the problem started to spiral out of control, took the time to cast his !vote, chastise me, express great sympathy for the disruptive editors, and do nothing to aid in cleaning up the AfD. Why? Because after repeated personal attacks, disruption, and abusive Undoing of my attempts to fix the AfD - for its own sake and by request of others - I dared to cross the line so horrifically and use the word... freaking? I hardly find that to be the cardinal sin that DGG makes it out to be. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So why did no admin step in? My guess is that those who considered doing this, once they saw what was going on decided that it is impossible to stop an earthquake. You just have to wait until it's over and you can clean up and rebuild your house. I made the same mistake as you. Let's get rid of the mess, take our lesson and move on. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

HHi, Cheeser1, when you wrote "others ask you to stop and you make it ten times worse instead", I hope you were talking about R_Physicist and not me! In hindsight, I probably was wasting time--- at last my time--- by attempting to comment yesterday "from beyond the wikigrave". I think any "disruption" my comments may have caused was very minor, but I have removed them. ---CH (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your comments, rather, the comments you were defending. That should have been (but apparently was not) clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maddox (writer) again

User:Arisedrink is a part of the influx of open proxy vandals that had a go at the article a few days ago, which led to lots of blocks and semi-protection. Now he´s using his established account to resume the edits, which led to full protection but no action against the sockpuppeteer. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddox_(writer)&action=history and compare [30] to [31], [32], [33], [34], followed by Arisedrinks three minutes later [35], [36], [37], [38] and [39]. The mere fact that he uses open proxies to avoid 3RR and introduces terms such as "Bullshit" and "Rant" as genres makes any attempt of WP:AGF laughable. I´m tired of defending this article earning me 3RR blocks against a vandal. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also previous sysop comment at [40]. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what is it you require of sysops? The article is protected and the editor has been inactive on Wikipedia since protection was applied; are you requesting a topic ban, or a block of the editor based on past demeanour and possible abuse of socks (via proxy ip's)? Personally, I would support a topic ban - but that isn't an admin opinion, just a third party one. Is there any consensus on the article talkpage - and if there isn't, shouldn't you be finding one? - in how to deal with this, one which an admin might be able to enact? I realise you may be tired of the matter, but it is best to present us admins with a suggested course of action which we can then consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not require, I request a block on this abusive user. Evidently it´s a single-purpose vandalism-only account with no intention to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way than defamation of Maddox. It´s really up to you how to deal with this, you´re the admin, you´re supposed to know the whole "how to deal with vandalism" thing. All I know is that it is vandalism and that someone has to deal with it. --Servant Saber (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After such a sweetly reasoned response I am surprised that the entire sysop community hasn't rushed in to do your willing... I would point out that admins are not some sort of overseer, making judgements on editors and their contributions - although I suspect that there may be some who have suddenly sat up a bit on reading this - and going forth and "righting wrongs", but basically editors with the ability to execute some particular actions. As such admins only act according to the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, of which WP:Consensus is a pillar. It is up to the community, via the policies etc. or by discussion, to decide what to do and for the sysops to enact that concensus. I suggest that you find a consensus that Arisedrink is a disruptive influence that can best be countered by having the account blocked, and then you can request a block - until there is a consensus then this is a content dispute and admins do not get involved in content disputes.

As an uninvolved editor (with sysop privileges) my opinion is that a topic ban would be most appropriate. If you disagree you need to convince me (as a representative of the community) why a block is more appropriate, or find others who share your preferences. That is how consensus works.

In the meantime the article is protected until 1st April, but not the talkpage, so you have the opportunity to produce the required consensus. Or you can wait to April, and report any obvious vandalism to AIV. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I'll not get into word fighting over a petty vandal. WP:PROXY is a policy that prohibits the use of open proxies. Above I presented evidence that Arisedrink uses proxies (to avoid WP:3RR, no less). What's the issue? If you can't get yourself to actually check the article history but expect a group of editors to present "consensus" that the user should be blocked you are very mistaken about your role. Put some effort into it or leave it to others. --Servant Saber (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. How you doin? -- Kesh (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Southern California: Dispute on a line of text, requesting another admin to review as a 3rd party

NOTE: the editors on the subject have resolved their differences --Bobak (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. I'm an admin, but I'm mainly looking for a third opinion (preferably from an admin). I am currently in conflict with a relatively new user who keeps trying to delete information about a notorious period in USC student politics of the mid-20th century; something I only found out about by reading articles (noted in this CNN article, detailed in this Daily Trojan article) and then the screenplay to the classic film All the President's Men --for more you can also read our own article on Ratfucking, a term which originates from USC student politics of the time. There is a brief line on the issue, and its been the center of concern. Right now it's teetering close to 3RR territory (though spread over a number of days).

The user keeps coming back with different argumentation, but the arguments appear to be of the baseless, kitchen-sink variety. I will go edit-change by edit-change in chronological order:

• First, he argued that it was "NPOV" (we'll assume POV) which isn't correct because the information is cited to an NPOV source and a famous contemporary screenplay.
• Next, the argument tweaked to saying that the statement was tainted POV, I lated reverted back because
• Next, a new argument that the information allegedly opinion and does not appear in the source cited, which I pointed it out is incorrect as the statements are completely supported by the article and screenplay
• The next edit mischaracterized the article as being about one individual, this is not true by any reading of the article and I made that clear. At this point he contacted me on my talk page as well as the article's discussion page.
• I made an extensive reply on how his assertion is incorrect by a plain reading of the citations. Among the arguments addressed, in his assertion he claimed that the actions described in the article were not explicitly described as "corruption" when the actions themselves all meet the very definition (to help clarify the M-W definition was linked in the response).
• I restored the article, and in trying to help clarify any confusion, I also took a swipe at confusing language and POV terms had been introduced over the months by anon accounts: [41][42][43][44]
• The new argument, at which point I started to believe this user is not interesting in discussion, is that the line somehow violates "original research" and "unverified claims"; an absurd argument against information that's been cited. Of course, the user used this argument to revert the article.

At this point I realized this was going close to 3RR so I've come here for a third opinion (from another admin) to clarify how this should be handled. I don't feel I've been wrong in anyway, but after a while on Wikipedia you start to worry about inadvertently breaking rules.

Additionally, I suspect this is a user that, with good intentions, wants articles to look good for USC (which I should state is my own alma mater), because I've previously had to explain that the infobox for USC Trojan football cannot have claimed titles (see this edit, and part of the discussion on his talk page), but wire titles as per WikiProject College football. The dispute there was settled properly. I am not sure what to do here. --Bobak (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing (or severely modifying) that statement would seem to be pretty unquestionably correct. The statement makes it sound like the corruption is a continual and ongoing thing, when the sources say it was something in the 1960s. "Has been corrupt" has a different connotation from"was corrupt in the 1960s". --B (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is a forum with a great number of experienced and prudent editors. However, this does seem to be a question of content, and not one of conduct per se. So, this is not an appropriate forum, unless I misunderstand the nature of the complaint. A talk page discussion, a request for comment, or mediation are all good places to take the issue. While that may seem nit-picky, it is important to respect the tradition that administrators have no special privileges with respect to content. Hence, posting requests for comment on content here while specifying feedback "preferably from an admin" is to be discouraged. Unit56 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a content dispute and has nothing to do with admins It might be a good idea to drop by the Universities Wikiproject and ask for input and assistance there. If I have time, I'll stop by the article and take a look since I heavily concentrate on American higher education. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sidetrack this request. Please, I request that you do not straw man me with one quibble about the kind of help I was asking for. From my (apparently incorrect) understanding: this is the "Administrators' noticeboard", not the "Village Pump", and I think I was completely reasonable in asking for advice from veteran editors --the easiest way to categorize them is by Admins since they require at least some consensus that they're veteran. I found it weird that someone created an account just to go after that point, as though I was going to go on some rampage against them --I have no record of doing that and I don't appreciate the implication. In the interest of my main concern with this section, I am not going to argue for mere admin support anymore. --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page it says Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. This is the incident noticeboard, not a content discussion forum. Just a bit further down, under "what this page is not", it states However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. In other words, this is explicitly not the place to bring a content dispute. I believe you are looking for RFC, where a great number of veteran editors, including many non-admins, are available for comment. I cannot fathom why you choose to make an issue of my recent creation of a user name, as though it were something nefarious -- talk about a strawman. I resent that accusation, not implication, that I was anything other than completely courteous and straightforward. I expect any admin to be able to take courteous feedback in the spirit in which it is intended and presented, without returning an ad hominem attack. Unit56 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. I don't know what you're trying to acheive as I've already stated that I've dropped the admin thing. --Bobak (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On topic: I liked B's suggestion, and will rewrite the sentence to reflect that the Student Government found its way into the famous screenplay (as this has a famous film school, there's an interesting link). However, after another user came into the fray (on my end), the original user reverted, has taken a less-than-positive tone, and brought up other fairly weak arguments, and I have responded. I am going to rewrite the passage as per B's suggestion. --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On a new search, I found a Rolling Stone article that notes "That was Jack Abramoff. Like those famed USC student "ratfuckers" who went on to hold the ultimate panty raid in the Watergate Hotel" --and [another from the Daily Kos. --Bobak (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: the editors on the subject have resolved their differences --Bobak (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Kyaa the Catlord

Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) resurrected three Oh My Goddess characters that had been redirected (by TTN) after several discussions. I left the user a note about establishing a consensus to do so prior to bringing these back and the need for sources and I re-redirected the articles. The note has been removed. We've has one cycle of undoing each other (and I'll recuse for the day, now). User has since redirected Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare) to Macbeth#Characters which seems to me a rather pointy move. Lando Calrissian, too.

• Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Too many articles for minor characters
• Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!#Merge character articles
• Keiichi Morisato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Urd (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lady Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — now here
• Lando Calrissian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — also redirected, just before I posted this

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted POINTy redirects, warned user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a discussion for these minor characters. It seems to be your role in Wikipedia, Jack. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

...you know, current policy clearly states that main characters are allowed to have their own articles (provided said article is written properly. All the characters listed above are actually main characters in the manga/anime they're from. In any case, TTN is not allowed to make redirects as of the end of the arbcom case concerning him-- when were these articles redired by him? Jtrainor (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears that there was a discussion of merging the minor character articles, but someone overzealously merged major characters as well and Jack is using the discussion of minor characters as carte blanche to revert my correction of TTN's mistake. I have started a new section on the un-merging of these articles at the list. Further, Jack's own words say "The template {{Oh My Goddess}} currently lists Keiichi Morisato, Belldandy, Urd (Oh My Goddess!) and Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) as "main characters" so it would seem reasonable to keep those as stand alone articles with brief summaries in the list." in the discussion he links to. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, where does policy clearly state this? I'm far from experienced in fictional areas. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2008-01-28, for all three articles. ([45] [46] [47]) He cites some discussion in his edit summaries, but since this looks like one of those fun cases where the various threads arguing whether or not an article is a waste of time and disk space are now ten times as long as the article, I don't know which one. --erachima formerly tjstrf 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See the first two links I gave above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the first two links you gave. There is no consensus there to redirect main characters as you claim. The discussion was around minor characters. The three I unredirected were mistakenly redirected by our friend TTN and I corrected his error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I admit the redirects of Lady Macbeth and Lando Calrissian may appear to be dumbass things to have done, however, in my opinion and based off following the arbitration case, these could be valid redirects. I have begun discussion for Lando and will start the same for Lady MacBeth when I find the time. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lady MacBeth is certainly among the more notable fictional characters in all of history, so you should probably assume that extensive sources exist and that it's a question of finding them. You may, pun noted, have a point with Calrissian, we'll see; I've not looked at that article. Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And amazingly there are none used to Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare). I assume you will be correcting that? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are expecting me to chase-down all of your disruption? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no expectations of you whatsoever. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Kyaa's edits. Consensus can change and so there is no harm in reverting controversial redirects. I also ask Jack to not assume bad faith against that user. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If editors are expected to start a discussion when they want to merge something, it can be assumed that anyone wanting to de-merge should start a discussion as well, especially when it comes to reviving something that constituted a policy and guideline violation before the merge/redirect. Discussion hasn't happened, so the redirects still have the consensus from when TTN last edited them. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge anything but minor characters at the time. TTN's claims do not hold up under scrutiny. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have returned Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) to its pre-RFAR redirected status. The fact that TTN redirected an article is, unless it is an obviously tendentious redirect, absolutely no reason to revert it without discussion. Black Kite 10:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TheWrench and Street Fighter character articles

• TheWrench (talk · contribs) insists on adding to the Street Fighter character articles references to an unofficial Chinese movie, "Future Cops", which borrows likenesses of the characters, in a way that makes it appear official. He has replaced them. I don't wish to edit war so I haven't reverted him, but it seems to me like a movie that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article probably shouldn't be mentioned in the articles in ways which make it appear to have any bearing on the characters themselves. This is probably a content dispute, I suppose, but the reason I go here instead of filing an RfC is because this spans multiple articles and if this is not a matter for ANI, I'd like to be guided to what I should do next (the content dispute pages tend to confuse me. ^_^) JuJube (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all the additions and left the user a note, advising him to bring the issue to the talk pages first. That should do it for now.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Point making on Jeremiah Wright article

Die4Dixie does not want Imprecations (Bible) wikilinked over at the Jeremiah Wright article and he is making a bit of a point about it. TheslB (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. I want it linked when the word is mentioned in the quote.One time. other editors have wanted several links so I have obliged. It is point making. I will voluntarily stop . Please consider having the article link to it one time when it is directly quoted so not to have undue weight. I tried to discuss it several times on the talk page, but no one will go there to build consensus. please investigate. I concede the point of my point making, but that article needs some help.--Die4Dixie 05:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

In fact, this is where I want it linked:

"Marty further explains that Wright's style is similar to the imprecatory topoi ...."and I had it that way until other editors kept adding links to the same subsection giving undue weight to one theologians opinion. It appears that the article in quest was created solely to be able to be linked by the editor that wanted it linked more than once originally . --Die4Dixie 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jannisri, disruptive, ignoring copyvio questions

Resolved

 – Images deleted by commons:User:WJScribe

Gentlemen, I call to your attentions with regards to the above-mentioned user being disruptive in using an identical image of a posed shot of an airline advertisement for use in the page Malaysia Airlines. The first image is here:Image:MHcabin.jpg (history · last edit) and the second image is here:Image:Malaysia Airlines Cabin Crew.jpg (history · last edit) . Both image are one and the same from a Malaysia Airlines advertisement dated 2002 which I can't recalled where exactly it can be located, but Jannisri (talk) claims it to be his work immediately after I told him of the possibility of copyvio. He subsequently reposted another image in its place from another user, whom I have good reasons to suspect is a sock puppet account or vice versa. -- Dave1185 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No point argueing. Jannisri (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unused in articles, extremely dubious attribution - can be deleted via CSD:I9. These are Commons images, so you'd need a Commons admin to do it, though.Black Kite 10:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Votung

Resolved

Continual spamming despite repeated warnings not to do so. Needs to be blocked permanently. --SJK (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - by User:Faithlessthewonderboy. AIV is thataway, for future reference. _GB^T/C 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nareshgupta

This user constantly dumps information about Indian books into Wikipedia, in a completely nonsencial manner. --SJK (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is questionable. Special:Contributions/Nareshgupta. I have no idea what to do. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is a owner of a publishing house and is spamming Wikipedia to sell this books.Many are blant copyright violations[Spaming pages with advertisements for books.some appear to be copyright violations as well like [48].He is a publisher [49] It appears to be spam only account.Even in other articles he appears to be adding references of his books.[50][51]Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also look at this edit [52]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion

Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think it's a error in editng, rather than a deletion request, but I can't find it. Can someone give me a hand? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It includes several speedy deletion templates as an example of what they look like, and I suppose those placed it in CAT:CSD. There's a note up there saying someone is trying to fix it. Hut 8.5 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user?

A sockpuppet of the user mentioned above in sections Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Determined_trolling_of_Refdesks and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Real-world_threat.3F has blanked my tools and sandbox subpages and removed a post I made on the refdesks. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip that removed your tools page and subpage for 31 hours. However, the ip that removed the refdesk post is different - which may mean that the editor has already hopped ip's. Since that act was its only edit I am not inclined to block at this time. In future, report this at WP:AIV for a faster response. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. A lot of us at the refdesks are pretty sure that 71.100... is some user that the admins there speak of in hushed tones, and I have to tell you that I'm getting awfully curious about all the tippietoeing. A temporary block won't do anything. The desks, and apparently I, are "under attack", you might say. I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia (first vandalization of my userpages), but I'm hoping there is a posse of lawmen on the move. Any reassurance anybody here could give me in that regard would be welcome, because this part of Wikipedia is a big fat pain in the ass, and I'm developing a disinclination to bother in spite of myself. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"...some user that the admins there speak of in hushed tones..."? Means nothing to me, I'm afraid. If there is a range of ip's on a vandalism spree then perhaps a few details may encourage a range block to be enacted - for a short while, given the problems of such blocks catching good as well as bad solicitorscontributors - by an admin on this page. If there is a suspected user behind the ip's then there may be a case of making a report to WP:SSP. Otherwise report incidents to AIV, mentioning similar acts from similar ip addresses, and have them dealt with as they arise. Other suggestions welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (edit LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) )

The Rascals talk

Resolved

Would an admin please move the talk page for The Rascals back over a redirect to its proper place? The talk page for The Rascals article is currently an article in mainspace titled The Rascals (U.S. band) with a redirect from the original talk, apparently due to an abortive attempt to move The Rascals to The Rascals (U.S. band). The result is kind of goofy. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please double-check and pipe up on my talk page if I've screwed it up (as is not unusual when I move things, sadly). ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 15:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ

Resolved

 – Correctly archived without action; should now be rearchived, again without action ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(This complaint should not have been archived without action by the MiszaBot II bot without action. As it concerns inappropriate behavior by an admn, I think it bears closer look. Towards that end, I am resubmitting the complaint from the recent archival action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.

Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.

Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".

I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).

