Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive357

User:Nynexman4464

• Nynexman4464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a voting account / inappropriate alternate account,
• 1. 01:52, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎ (top)
• 2. 01:51, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian‎ (→Merge)
• 3. 18:28, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote‎ (→Option 3)
• 4. 22:23, 19 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:In-joke‎
• 5. 06:47, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎
• 6. 06:45, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym‎
• 7. 06:39, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym

3 of 4 edits are used for voting since 2004, discussion on [1], now for WP:SSP hard evidence is needed which might be in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym (or not), so what to do ? Mion (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying Checkuser first, which may come up with hard evidence. If the request is rejected, bring it back here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here for a while, I just never think to login, except for the occasional vote perhaps. The last thing is a topic I know a fair bit about (copyright, trademarks, the DFSG, that sort of thing), hence the vote. I contributed to that stupid Stackronym article way back, and I know I've done a few reverts of vandalized pages, and a few minor edits here and there. I use this username everywhere, and I'm at a school so my IP address is static (though it changes each year I think), so I'm sure you can figure out who I am through that. Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, aren't the wikipedia and wikimedia commons accounts linked? You can see my contributions there Commons:Special:Contributions/Nynexman4464 Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In response on User talk:Nynexman4464, seems plausible to me, case closed i think Mion (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing on Numerous U.S. Political figures articles.

User:Anappealtoheaven Seems to be having a serious problem with writing in an NPOV style. Despite warnings [2], [3], independently given from two editors recently, and more in the past, one example, see User talk:Anappealtoheaven for more, his only responses are screeds [4] about how Wikipedia needs to be free of outside influences [link]. Some examples of his problematic editing are seen: At Mitt Romney, where he injects POV[5], gets reverted[6](this would be a third editor recently identifying POV). At Mike Huckabee, he edits again to show purported hypocrisy [7], and is again reverted for POV [8],[9]. He edits Ron Paul to a pro-Paul POV. One is seen here: [10]. Although the fact is cited, his edit and summary imply, at least, that something special about Paul other than the online presence can explain the fact, although he only cites 'time', an indication of POV editing. There are numerous examples more. One last egregious example - [11], he smears McCain and Graham as 'lockstepping' with "liberal democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's heated legislation ". The only intent to his wording is that he seeks to disparage their 'conservative street cred' by tying them to a 'liberal democrat'. It's partisan game playing of the worst sort.

Please note that between reverts and notes about his edits, there are at least five editors noting POV, as well as previous warnings on his talk and article talk pages. Should anyone doubt he has an agenda here, please read his User Page essay about his Ron Paul support. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Alicia Miguel" cabal

CathyJoyce (talk · contribs), Dababe (talk · contribs), MonicaCabaski (talk · contribs) and Danielmiguel (talk · contribs) all seem to be either the same person, or a group of meat puppets conspiring to create hoax articles at Alicia Miguel and Alicia Miguel Schull. Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This started way back in 2006 with Daniel Miguel creating Alicia Miguel as an apparent joke. At that time she was a high-living billionaire, having made her substantial worth from small businesses. Fast forward to December 2007, when Alicia became an internationally renowned supermodel. Multiple accounts began uploading copyvio'd pics of random models and inserting them in articles like supermodel and sex symbol. Although these photographs all featured different women, they were purportedly free-license depictions of Miguel. The article itself was a direct copy of the Alessandra Ambrosio entry. An AfD helped form a consensus to delete salt Alicia Miguel, so enter Alicia Miguel Schüll. That one was created by MonicaCabaski, who another sockpuppet attempted to nominate for both adminship and bureaucrat bits. After the Schull version of the hoax made it to DRV, I decided to pull the plug and block all Miguel-related accounts. FWIW, these appear to be the efforts of a middleschool student from North Carolina. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

They apparently continued the hoax over on the French Wikipedia, but it got deleted over there, too. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oui, aucun s'inquiète. I doubt this is anything to trouble other wikis about. Thanks, btw, for reviewing the sock activity. I was wondering whether to post a warning about the hoax somewhere, AN/I will do. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please page-move Autosodomy practise to just plain old Autosodomy for us

For some reason I wasn't able to do this myself .. something about undoing a WP:SALT. Someone with the right tools can do so. It's evident and uncontroversial. Thanking you in advance, SelfAloneRequired (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted since it is a recreation of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy). The article as created also lacked proper sources. Best, Gwernol 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be related to the long standing DavidYork71 case - he created the article shortly before he was initially banned. The username above would undoubtedly be one of his 100+ sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd venture so. Among his other recent sockies on the very same IP are:

1. ExposingTheGayAgenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. FagTaggr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
3. Nexttimepraymore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4. MoveonNgiveitup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5. Highborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
6. BcozIownU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
7. Suchastar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
8. ExcellingWithEase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
9. JustMasterful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Not all of these are blocked; some are sleepers. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ZThen... shouldn't they be be blocked now? ThuranX (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrabulous/User talk:59.93.240.43

Resolved

 – Anthøny 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This is a bit of a strange situation. On Scrabulous, that user had twice removed the mention of the Scrabble origins of the game which I undid. After the second time, and because I didn't want to get into an edit war, I posted a discussion on the Talk page and notified the IP that I'd done so to invite discussion. Now my comment to the talk page has been undone by another user and I'm totally confused at what's going on. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a bit but only recently have moved to issues beyond edit/creation. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• ETA: The reverter of the comment on the IP page now states he doesn't know what I'm talking about and that he's hunting vandalism, however in the mean time he's being warned right and left re: potential vandalism. I didn't think this was vandalism when I posted here at first, but now I'm not so sure. In the mean time, other changes being made to Scrabulous seem to be unrelated and clean changes. Thanks Travellingcari (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and move on. He does seem to be new to monobook.js; I'd give him some leeway. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he posted an explanation, although it's not one I understand. I just wasn't sure how they ended up reverting a comment to an unrelated IP, if that makes sense. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further active action at this time: letting this one slide, but keeping one eye on his contributions in the near future, would probably be most effective. He certainly appears to be apologetic for his disruption, it would appear, and so that should be enough to prevent further disruption. I've marked this as resolved; keep an eye out, though. Anthøny 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Signshare personal "battle list"

Resolved

 – Offending material deleted, and user seems to have decided against re-inserting it.

This section on User:Signshare's page does not look to be in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Referring to these other editors using gratuitous epithets seems tasteless and in violation of WP:ATTACK. Thoughts on what should be done? (For one, removing the offending content, of course...) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢

1. We should ask him nicely to delete the WP:ATTACK violations

   If he doesn't comply

2. We MfD it
3. If he recreates or becomes distruptive → Block

   --nat.utoronto 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending material (I did so before seeing Nat's comments, but I still think that doing so was the right move). I'm about to leave a friendly notice on his talk page explaining my actions. Here's a link to my deletion: [12]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's been very disruptive in the past and has already been blocked (by you, actually), so I would suggest, if he is disruptive after the second block 9after it happens), an indef seems to me to be appropriate. I suspect possible sockpuppets in some of his "battled" people. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He's re-inserted the material, which I've deleted again (although I certainly plan on remaining below WP:3RR on this. It appears that he was unaware of WP:USER, to which I've directed his attention, so hopefully that will convince him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have done the trick. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One would hope, but he still seems a little irritated about it, per this. "Bitter feud"... lol? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor tends towards hyperbole as shown by this sentence on his user page, "I am sort of like LL Cool J, when you beef with me, I end you thats all there is to it." I've looked over his edits and they seem pretty decent but could use some more sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should his "feuds"' targets be listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? Maybe I'm not WP:AGF, but it seems rather convenient to have so many conflicts in a rather short time, all of them, which he allegedly won. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at them, but I strongly doubt sock-puppetry. They all look pretty legit - too much so to quit, really - and don't seem to have much in common with each other. At least one is an admin. And given this user's disposition and approach to conflict, I'd hardly characterize these battles as "coincidental". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, the way this editor was using "battle" looks like it was in the sense and style of the competitive verbal sparring of freestyle battle rap, rather than actual, hostile combat. Not that it excuses the personal attacks (we're editing here, not MC'ing), but it explains their extremely hyperbolic format and why the user feels he is being "misunderstood by many."