As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I also ignored the patently false claims of 3RR violations: 24-hour window? No. Same edit? No. More than 3 reverts even outside of the 24-hours window? No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the noting of the 3RR claim isn't false, as the multiple reverts occurred in the same article (repeatedly altering discussions and archves- which are still a part of the article - count towards that total).

I think that to simplify matters, allow me to demonstrate why they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:

1. You did not add the section header into the article;

2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and

3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.

4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.

Ergo, not maintenance edits. I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving without action generally means that nobody could see, wanted to or thought necessary any action. Looking at the above, I agree. This is neither a matter for administrators nor an incident. If anything, it's a content dispute and provision of a mop doesn't give you any extra or any less rights in one of those. Perhaps you were looking for dispute resolution? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No action is necessary here. No need to continue this discussion. Seek dispute resolution via WP:RFC or WP:MEDIATION or WP:3O instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note WP:3O and WP:MEDIATION are for content disputes, the issue here seems to be user conduct, WP:RFCU would seem to make more sense but is probably way overkill and unlikely anyone other than Arcayne would certify it, maybe WP:WQA would be helpful. Generally anything more than fixing a typo to which there has yet to be a reply is unacceptable refactoring (use strike out and underscore for anything else) and tinkering with an archived page is really not cool and at least gives a bad appearance; but it sounds like Arcayne has over-reacted as the effect sounds minimal here. It certainly doesn't sound like it actually affected the editing of the article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by an Admin on St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine

The admin JzG has vandalized the article St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine by removing large sections of verifiable and sourced facts from the article and recently deleted material that was added from a government database that was verifiable and sourced. Something needs to be done about this rogue admin and his disregard for core Wikipedia policy. 67.177.149.119 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, JzG (Guy)'s removal was a pretty good one [53]. The material he removed was mostly from primary sources, and a lot of the info smelled like original research. As he said in an intermediate edit summary, we should stick to secondary sources (most of te time, anyway). Primary sources aren't accompanied by any third-party analysis, so by themselves they can't demonstrate any true meaning or indicate what is worth noting. You should also consider asking him about it before coming here to cry ADMIN ABUSE; many editors are liable to think you're wrong just from reading the section title. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The only fault I will admit to here is not doing it a long time ago. The whole article was a mess from the start, and this request should be viewed in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher Guy (Help!) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User Dbachmann‎

(snip) duplicated here. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

and below. dab (𒁳) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to block an admitted I.P. sock of a indefinitely blocked user?

User:24.215.173.132 is an admitted sockpuppet of User:Jvolkblum, an indefinitely blocked user. For background and evidence, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum. This IP has returned after a month-long block and is once again wreaking havoc on Sarah Lawrence College-related articles and other pet interests. Although Volkblum makes some constructive edits, he does not seem to have addressed any of the concerns (edit warring, wanton disregard of MOS even after polite warnings, sockpuppetry) that ultimately led to his being blocked. I would appreciate the opinion of an uninvolved admin on whether another IP block is warranted.

I also believe the IP is creating more sockpuppets, but evidence is somewhat scanty at this point. Would a CheckUser request be appropriate, or do they need very stong evidence before even checking?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an extended block for the IP, seeing as I was the initial blocker of all those involved with this case. The IP is heavily engaged in COI work, random example. 1 year maybe? I'm still wondering whether the IP is stale though, past editing patterns appear to indicate that, and if so, a longer block can be implemented. Rudget. 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, left a message on their talk. Review would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User Dbachmann‎ Part 2

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

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ. Thatcher 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Note--> This user dbachmann took out my comment that was intially posted here without informing me --DWhiskaZ (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have worked relly hard on an article i was working on its called Mahamada and I actually went to my local Library and picked up an Holy Book that is related to my artcile and added information that contains material meant for the article. and that user:Dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada. The article was created to post views from all Holy Books and user:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with information i am providing. whats a user to do? --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note --> This is my review [54] and that user:dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada.(see [55]) to Bhavishya Purana an article that is another holy book that contains information about Mahamad. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to stop putting your original research into the article as you've been asked. This would be a really good time to read the policies so that you don't run in to further problems. Shell ^babelfish 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

suspected sock puppets of user Dbachmann user:Abecedare Who is also interfering and doing same edits as user:Dbachmann. also check User:Rudrasharman

The text i put up is straight out of the Holy Book, i cant change the wording. and if that doesnt seem to be a proper ref than if i take photos of it would that?

And user Dbachmann is putting up an case on me for contributing as you already know Mahamad page was made for views from all Holy Books not only the Bhavishya Purana where this user keep redirecting. It seems fair enough to use Mahamad because hes mentioned in serveral holy books and that User:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with it. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

user's contributions are blatant (WP:SNOW) nonsense. He is also crossposting to the main board. Suggest warning or right away block, since appeals to reason do not appear to work. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This user:Dbachmann also put up an case on me see (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ) and the link [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ]] i dont think i did anything wrong by contribuing to article that contains information about Mahamad from other holy books. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Urgent blocks needed

The recently confirmed sockpupeteer ( with 50 sock accounts) is now on a vandalism spree. Can someone block him and his sock accounts and rollback the recent edits ? Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All done, I believe, between a group of us. Also, I consider DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks to be community banned and to be reverted on sight from here on in. Objections? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the ban. He is back as User:Contributerbylaw, by the way. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Seconded. Don't see any point wasting further time on this one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Third. 56 socks is quite excessive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, ya, that is a lot of socks. I could not fit that many socks in my sock drawer. Support ban. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) 50 socks? No, there is no place here for such an account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap ... 60 socks in less than a week? Shown the door, this one must be. Blueboy96 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and someone please get ahold of UTSC. Blueboy96 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the ban as well.   jj137 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the fact that DWhiskaZ chose sock IDs Blngyen (talk · contribs) and Utcurzch (talk · contribs), confusingly similar to admins Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and Utcursch (talk · contribs), suggests that this is a reincarnation of some older sock-puppeteer. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the CheckUser was pretty comprehensive, so we can assume the trail was cold and we're not going to find out who it was until (and I do mean until) they choose to out themselves. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I only went as far back as the beginning of March. It is possible that a recursive search will find even more. I'll take a peep later tonight. Thatcher 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All socks currently listed at the CU case appear to be blocked. By the time somebody creates a sock army that expansive, they tend to get revert, block, ignore treatment on sight, anyway; this character is as good as banned, on that basis, at least for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant newbie admin question here ... when was the last time somebody created a sockfarm that big in such a short period of time. Looking at the main account's history, he's only been here a week. Blueboy96 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If I knew - which I don't - do you think I would tell how on a public viewed high traffic page? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He actually asked when it was done, not how it was done. As for the most rapidly created sockfarm, at one point we had to block a large part of Chicago because of one vandal who was generating dozens of sockpuppets per day, but that was over a prolonged period of time so I'm not sure it's what he was after either. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 Note: This is the same editor as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan, and I found a bunch more sleepers to check. As to how it was done, I'd rather not say. No need to help him avoid detection. Thatcher 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came out wrong--I was just amazed that someone could assemble that many socks in only a week. Blueboy96 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 110 130 known socks! I don't know if it takes much skills to do this, but it certainly takes much time. Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's got to be a time consuming task - all the more pointless when a skilled admin can take a swing with the banhammer and render all that work for naught. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, at the risk of violating NPA, I must say it seems to be quite a obsessive and brainless hobby.

I have tagged the latest 23 socks; they are not blocked yet - in case it matters. Abecedare (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...All of which have now been blocked by Me or others. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So does this merit inclusion on WP:100? I feel like we could get 100 editors to agree to the statement "I am a sockpuppet of DWhiskaZ," no? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bromley (Jamaica)

Resolved

I just came across this article, and it looks like some eyes here would be good. It looks like someone(s) have been having fun with libel and the/a person with that name doesn't care for it. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a Mark Bromley complaining, not the Mark Bromley in question. I revert the article and checked the references (they're fine). A referenced article about the Mark Bromley cannot be libellous (or "liable" as the IP put it) of a Mark Bromley. And a fully-referenced article, based on police reports from a police website, about the Mark Bromley cannot be libellous of a Mark Bromley. We'll see if Doc Glasgow's {{prod}} gets anywhere. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IP trying to "out" user

Can someone have a chat with a <ip removed>, preferably in the form of a short block. They've been trolling <username removed> and revealing his RL identity all week. I gave the user a warning earlier this week to stop revealing <username removed> RL identity and at the time they said they wouldn't do it again, but they persist in doing so. I sent a couple of emails off to the oversight email list to get the outing's oversighted, but so far there hasn't been a response. It also looks like the user has a dynamic IP address (they've just made edits as <ip removed>, so if <username removed> user and talk pages could get a semi protect, that'd be great. thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've semi-prot both pages for a week and blocked the ip for 24 hours. I've also blanked the relevant names and ips to prevent further damage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User: A Link to the Past

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.

---

Take it to the article talkpage, please. Black Kite 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past has ignored consensus on the redirect of an article name from EarthBound (series) to Mother (series), and has increasingly been attacking other users whose views do not coincide with his own. I have politely suggested that he take a Wikibreak and requested that he refrain from attacks, only for him to revert the redirect for a third time, and create Mother (series) as a redirect to prevent anybody else from undoing his redirect. Judging from his Talk page, I can see that I am not the only user he has shown this incivility to. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also been in numerous disputes with this user, and I completely agree with you. Check out this link for reference. The Prince (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The opposition had been dead. The people opposing the move to EarthBound (series) stopped discussing - if they abandon the argument, their opposition is no longer noteworthy. I attacked you because you have continuously ignored me every single time I point out documentation of Nintendo calling the series EarthBound, which you requested. It has nothing to do with your "position". The fact that you have been stalling and ignoring every piece of evidence I've provided that establishes what the series name in English-speaking countries does nothing but stall the discussion for your own benefit. The old discussion had ended with opposition to the move not responding for several days, and no one even bothering to oppose the move until weeks later. If they no longer wish to participate in the discussion, even when there had been no indication by either parties that it was finished, then they can no longer cling to their position. Peanut, all you did was create a new discussion. It is YOUR sole responsibility to prove your case at this point. Just because you posted it in an old discussion doesn't mean the discussion has been ongoing.

I will not accept your opposition to the merge until you respond to my argument that SSBB calls the series EarthBound. So until then, your opposition may as well not even exist. You cannot just ignore what you choose to ignore and think that you can get past consensus (remember that the discussion ended with the Mother supporters ceasing to discuss the move).

I also don't appreciate that you did not tell me that you opened an incident report against me, despite the fact that you are required to. I don't see any merit in an AN/I discussion that was opened to force the argument your way and to get me punished. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that the "consensus" at EB (series) was between four people, only two of which didn't abandon the discussion - namely, me and my fellow EarthBound supporter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ALttP, I do not appreciate plenty of things that you did, but at no point did I make threats or personal attacks toward you in the course of the discussion. I have provided more than adequate proof of reason for the redirect staying as it was, and despite my protests and that of the other users, you still proceeded to make the change. As noted above, I am also not the only person who has noted that you have been uncivil and combative; The Prince has noted where you have proven yourself to be uncompromising and difficult to work with, and a third uninvolved user has also noted on your Talk page that you are antagonistic. In addition to the above, you have also violated WP:3RR to keep "your" version of the article active, salted the original Mother (series) page, and apparently resorted to Wikistalking as well. I have suggested that you take a Wikibreak, and honor the "retirement" message listed on your user page, but my suggestions went completely ignored. I have no further recourse, and I am supported in my action. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, must be the apocalypse, you continue to refuse to explain why my evidence is bad and your evidence is good. Apparently, the producer of SSBB's word is good on the SSBB web site, but when it has to do with the video game, he's just totally and completely wrong. If the producer is right on the web site, he's right in the video game. By that fact, EarthBound is the official English series title by a matter of fact.

And I don't care. You created tension by refusing to respond to my arguments. If you don't like being disrespected, respect others, thanks.

By the way, you reverted five times. I reverted four times. The only thing worse than my 3RR (which I hate doing) is people 3RRing WORSE than me and then pointing out my violation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wearing people down until they give up and edit elsewhere is not the same as having a consensus. And it's always a bad idea to create an article on an old redirect just so that someone can't revert your move - gaming the software to get your way in a content dispute is never a good idea. -- Naerii 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wearing people down? How is anything I've done "wearing people down"? I'm sorry that they decided to quit the discussion, but what, am I supposed to say "okay, since I can't counter the arguments of the people opposing this move if they aren't here, I'll have to give up", but I never would let people quit a discussion and hope that their opinions are still counted. That's bullcrap. I gave adequate evidence - I countered every argument - I provided PROOF that Nintendo uses EarthBound as the official English name - your statement applies to PeanutCheeseBar much more than it does me. I'm feeling worn down by PeanutCheeseBar having not acknowledged the one proven example of Nintendo calling the series EarthBound. I have asked him constantly to respond, but he refuses to answer. What I did in the first discussion was as much "wearing them down" as anyone "wears people down". It's called debating, and that's how people do it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I must ask, why in the world has PeanutCheeseBar NOT been the one trying to wear me down? Want some evidence?

"ALttP, I am afraid you have not provided adequate documentation" - Response to me saying I did provide adequate documentation, not actually explaining - in any way whatsoever - why it wasn't adequate documentation.

"You did not provide evidence, only hyperbole" - And of course, this. Calling my argument hyperbole without EVER explaining why. All PeanutCheeseBar has done is say "well, everything you said is wrong, so I win". He's never explained why my evidence is wrong, only giving blanket words to dodge the question, being intentionally vague, something that any rational human being would understand would make anyone irate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any proof; you merely used hyperbole to try to establish your opinion as fact, and you did so quite condescendingly. Your edits were reverted because they went against consensus (in which case, they could be treated as vandalism) This is also not the first time I've been subjected to your incivility, and you are not ashamed or remorseful of it at all; in the Talk:Mario page, you stated the following in an edit summary:

"You can't remove someone's statement because they're condenscending. I didn't insult the user. I have the right to DECLARE myself superior, let alone imply it."

Making comments like that within an Edit Summary is uncalled for, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Even now, you argue with anyone who does not share your viewpoint on the matter, and you are exacerbating the issue even more than before. Given that this is the second time you've been reported on this noticeboard in a two week period, doesn't that tell you that maybe you need to tone down your rhetoric? If you posted the proof before (which I did not see any evidence of), then it would not have been extenuating on your part to repost that, or link to the specific edit; however, you did no such thing, and you continue to clutch at straws to try to find ways to exonerate yourself). Regardless of that, no matter how irate someone makes you, you should not engage in personal attacks and use Edit Summaries to "make a statement". PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain why SSBB is hyperbole, or my opinion. Now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to feel inclined to cooperate when you take that tone with me; instead of constantly turning the spotlight back on me, why don't you explain why you have taken the action that you did, starting with the incivility and the inappropriate edit summaries? PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is about EarthBound. This is not about your witch hunt, trying to get enough content dug up to get me blocked. This is about EarthBound, and ONLY EarthBound. You've never acknowledged my argument throughout the ENTIRE DISCUSSION, which anyone would recognize as a blatant attempt at disrupting the discussion.

My tone has nothing to do with your not responding. You've NEVER responded to that argument. A response from you about that argument can be filed under "fiction". The closest thing you've given is making a blanket "everything you said was opinion, hyperbole, etc.". If my arguments are opinion and hyperbole, why has your attempt to prove this been literally nonexistent?

Here's a thought - maybe I called you a troll because I did all this work gathering all this evidence, and all you did was ignore everything you couldn't even attempt to shoot down? I show no regret for acting the way I did. You basically acted disrespectfully in the same breath as when you showed me disrespect. You've refused to acknowledge my key argument, my one argument that you yourself said would prove me right, and when you keep acting like you've won just because you think you can magically wish what you don't like away is a bit irritating.

You lost the argument. Ignoring an argument doesn't make it go away. Because my key argument has literally no hyperbole or opinion in it, I cannot view anything said by you as anything but disruption of the discussion. I wanted to have a serious discussion, you wanted to fight for en.wiki to be moved to ja.wiki, and you ignored anything that proved me right.

This discussion is over. I refuse to respond to you. I shall bring it up at WT:VG, and in all likelihood, people will notice that since Nintendo established EB as the English name, it's the English name. - A Link to the Past [[User talk:A Link to the

Past|(talk)]] 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, something as simple as having EarthBound redirect to Mother and thus rendering this entire wikidrama moot never occured to you.

Oy... HalfShadow (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It did initially redirect, though ALttP kept redirecting it (against a consensus, at that). However, my issue is not merely with the article redirect; it is more his attitude, his "my way or the highway" attitude, and his incessant arrogance and bullying. I've requested more than once that he repost his evidence, but he has yet to even post viable evidence that Nintendo explicitly stated that the series is called "EarthBound". I feel less inclined to edit, especially if he is going to follow me around and revert any changes I made (which he has done in the past, across multiple articles). As Naerii (a complete outsider to this situation) also pointed out, his actions were unwarranted. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the love of...

Why have naming conventions in the first place, if redirection is good enough? We could move it to "Gregory Jameson (series)", and as long as Mother (series) and EarthBound (series) redirect to that, it's fine, right? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if Peanut happens to want my evidence, I guess I could give it to him.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl puts all EB/Mother content under EarthBound (Mother) or EarthBound. Similarly, he argues that the Smash Dojo uses Mother once (and only once). If the Dojo can establish the series' name as Mother without explicitly declaring the series name to be Mother, then the video game can establish the series' name as EarthBound without explicitly declaring the series name to be EarthBound. He established that he does not follow his own conditions for evidence - he never provided Nintendo explicitly stating the series to be Mother, yet says that the Dojo calling it the Mother series is good enough. Why isn't the game calling it EarthBound not good enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My apathy on the subject would probably deeply frighten you once you understood it. Please bitch and/or moan elsewhere. That goes for both sides, just to be fair. HalfShadow (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're being fair. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone who keeps refusing to acknowledge me or my statements, you continue to do just that... Regardless, that Gregory Jameson bit just reinforces what I was saying; in addition, I stated that I wanted you to find in print (referring to a source accessible on the internet) or some other reliable source that Nintendo specifically calls the series "EarthBound" (despite that being the name of the second game in the series). So far, you have failed to do so, and yet you shoot down what is provided on The Dojo, despite the fact that it is the official Smash Bros. site, and the developer ALSO worked on the Mother games. If it's coming from the developer and the publisher (in this case, Nintendo) does not disavow it, it is safe to assume that this is an endorsement by both companies. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[56] "(EarthBound-related music is the exception to this rule.)" I don't see Mother-related music on that page. In fact, in my looking, the most I've found is "Mother: Porky's Theme", which is much further from calling the series "Mother" than my link is. And please, take this discussion to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion will remain here, because your attitude and immoral tactics are what I have taken issue with, and given that this is not the first time you have acted like this, I do not believe that you feel any remorse for your actions or your attitude and you will repeat them in the future. You were even petty enough to put this in the Edit Summary for EarthBound (series) after YOU salted the Mother (series) page and created the redirect:

The discussion had ended, and the only two people left in the discussion, the supporters, got an admin to move it. Your opposition is new discussion - EBers won the first discussion.