The user seems to go around the encyclopedia with a mighty big wikichip on his wikishoulder, and needs to stop dissing other editors and just cool it in general. Still, if you take out the personal attacks, a cursory look through his contribs shows him to be a decent editor with something to contribute to the project (though a cynic might compare that to Marion Barry's, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."). Has anyone considered mentoring the user? --Dynaflow babble 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin category and User:Falcofire

Resolved

 – user removed from admin cat

The issue here is relatively trivial (and therefore hopefully easy to resolve), but I was not sure where else to bring it up. I happened by the user page of User:Falcofire recently and noticed that he had placed himself in the category "Wikipedia administrators." He'd dropped a note on my talk page months ago and I knew he was a relatively inexperienced user and was thus surprised he was an admin, which he was in fact not. I'm certainly not a dictator about user space, but I'm assuming we don't want editors to willfully misrepresent themselves as admins on their user pages in any fashion (even with the use of the admin category, which obviously contains inaccuracies). I dropped a friendly note on Falcofire's talk page about this which was removed without comment several days later. I tried again but this was likewise removed without explanation. Removing talk page comments on your own page is fine of course, but the lack of communication was troubling, and Falcofire then posted a note on his user page which reads "Now that I am fairly experienced in Wikipedia policy and such, I realize that this is a user page and therefore is not subject to authenticity as it is not a source of legitimate information. This is my space (not to be confused with my myspace) and therefore I will determine the look/feel of it and what is on it." The "Wikipedia administrator" category is still present on his user page.

I don't know why Falcofire wants to pretend that he is an admin (if that's what he's doing) but to my mind that's not really kosher. Aside from the fact that he is wrong to assert that user space is "my space" (it's still Wikipedia's space), I would think one of a few things we would not want editor's to do in their user space is claim admin status when they do not have it. I don't want to pester Falcofire about this anymore and certainly don't want any actions taken against him since I think this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding. However since I was not getting through I was hoping an admin could drop him a note about this issue and/or remove the category from his user page--that is assuming that I'm correct and feigning adminship in user space is unacceptable. If that kind of misrepresentation is acceptable then obviously I'll drop the whole thing, but I guess that would surprise me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the situation as such: Some users will consult Category:Administrators in times when they may need help and if he is not an Administrator it can annoy users. For this reason, I think that non-Administrators should not put themselves in this category. After all, the user space is not really "my home page and my home page only, emphasis my", it's a page "donated" by the Wikimedia Foundation so that users can give information about themselves in order to help collaboration, and misrepresentation does not help. At least how I see it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed him from the category, also he had the admin icon at the topic right of his userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed a logo, I'd already deleted the cat :) I've put the logo back. BLACKKITE 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) Removed the template, left a note. BLACKKITE 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...your right, oops. Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of policy deletion of talk subpage

Resolved

 – Page contents e-mailed to user.

I hate to bring this up, because it's in a contentious area. A user subpage of mine was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs): 19:56, 16 January 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nagle/Jayjg disciplinary record (Per ArbCom rulings, laundry lists of grudges are not tolerated. RfC or STFU are the only options, I'm afraid.)". This was a list of links to ArbCom decisions involving a controversial editor, made for my own use during the most recent arbitration in that area. (There's no easy way to search ArbCom decisions by party.) The page wasn't linked from anywhere, not even my own talk page, so it wasn't particularly visible. No request was made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for this deletion, and I was not notified, so it was an out of policy deletion. I'd like it undeleted for a few days, so I can copy the information off line. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: According to the talk page of JzG (talk · contribs), that user has retired from Wikipedia due to a family illness. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't retired; he's just busy in real life. As for the page, do you need the whole thing? I don't see any problem with the links to the arbcomm cases for accessibility purposes, but I tend to agree that their combination with the quote makes it look something like a grudge page (note that I haven't read the arbcomm rulings to which JzG refers). In any event, I'd be happy to e-mail you the full contents if you enable the e-mail option). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail is fine. I was just using that page as a scratch workspace; it was never intended to be seen by others. My account is already enabled for e-mail. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – user blocked, next time report to AIV, thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

199.212.26.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to vandalize Centennial College (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreenJoe (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. Nakon 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator posting personal information on WP:RFARB

Resolved

I can't see any admin related action required here & this had degenerated into general complaining. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