Not only did you inappropriately use an Edit Summary, you also lied and tried to pass off your action as something an admin did just to try and make yourself look innocent. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the freaking EarthBound page. Your sole purpose in posting here is trying to get me blocked because I offended you. If you won't discuss it where it's meant to be discussed and refuse to actually say "hey, let's talk about what we're supposed to be talking about", then this argument is over. You may oppose it, but I doubt that'll make enough of a difference. Oh, and may I add that an ADMIN moved the page initially? Yeah, I'm really capable of unsalting EarthBound (series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Dynamic IP outing editor

Resolved

 – IP blocked, Sonics page semi-protected, Coz 11's page already semi-protected.

Can someone semi-protect Seattle SuperSonics and User:Coz 11 and their talk page for a few days and delete the edits of 76.193.81.39 (talk · contribs)? I reported the user earlier today and Seraphim Whip was nice enough to block the IP addresses that were outing the person earlier today, but they are back with a different IP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked ... seriously thinking about emailing AT&T about the IPs (both are DSL accounts from Tulsa on AT&T's network). Looks like most of the other pages in question have been fixed already. Blueboy96 05:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep — I semiprotected the pages and deleted the relevant BLP-violating edits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of PHG Arbcom ruling by User:Elonka

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.

---

This is either a vexatious request or the wrong venue. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to inform Administrators and the Arbitration Commity that User:Elonka has been abusing the Arbcom ruling against me, to try to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [57]. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [58]

Although I dispute the Arbcom ruling against me, I have stated repeatedly that I intend to follow it, out of respect for Wikipedia.

I hereby wish to document the facts of this harassment, as well as the numerous complaints by other others that this generated. I would like to ask Administrators and the Arbitration Commity to protect me from such abuse, and warn Elonka against repeating such actions, and restrict her from harassing me in such a manner.

Complaints by other users

Numerous users have already complained of such abuse. As explained by User:Abd, she is using the ruling "as a weapon" against me [59]:

• "Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him", "have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned?" User:Abd [60]
• "PHG is going to go on creating and editing articles that are technically not covered by it, and those opposed to him will jump on any reason, no matter how tiny, to block him, until he is blocked for good. Is that the goal here? Or is everyone trying to make him so frustrated that he leaves on his own?" [61], "The Renaissance period is not covered by the ban imposed by ArbComm and so should not be used against PHG. Let's keep to the letter of the ruling." User:Adam Bishop [62]
• "After reviewing the unblock request, Elonka's comment on my talk page and AGK's reply above, I cannot agree with the block based on most of the reasons that are currently given for it" User:Sandstein [63]

False accusations

Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:

• Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [64]
  

This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.

• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [65]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([66], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [67], or totally legitimate [68] as they had not been discussed in detail yet (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney: "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." [69]

Stretching of restriction perimeter

• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [70]
  

However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.

• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, inappropriately calling for blocks at the same time: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [71].

Stalking

• Elonka has been systematically following me around, either by tagging without specific cause articles I am creating ([72], [73]) or posting comments after my Talk Page posts to other users ([74]), or opposes my "Do you know" nomimations of articles I am allowed to create and edit [75].
• Elonka creates and keeps Wikipedia:Attack pages against me, a practice which I believe is discouraged by Wikipedia (see User:Elonka/Work2).

General methodology

Elonka typically mounts extremely well-constructed accusations against a specific user. She typically provides hundred of diffs that give her cases a look of trustworthyness, and in effect swamps other users or reviewers of the case. When scrutinized however, individual accusations usually are not decisive at all, and either consist in misrepresentation, deformations or exagerations.

Requested remedy

As clearly shown in the case above, Elonka typically makes false statements, misrepresents the reality of Arbcom sanctions, harasses users who are subjected to Arbcom restrictions, in order to push for ever-increasing blocks and obtain total banishment from Wikipedia. She uses such inadequate case-building to push for the harshest penalties. In her own words: "it is my opinion that he [PHG] needs to be permanently blocked" [76], "It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out"." [77].

I request a fair treatment from the Administrators and the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be warned against harassing me or misrepresenting my contributions. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably do better to go back to ArbCom and ask about this. There's little that administrators can legitimately do here. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really hate it when you drag me back in to this, take my one statement completely out of context again (even after having been repeatedly asked not to) and generally make such a shambles of what's really happening to just make this all wrong. It is genuinely amazing how far you will try to twist things -- for just one small example you didn't "recreate" the entire page, you "recreated" a link to the entire page and completely violated the spirit of the MfD and I was the one who noticed and deleted it, not Elonka -- this level of wikilawyering and a return to attacking Elonka is just absurd. I am not arguing any of these points with you again, however, I will say that the "attack page" claim is new and I'd be willing to bet Elonka forgot it was there after the ArbCom. If you ask nicely, I imagine she'll delete it. Shell ^babelfish 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And can I just add that this is so incredibly disappointing - you had been working productively and collaboratively with other editors on other articles for several days :( I really thought you were turning over a new leaf. Shell ^babelfish 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I know you have been supporting Elonka systematically, and you even support her when she makes false accusations against me. I am only defending myself against current (and future) abuse, and I am clearly not the only one who is seeing her behaviour as abusive here (comments by other users above). Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm so against you that I posted your DRV, made changes for you to articles you aren't allowed to edit and suggested for the umpteenth time that people give you a little space and another chance. I think Redvers suggestion is the most on point here; you're going to want to take this to the ArbCom if you think that something needs to be done about their findings/remedies. Shell ^babelfish 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you might want to stop with your stick on the dead horse. Elonka doesn't really harass you. While the Franco-Japanese history page is not in the medieval scope, it can be used against you if you're misinterpreting sources there. And she's got every right to prepare an AC case if your on-wiki behaviour is worrying her, and every right to warn DYK regulars that you may be misinterpreting sources, as you have before (AC FOF #2). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read through PHG's ramble above, most of it is a rehash of stuff he's said before, and I wish he'd stop doing this kind of thing. It's my honest opinion that when I leave PHG alone for long enough (as I have for the last few days), he starts to miss me, and comes to ANI to try and stir things up again. He did the same thing a few months ago. I was offline for Christmas holidays, and even though I hadn't done anything PHG-related since December 22,[78] when I got back online I saw that on New Year's Day he'd posted a new "Elonka is harassing me" complaint, heh.[79] Anyone that wants more details on this is welcome to review my Evidence section in the case, which has a full timeline up through February.

BTW, PHG, the User:Elonka/Work2 page, as Shell Kinney pointed out, was old. I hadn't changed it since early February, and it was left over from when I was preparing evidence. As Shell correctly guessed, I just forgot it was there. I have since deleted it. If you were concerned about it, I think a one-line note to my talkpage would have been easier than a full out ANI complaint. --Elonka 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Just as a note, PHG just re copy/pasted the above (or his part at least) at WP:AE#Abuse of PHG Arbcom restrictions by User:Elonka. --Elonka 08:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Review my block of The Blizzard King (talk · contribs)

One of the first things I was confronted with upon logging in and viewing my watchlist this evening was yet another incivil comment by this user. I blocked him for a week back in January for making one personal attack too many. Thinking that perhaps I'd just issue him a final, *final* warning, I checked his contributions - only to discover that his first edit in over a month was this. Blocked indef (certainly not merely because he faked a block notice with my username on it - I'd have blocked him if he'd faked a block notice with his own username on it) - it now seems pretty clear to me that the negatives outweigh positives when it comes to this user.

I welcome your opinions on this matter. I can understand how this might look like 'he got pissed off because someone faked a message from him and wielded the banhammer' from the outside, so I invite your scrutiny. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Editor has persistently failed to grasp, or follow, policy despite many warnings and previous blocks. Overall, a net negative contribution to the encyclopedia, with attitude to match. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a good block to me, as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility to the next level, removing cited material, stalking. Looks like this guy needs to find somewhere else to have fun. Blueboy96 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance = good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, guys - much appreciated. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

A user (User:Meachly) is harrassing me and changing literally every single word that I type in an article (Abigail Taylor). What to do? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Bring it up on his talk page and try to sort it out. If that doesn't work, WP:RFC or WP:ANI will work. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. You again? In the meantime, edits like this one and this one show your true role in things. Why don't you be honest and just say "I want people who disagree with me to be punished" instead? JuJube (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit is also troublesome and could be perceived as a threat. JuJube (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is enough: [80] and [81] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite a couple of useful edits, Joseph A. Spadaro is an extremely rude, aggressive, and disruptive editor. His talkpage seems to indicate that a short block might give him time to cool down and reconsider how he interacts with other editors. Doc Tropics 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:3RR against the editor for his ownership of Abigail Taylor, but after seeing what he's done tonight, I think that's the least of the problem. Edits like these [82] [83] [84] seem to show he's just here to make a few changes and start a fight, then revel in the attention. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciate here, as he's being very disruptive. Redrocket (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "cooling down" blocks. I have indef blocked the editor as a disruptive influence on the encyclopedia, commenting that they need to change their behaviour if they wish to be unblocked. They may or may not get angry, but I am not concerned about that - too much time has already been wasted trying to persuade the editor to act appropriately already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, pending user's indication that he gets it (something his behaviour to date indicates has not yet happened). Guy (Help!) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Phasereal

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked, page protected.

Hi! Although I have the buttons, I haven't really kept up on what we do to with brand-new accounts that act wildly outside our norms. Could an admin with more experience please take a look? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned them and will block if they continue. There is no evidence this user is here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and I invite review of that. --John (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Were their comments on a talk page, I'd delete them. What's the current custom with inflammatory edit summaries on reverted edits? Leave, or prune the edits? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a lot of work to prune the edits; someone would have to delete and selectively restore all but the offending edits. I think a developer could do it? Not sure if this really requires that kind of attention though. --John (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've wanted to try a delete and restore, so I may do it just for the experience. William Pietri (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi wikistalking again

Resolved

 – Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming

Since this last AN/I report a couple of days ago, User:Sennen goroshi has not changed his/her behaviour. This user has now moved on to following me to the Kamau Kambon article, in order to expand the dispute. He/she is also making personal attacks again (as he/she just called me a "racist." [85] Yahel Guhan 08:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? I did not wikistalk you, I purposely did NOT revert your edit, even though I consider your edit to be wrong. I left a message on a talk page in order to discuss the edit, without entering into an edit-war. If me discussing your edits in a civil manner offends you, I apologise.

Perhaps if you re-read the message I left, you will see that I actually called Kamau Kambon racist, not you - because of good faith, I will assume that was an honest mistake on your part - however it would seem obvious, the discussion on that talk page was regarding the use of the word "racist" in the article, I also said "His statements were obviously racist, and when something is that obvious, citations are not required." - the fact that I mentioned citations showed that I was talking about the article, if I was talking about you, then citations would have nothing to do with it.

On the subject of stalking, I was a little suprised that on an article that you have not edited for four days, you managed to revert my edit within 5 minutes of me editing, I guess that was pure luck on your part. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, I nearly forgot - next time you make an ANI report about me, could you please have the manners to inform me of the report? It was lucky that I decided to read ANI today, or your complaint would not have been noticed by me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Wolzen

Can an admin please take a look at this speedy deletion? Nick Wolzen appears to be nothing but a hoax and a serious vandal magnet besides. It appears as if it's a page being written by a kid and two or three other enemies (or friends) are rewriting it every few minutes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're dealing with someone with a proxy or a group on this. The page has been re-created by a new user User:Pedro Fernandez. Before it was deleted User:Nicholas Wolzen made a note on the talk page about having a proxy. I'm going to report this as a sock and keep an eye on this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have salted the article from recreation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The sock was confirmed, I think salting was a good call.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor spamming sockfarm?

I have just indef blocked Pneukal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for spamming, per an AIV report. When attempting to rollback the spam, which was part of a {{welcome}} to various "new" accounts I couldn't as it was the only edit to the page. Upon a quick review I note that most/all these accounts are inactive. Either this is someone who just wants to identify a sockfarm, or found the list of recently created accounts and is spamming them in an effort to increase google hits for their interest, or something else...

Question is, what to do? Simply blank out that part of the welcome message and leave alone, or take it to SSP and have my suspicions confirmed (or otherwise), or...? Any thoughts/options? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're giving the linkspammer to much credit. I stumbled across the link-spamming welcome messages when User:SB0202022 created a hoax page, and there are others who have also edited, so it's likely just a sampling of new accounts rather than an attempt to identify a sooper-sekret sockpuppet army. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This also seems to be every account created in a specific time range - and that couldn't be a sock farm. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whuff... I suppose I will have to remove the spam manually. Triff! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and thanks!)

It seems to be an attempt at inserting ekopedia.org see ekopedia.org search results
89 is the current count... delete....--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 89...? It seemed so much more... all replaced now, anyway... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Determined trolling of Refdesks

There have been a number of trolling posts made lately by a user and an IP that are obviously the same person. I have been removing the posts, and the troll has been putting them back. Can he be stopped? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath is trying to inappropriately eliminate an opposing perspective by labeling me a troll and then harassing me through vandalism by acting on that label. It is Milkbreath's inappropriate labeling and wrongful vandalism which needs to be stopped rather than the opportunity for others to offer comment and to provide references for the research I am doing. Thanks. Multimillionaire (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Multimillionaire really does seem to be trolling, with irrelevant flame-starters like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did.". It's lame. --Sean 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the claimed trolling. Do not leave it to every reader of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to individually research all the edits by the user you are complaining about. I looked at some of Multimillionaire's edits and saw probable violations of the Ref Desk's rule "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" in the form of discussion of white women "compensating" for past oppression of black men by bearing their children. But this is clearly far from a vandalism only account, since many posts were fine such as [86]. . A caution against inflammatory soapboxing might be in order, if there are additional such posts. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topics with very loaded questions recently started by Multimilionier or someone in the ip range 71.100.*.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201048630&oldid=201045659

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200832624&oldid=200831282

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=200000256

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=200421664&oldid=200415415

These are usually followed by a number of minor edits fixing style punctuation, etc.

Reinstatement of deleted question : (Edit tagged as "minor")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200996573&oldid=200994795

Recreation of a deleted question : (Notice how the political catch-phrase he's trying to push has been moved to the title, probably in the hopes that only the question text would be deleted.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201171693&oldid=201171673

I'm pretty sure that this is not all of them. They are a pain to locate with all the traffic the ref desks get and his dynamic IP.

Note that he appears to fully acknowledge that (some or all) of the 71.100.*.* posts are him, as he responds to criticism as though he were the original poster. APL (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:::FWIW, along with the IPs, User:Millionaire now redirects to User:Pedist There was a name change in October, 2006, but not many edits, if any, since then, at User:Pedist. User came back to WP as User:Millionaire several days ago, and now has moved Millionaire's User and Talk pages to User:Pedist. It doesn't appear that Millionaire's conrtibutions have been moved however, as I can't find any of the awkward Ref Desk questions in User:Pedist's contributions. Is this the norm? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) OOOPs~ Apologies to User:Millionaire and User:Pedist, and thanks to User:FiggyBee. It's very reassuring to know that I can count on at least one Wikipedian who can read. Once again, apologies for the disruption. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bielle, the user at issue is User:Multimillionaire, not User:Millionaire, who appears to be completely unrelated. FiggyBee (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also his bizarre answers in this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Changing_fortunes_of_the_Nazi_Party APL (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For another diff, now there is this. This is also user:Barringa and user:Leasing Agent. The history goes back over a year, see 1), 2), and 3), and see also threads 7, 15, 17, and 18 at the reference desk's current talk page version. I don't know what can be done. It's a tedious nuisance, is all. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an edit which makes it clear that User:Multimillionaire is also User:71.100.164.179. If (as has been alleged several times) 71.100.*.* is in fact banned user Barringa, I'd say it makes sense to block User:Multimillionaire, and as many of the 71.100.*.* IP's as we care to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mimus polyglottos appears to be a new sock of the same user, posting "questions" about interracial marriage and editing posts signed 71.100.*.* FiggyBee (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to substantiate my repeated allegations, here is some circumstantial evidence pointing to a connection between the 71.100... address and the indefinitely blocked accounts of user:Barringa / user:Leasing Agent:

(1) and (2): 71.100.171.80 signs his post with "[[User:Barringa|-- Barringa]]"

(3) and (4): 71.100.0.252 signs his post with "[[User:Barringa|-- Barringa]]"

(5): Leasing Agent redirects User talk:71.100.166.228 to User talk:Leasing Agent after having this time-wasting discussion on the IP adress's talk page.