At 12:13 UTC today, administrator User:JzG posted personal information (a real name) on WP:RFARB. [13] This, in my opinion, is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I was tempted to block. However, as JzG is having personal issues at the moment and is an admin in good standing, I have brought the issue here for consensus on action to take. I would support a "warning block", especially as a "normal" (non-admin) user who did such a thing would most likely be blocked. I will email oversight-L with the diff for oversighting, if the community feels it necessary. I feel that such divulging of personal information is unacceptable, and cannot be tolerated. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is referencing a guess rather than any actual knowledge although the distinction may not be relevant. What are the restrictions he is referring to? If he is correct that an editor would be affected by those restrictions then at least he would be justified in communicating his belief to ArbCom, albeit by e-mail. ^Avruchtalk 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Divulging a name, even speculatively, is unacceptable. Dreadstar † 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This prior discussion is what Guy was certainly alluding to. I don't see how such an allusion would merit a block (I'm not an admin fwiw), though an inline link would have helped avoid bad appearances. Antelan ^talk 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for a block. This is not some confidential information dug out via massive amounts of sleuthing or non-standard channels like checkuser, but simply the reflection of an informed guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)He says other people bleieve it to be the case, as a comparative to how much the editors' CoI may be obvious to editors who regularly edit the disputed pages. If those editors have already brought up their suspicions, and had them ignored, dismissed, or other conflicts relevant to the CoI, it may be relevant enough to necessitate posting. There might be better ways to deal with this stuff, but blatant POV pushing by interested parties ought to be quashed with an iron hand here. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Outing someone is not good, even if speculative. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Rlevse. An "informed guess" about a user's identity (even if the user is disruptive, and I don't know the back story here) should never be acceptable. I believe posting what is supposedly a user's real name would generally result in a block for the user who did that, correct? At the very, very least JzG should be strongly warned but a block would seem reasonable to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the user Guy is revealing information about. Guy did the same thing on the WP:AE on January 19th at 22.24 (UTC).[14]This is not about POV pushing. It is about attempting to revealing personal information. Divulging personal information puts me and my family in jeopardy. You guys figure out what to do with Guy. The policy is A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). He is repeatedly harassing me with his attempts to reveal personal information. This user needs to blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like it when personal information is divulged without a user's consent. It could put him and his family in danger, and that isn't right. I'm prepared to block for at least a couple of days, if the community thinks it just. That is my personal opinion on the subject. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we block an editor who has made no indication that he is going to repost anything for something that happened almost 8 hours ago? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in 2 days he has done this. Anthon01 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he give any indication that he wouldn't do it again, with Anthon01 or anyone else for that matter? Are the edits going to be oversighted? I can't agree that posting anyone's personal identity without their permission is a good thing - under any circumstances. We have email. Dreadstar † 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see this is Guy told an editor that he felt in real life, he was someone who had a serious COI with the article. It’s his opinion that this is the case. If someone who has an outside connection with the article, and it’s important that we get some context be revealing the persons name, I don’t see what’s wrong with it in the slighted. It’s not as if Guy found out through some secret searching and back channel communication – he’s based this off editing patterns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Partially agree with Ryan, although it probably would have been preferable to email the arbitrators with this evidence. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information, and unless it's so plainly obvious or revealed by the person directly, generally shouldn't be done. But I can't see how a "warning block" (whatever that maybe) would help. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a superficially similar case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which a person who was meat-puppeting on behalf of Jonathan Sarfatti was associated with a private individual. I think this case is distinct.