The modus operandi of disruption is basically always the same. In a nutshell: Pick a minority (Jews, African Americans, gays) and post inflammatory comments (often disguised as questions, follow-ups and answers) at the reference desk. Provoke heated and time-wasting discussions that don't belong at the reference desk, and either involve good faith users into more rambling discussions when confronted, or scream "Censorship!" and retaliate when the posts get removed. Then, repeat ad nauseam. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is all pointless time-wasting. This kind of trolling happens frequently on Wikipedia, in my near-six-years of experience. I have no patience for it; I'll delete/revert when I can and block if necessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. In fact, having reviewed all the contributions of both, I am blocking both now, the IP for a month as it may be reassigned and the account indefinitely pending an undertaking never to even think about doing that again. Neither has a single edit to the encyclopaedia, and that's the clincher for me. This is almost certainly not a new user and extremely unlikely ever to be of benefit, on the evidence of edits to date. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image deletion

Black Kite has been single-handedly deleting non-free images from List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series and similar articles without discussion or explanation, citing "policy" every time, and completely ignoring the concerns and comments of other editors. The editors of this and similar pages have attempted to reach consensus on the issue numerous times (here, for example), but Black Kite does not participate in consensus-building, rather acts in an unapologetically autonomous manner. Management of this particular article (List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series) is rapidly degenerating into an edit war because of this, and tempers are beginning to flare. Eganio^Talk 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus between editors of a page or group of pages doesn't trump policy. Non-free images must be used sparingly, in context and only where relevant to the text. Your discussion appears to have decided that, for the purposes of these articles, these requirements do not apply. You're collectively wrong. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And, unless I'm going blind, I can't see where on Black Kite's talk page you have engaged on the subject nor can I see where you have informed of this thread - both being something you should do, one before coming here, one after. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not going blind, just not looking in the right place: Talk:List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series. I asked this editor several times to engage in discussion, to which he/she was seemingly adverse, rather seeking to position him/herself as an unequivocal authority. Eganio^Talk 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's still not addressing Black Kite directly nor informing them of this thread, and you're not addressing the substantive point: consensus between editors of a page or group of pages doesn't trump policy. Non-free images must be used sparingly, in context and only where relevant to the text. Your discussion appears to have decided that, for the purposes of these articles, these requirements do not apply. You're collectively wrong. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except in some very rare cases (countable on two hands), usage of non-free images in lists isn't allowed as it violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and we are trying to limit non-free image use. This is one of the issues creating such animosity toward Black Kite, namely this apparent assumption that the editors of the article are completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy. If someone respectfully comes to us with a breach of policy issue, we are more than happy to make the appropriate changes. But when someone comes along and treats us all like children, and slaps our collective hand saying, "No, you can't use those images because I said so", it becomes more an issue of repect (or lack thereof). Eganio^Talk 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly and civilly pointed the editors involved towards WP:NFCC, but they appear to believe that is doesn't apply to this article. Working with non-free images I do encournter this a lot; perhaps NFCC should be made clearer. Black Kite 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, I'm not sure what discussion needs to be had, Black Kite is getting rid of non-free images that are being used in violation of wikipedia policy. Perhaps he could have been clearer, but he appears to be doing the correct thing. Redrocket (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a consensus building exercise -- non-free content must comply with the policy. Shell ^babelfish 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. Go ahead and hide behind the admonishments of your lawyers...they're probably right anyway. The problem, though, is that a poorly worded, poorly formulated, and (consequently) widely interpreted piece of policy is being strictly enforced...am I the only one cognizant of the serious problems this forecasts? Either formulate a more concrete policy on non-free image use or be more lenient with its enforcement. As it stands, I can't see why any editor would even want to attempt to include non-free contenct, as it will almost certainly be summarily deleted. Eganio^Talk 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be petulant. The policy isn't poorly worded, it isn't poorly formulated and it isn't widely interpreted. It's just a policy that some of our (usually younger, usually pop-culture-based) editors disagree with and try to look for loopholes in. As you've discovered, the policy is so well worded and so well formulated, there aren't many loopholes. And the number of complaints here and elsewhere because an exception can't be made for one article that would look really, really cool plastered with copyright images for no reason is now well into the thousands. But complaints (like your talk page consensus) don't trump policy. And the policy is there to protect the world's most popular not-for-profit website (the one without the money to go to court, unlike YouTube et al). ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Petulance is my prerogative, as is it yours to tell me what is and what isn't policy...let's just agree to disagree. Eganio^Talk 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is needed here, instead of arguing, is to find a single non-free image that adequately illustrates the article. For example, Image:Simpsons cast.png, as used on List of characters in The Simpsons. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion, but we've already tried that. The consensus among the editors of the page in question is that images for only the 5 or 6 major entities listed are justifiable. However, one image cannot suffice to capture the distinctions, cultural allusions, and notability of the topic in question. But as it has been said numerous times under this heading, editor consensus does not trump policy. So that leaves us at the mercy of policy, nay, at the mercy of those that define policy. Eganio^Talk 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series? I'm surprised that image policies are such a major source of trouble. An entire article about a subject that virtually defines trivia, derived nearly entirely from primary sourcing. You have one (ONE!) source that looks like it might be a real-world article (http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=360746&page=0, about Haitian's protesting their image in the games), and it's been aged off their server. You should concern yourself with the meat-and-potatoes policies, like WP:NOTABILITY.Kww (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in this specific case, but it should be noted that many articles demonstrate notability with no more than one good source. The solution is to find better sources to demonstrate notability. Notability proponents often emphasise quantity of sources over quality of sources, and that is not always helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not wedded to the "delete all non-free images" idea, but this particular article was an egregrious violation - you've seen one screenshot of some badly-rendered people standing on a street corner, you've seen them all. Even leaving one of those images in the article was technically breaking NFCC. Black Kite 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)"Meat-and-potatoes" and "egregious violations" aside, my concern was and still is with the manner in which policy is interpreted and enforced by admin. It seems painfully clear to me, even by some of the posts in here, that this issue is by no means solidified in the minds of Wikipedia admin or editors to the extent to which it has been suggested. I still contend that non-free use policy is poorly defined and is consequently being interpreted in numerous divergent ways. But that aside, what really irks me is when admin editors cite policy as a reason to autonomously make drastic changes to an article when such policy is inevitably up to interpretation, and when such changes will inevitably precipitate the heated debate we have been having. My point is this: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? Well, then as administrators, please try to see things such as this from the point of view of the editors to whom a particular article is important, and try to enforce policy accordingly. Be fellow editors, not overseers. Eganio^Talk 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the first removal of the fair use images was sudden (I did this on the 18 February), but given that this [87] was the Talk page for that article on 20th February, the second removal should surely have been expected; basically all the images which failed NFCC were removed, but many were then re-inserted despite the editors who did this surely realising from the discussion linked above that the new images failed NFCC as well. Do we need to radically overhaul the wording of NFCC so that it can't be misinterpreted, or perhaps link a simple "FAQ" version to the image upload page? Black Kite 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical point of interest here: removing those images from the article is not an administrative action. Any editor who edits with NFCC compliance in mind can (and ought to) remove these images. Please note, for example, that one of the images in question includes in its FU rationale: This image is a screenshot and thus immediately falls in fair use. That is patently false, fair use depends on the use of the image, not just what it is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While the policy is clear, having watched stuff like this, and having seen the zillions of completely ignored BetacommandBot messages plastering virtually every talk page in article space, I think I can say with certainty that the communication of the policy to the interested parties has been done in about the poorest possible manner. Virtually nobody reading a betacommandbot message is going to be able to figure out what they have to do to fix the usage of the image, even though clear directions can be stated in one sentence. It seems from conversations like the above, that even groups of editors can't in general come to the right conclusion on how an image can be used, and nobody seems to understand why the policy exists and just assumes some unknown lawyer made an arbitrary decision one morning without asking anyone, and everyone else immedially said 'yessa bossman' and implemented it. This probably transcends adminhood, but somebody at the foundation ought to try to think up a good clear way of explaining the policy and perhaps even the reasoning behind it. And maybe try to get Betacommand to reword those verbose but basically useless warning/threat messages it posts everywhere.

I think this really could be fairly simple if it had ever been communicated in some clear manner. (Or maybe it was, once, years ago, outside the memory of newer editors; but it seems to me this is a fairly recent policy change.) But as it is, you have loads of confused editors on one side of what they see as a fight with draconian and unreasonable image deleters on the other side, who just like deleting really good images just because. Just my third cent on the matter, feel free to ignore it. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to think myself exceedingly more intelligent than other Wikipedians, but I find BCBot's messages perfectly comprehensible, and adding a FU Rationale is pretty easy really. Furthermore, when presented with policy and a real, live user (admin no less) to explain that policy, I don't see how being resistant (on WP:CONS grounds, no less) is going to help anything. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the visibility of BCBot's warnings and suchlike has caused even more problems, in that people spend time jumping through hoops adding FURs to non-free images, and then assume - not entirely unsurprisingly - that they can use as many of the images where they want. That's why I've been tagging articles with {{NFimageoveruse}} recently, so that at least editors have a chance to read WP:NFCC (and then argue with it, usually, but you can't have everything). Black Kite 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments...they are beginning to be helpful. Loren, thanks for bringing up the communication issue...I think much of my consternation has been the result of poor communication from admin, other editors, and myself. The Bot messages are cryptic in many senses, but I and I'm sure many other editors certainly understand their content and the reason they were posted. Violating copyrights is by no means my intent in editing Wikipedia pages. I started this thread due mainly to intense frustration because the process invovled in ameliorating non-free use issues seems highly esoteric from the standpoint of a non-admin editor such as myself. We responded to the Bot messages and other warnings regarding image use by not only eliminating many of the images on certain articles, but also by writing non-free use rationales to support inclusion of the remaining images. But that apparently wasn't enough. So my question is this: who decides how, where, and when non-free content is allowable? So far, it seems to me that limitation is defined by reason, which is why I say the policy is so freely interpreted, hence the impetus to create non-free use rationales. So who decides in the end what's reasonable and what's unacceptable? And why bother writing non-free use rationales if no one is going to pay them any heed? Eganio^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's explicitly stated anywhere (it should be), but the general guideline is "use the absolute minimum amount of non-free material to aid readers' understanding of the subject of the article". So, for example, if there is free material available to do the job, then the minimum non-free material is none. If there's no free material for whatever reason, but the only non-free material available doesn't actually tell you anything about the subject of the article, then don't use it. If there is, for example, a list of characters from some TV show or video game, where most of them look very much alike (i.e. variations on a theme), then probably one image will do for the whole list rather than one per variation. I suspect in this case the reasoning is that the gangs all have very similar appearances in-game, so lots of similar-looking images is unecessary. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as much as I appreciate your attempt at explaining the situation, this issue has already been dealt with, and has been discussed among the interested parties, but to no avail. The very fact that the gangs in question are so distinct is what not only defines their in-universe relevance, but also the cultural allusions they embody. I have argued for inclusion of images for only those gangs whose significance meets notability guidelines, and for whom inclusion of an image would enhance a casual reader's understanding of the gang's relevance both in-universe and in our cultural milieu. Images of these gangs are what provide evidence of their cultural progenitors, i.e. the stereotypical dress indicative of the real-life entities off of which they were based. But things like this aren't discussed. Rather, discussion is hastily supplanted by single-handed enforcement of a policy which in my mind begs discussion due to its complete lack of specificity in regards to number and relevance of included images. I am simply asking editors, admin and non-admin alike, to discuss removal of images, and to come to a mutual understanding of how to enforce policy on an article-by-article basis. I have been screaming from the rooftops that we editors of this and similar pages are more than willing to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, but feel at the mercy of those that presume a better understanding of a piece of policy whose wording (and subsequent enforcement) invites unnecessary debate. Eganio^Talk 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

I see I inadvertently left an error on the mainpage in the DYK section where it says in the first hook that the Hofkirche was built as a mausoleum for Ferdinand's grandfather, Maximilian I. Actually, it wasn't, because his grandfather requested to be buried somewhere else and his request was granted, so the Hofkirche is only a memorial to Maximilian, not a "mausoleum" since it doesn't contain his remains (see article ref for confirmation).

I was going to leave this note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors but it's currently protected, so I am mentioning it here instead. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem now. Though these really should go at WP:ERROR which isn't protected from editing, it is only move protected. Thanks Woody (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question—why did you think it was protected from editing? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I got this message when I tried to edit:

This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators.

Some templates and site interface pages are permanently protected due to visibility. Occasionally, articles are temporarily protected because of editing disputes. The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. You can discuss this page with others. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, start a new section and insert the text {{editprotected}} followed by your request. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf. You may request unprotection of the page. - Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually this has introduced, not corrected a mistake - the article explains that Maximilian oversaw the design of his mausoleum, for another location, but it would not fit there, so was built in the Hofkirche. By the time of completion, 50 years later, no one bothered to move the body. I would say "built as a mausoleum" is more correct - certainly it was designed as one. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the article says, but I read a couple of the sources and they clearly state that Maximilian did not want to be buried in the original location, so they buried him according to his wishes and then constructed a smaller building than originally planned - the Hofkirche - to house all the statues and paraphernalia that had been created for the original mausoleum. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And actually the article says the mausoleum was originally planned for Wiener Neustadt, where Maximilian is buried, but it proved impractical to build it there so his grandson built a memorial for him at Innsbruck instead. So either way, seems pretty clear to me the Hofskirch was never intended to be a mausoleum, but a memorial. Hope that clarifies things :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And just to confirm, from the Hofkirche website:

After the idea to place Maximilian's tomb in the castle chapel in Wiener Neustadt, as Maximilian had proposed in his testament, proved to be impracticable, King Ferdinand I and the executor of the will planned the construction of a new convent with church and monastery in Innsbruck for the memorial. So the Hofkirche was never intended as a mausoleum, but as a memorial. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Resolved

 – Vandalism not serious enough to warrant protection

Could someone review the history of Portal:Science and semi-protect it. Already placed a request, but it was rejected by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on the grounds

“ It is important that we do everything possible to ensure that "shopfront" pages such as this remain editable by as wide a user base as practicality allows. Except in the face of an acute burst of concentrated, persistent, vandalism, I do not think that pages such as this should ever be semi-protected. ”

despite the fact that from what I can see nothing in the Wikipedia:Protection policy mandates that we have to leave certain pages unprotected. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars. (i've watchlisted it.) -- Naerii 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've marked this resolved. The page isn't vandalised that often. No need for protection at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cake for everyone!

What? HalfShadow (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I went ahead and protected the noticeboard, originally for 3 hours but then User:Zzuuzz reminded me that it should never have an expiration (cause of the move protection and all), so if some would un protect in a few hours that would be appreciated. Tiptoety ^talk 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should ask the devs to change the interface to allow edit-protection and move-protection to be used simultaneously but with different expiry times. — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now unprotected the page since 3 hours have passed since its protection. Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent addition of copy vio content to Peucinian Society

Resolved

For some days I will say a small gang of editors are adding copy vio content to the article Peucinian Society. The article is already up for AFD(2nd time) because first time the same editors filled the AFD with lengthy justifications. So can someone look at this. --SMS ^Talk 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though the IP who was responsible for adding the copyrighted material has been blocked User talk:66.63.86.33. I'm going to mark this as resolved since the AfD can commence unhindered, and article improved if necessary. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tally-ho messed up

I'd change it myself if I knew how. User:Dgrebb has moved Tally-ho (the English expression) to Tally-Ho (Band) and turned it into an article about a punk band. The whole thing is now completely messed up and I can't get the original Tally-ho back.  Channel ®    20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You just had to move it back, nothing needed to be deleted as is the case with some moves. El_C 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tried, but got a "this page already exists, alert administrator" warning. Any WP: page where I can read/learn more about this? Thanks for the help.  Channel ®    21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, IC. Looks like the procedure has changed, whereby moving over redirect does not involve deletion but still limited to admins. El_C 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Beautiful Formosa

Beautiful Formosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive on several Republic of China-Taiwan related articles for the last couple of weeks. More specifically, this individual has been violating our policies WP:NPOV, and WP:EW, and has been also moving pages without consensus. There are multiple warnings on his talk page, and has been warned by different people to change his conduct when editing articles and leaving comments on talk pages. As that is the case, I recommend that the community consider the following:

• Topic Ban
  1. User:Beautiful Formosa shall not edit or move any articles within the view of the WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject China and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan for a period of 14 days. Failure to follow these conditions will result in a block of 24 hours and an increase of the topic ban by 2 days. Subsequent failures to follow conditions will result in the doubling of hours in the previous block and an increase of the topic ban by 2 days.

I believe this is necessary as we need to deter any further disruption. nat.utoronto 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot of page moves! El_C 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is that is why these conditions need to be implemented, but only after the community has reached consensus so that we can go through with this. nat.utoronto 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the amount of warnings that he's already been given, I'd say he needs to be blocked the next time he does it anyway. But failing that, a topic ban seems fair enough. Someone needs to have a serious word with him too.-- Naerii 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll block now. Pretty much, from the getgo, this user has been edit warring on the topic. Plus, his username is intended to provoke such a response from our community member. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Support such a block. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV comment templates now available.

There is now a set of useful templates when reviewing AIV reports, per the link in the header, following this discussion at Talk:AIV. As ever, comments and improvements welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this really have gone to AN?--Phoenix-wiki 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It did, so I got 2 ticks on my edit count instead of just one... (that makes 3!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on AN/I it will be archived faster and hopefully not catch on — though we all know that in project space, everything catches on, so you can wish in one hand and... nevermind! Three cheers for pointless bureaucracy! Can I be appointed as an official AIV clerk or do we have to vote on that? — CharlotteWebb 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That templates are patent bureacracy and serves no purpose. We've got enough cracy without the need for a set of templates for every noticeboard. Next, we'll got the {{support}} on the AfD. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't AIV listings just get removed once resolved? When would these templates ever be used? Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They have been used quite a few times recently. I think they are more aimed toward admin use, so that insead of typing: "User has not vandalized past final warn, leaving up and watching", they can just paste in a template. I am still undecided if I like the whole clerking idea, though it has proven to be somewhat helpful so far. Tiptoety ^talk 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Current discussion also taking place at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Proposal: Template:AIV comment. Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The current support at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Proposal: Template:AIV comment seems to largely support the use of the templates. They are optional, they won't be forced on anyone. Also, is the sarcasm really necessary? "Can I be appointed as an official AIV clerk or do we have to vote on that?" These were created to template the most common responses, saving admins time. I've seen admins and users already start using the templates, constructive feedback is most welcome, but mockery is must unhelpful, and discouraging. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)