JzG's speculation is related to suspected meatpuppetry on behalf of a user (Ilena Rosenthal) who is under arbitration committee-imposed restraint, but this time the person in question is a public individual. Zaffuto is a published author and the founder of the Humantics Foundation [15], whose current director is Ilena Rosenthal, so speculation that a person who edits the QuackWatch article in a manner similar to Rosenthal's might be Zaffuto is reasonable and germane. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that someone who has a conflict of interest because of who they are in real life cannot be identified and named as such on Wikipedia, in an arbitration case, is stretching the privacy guidelines in the harrassment policy to the breaking point. If you are involving yourself in Arbitration cases, or issues which come to the attention of Arbcom, your identity and conflicts of interest are of interest to Arbcom and the community. The harrassment policy is not a shield you can slide under conveniently to escape notice or sanction of conflicts of interest or other policy violations. It is routine behavior for administrators to identify sockpuppets, longstanding banned users, and disruptive editors by name as required to describe prior behavior, often under other accounts, in policy and user behavior actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. This is no frivolous outing for harassment purposes- it's clearly relevant to the content dispute at hand. Friday (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the comments here I'd suggest that any action taken be run through/performed by ArbCom, as a group or individually. They are best positioned to determine the importance of JzG's post in the ArbCom proceedings. ^Avruchtalk 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was discussed on December 28th or thereabouts at WP:AN.[16] It was resolved. At least I thought it was. Now Guy has started again posting the same message twice in the last 2 days. I am being badgered because I have been on the opposite side of debates with SA and others editors who generally support SA's POV. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many valid points have been made here. I agree that it is best to let bcats and arbcom handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconding that opinion. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. This is more complex than an everyday case. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd. On the one hand, Anthon01 swears that he isn't the individual in question; on the other, Anthon01 swears that divulging this information has put him and his family in jeopardy. Am I the only one who experiences cognitive dissonance in attempting to reconcile these statements? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that I'm confused about what's going on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading through his comments here and at the prior thread I don't see that he denied being the person named by Guy at all. I am somewhat more concerned by the fact that there appeared to be checkuser information being bandied about in the previous AN thread - that is somewhat more likely to endanger him or his family. (Also, his views are published under his real name. So... something to consider when judging the danger factor). ^Avruchtalk 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whose views? There should be a way to purge the checkuser info. Anthon01 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm... isn't this something that people have been banned for before? Isn't this sort of speculation on people's identities PRECISELY the reason Wikipedia Review is a "bad site"? —Random832 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on whether this is the same sort of thing (i.e. not an external site, in an ArbCom proceeding, real identity may be relevant for meatpuppetry assessment purposes etc.). Thats why I suggested any action be run through ArbCom. ^Avruchtalk 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, isn't speculating on the real-life identity of editors the sort of thing that the so-called "attack sites" engage in which makes them so unspeakably evil in the eyes of people like JzG? Then there's an extreme double standard when he goes around doing it himself. (Oops, I see somebody else said basically the same thing right above.) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG deleted an evidence page of mine and weeks later was found to have an evidence page of his own, motioned for deletion by an admin, it had been sitting there for over a year. JzG doesn't allow off-wiki attacks about himself and other users, meanwhile on his own personal website he had attacks against me and another user. The man is full of double-standards. He is also famous for breaking the civility rule - swearing, cussing, personal attacks. So don't be surprised when you learn that all users are equal on Wikipedia, but JzG is more equal than others. Rfwoolf (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• A small point regarding the argument that the information may be germane in the RfArb; email the information to the ArbCom, and don't post it in violation of WP:HARASS. The option is available, an experienced editor should be aware of this and an admin needs to know the application of this policy - or else they shouldn't have the mop. I have no idea why Guy thought he should be able to do this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• obviously you haven't been past his talk page recently otherwise you would know why he might not necessarily be showing his usual good judgement. I suggest that we call off the dogs and step back a bit. No-one seems to be discussing this directly with Guy and that's usually the first stage of DR rather then trying to lynch the poor fellow for a poorish call. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

THe first recent incident was on the 19th, two days before he posted his personal message. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be aware that a user making edits on behalf of a banned user is subject to the same ban, so it was not an entirely meritless speculation. I suppose that if there is consensus that Anthon01 is editing in that manner then he can be banned; otherwise chuck it up to RFAR. Thatcher 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Venue. It was discussed and tabled before. Speculation with a potentially heavy price. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once is an accident. Twice seems negligent. Almost willful. What's really going on? Bstone (talk) 22:32, 21 January 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.

My earlier post

I call people's attention to an earlier ANI post which I had, and no one looked at it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#User:198.99.32.5. Please handle this, as it appears to be an abusive sockpuppetry address, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, 198.99.32.5 (talk · contribs). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows nothing out of the ordinary from that IP. Sorry. Thatcher 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page code glitches

Resolved

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else having their sigs and other formatting not work on talk pages? I just tried posting on Talk:Starwood Festival, and it wouldn't parse my signature or indents at all. Seems to have happened to the previous poster, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A nowiki tag wasn't closed. This would have been better at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Woody (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really egregious vandalism

I can't report this at ARV--there's no final warning--but seriously, are we going to let stuff like this [17] go by without serious action? I mean, c'mon--that image was posted on a kids' show page, fer cryin' out loud. Wikipedia may not be censored, but...I mean, seriously. I'm pretty damn tolerant, myself, and even I was like "aw HELL no." It was uploaded to several other pages, too--This is Emily Yeung and Barney & Friends--and yeah, it was reverted, but still--can't we just DEAL with people who do stuff like this, instead of fooling around with graded warnings? Gladys J Cortez 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For shit like this, drop a uw-bv or uw-vand4im and if he edits again, immediately report to AIV. The only requirement is that he has been warned that his actions are blockable, not that you use every level of warning. Go straight to level 4, and if it doesn't stop him immediately, then go to AIV. I have so warned him. If he does it again, I will block him. I just deleted the pic as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he has edited in a few hours, as I investigate closer. He has recieved a level 4 warning. If he vandalises again, immediately report to AIV, and note that he has been warned. It should result in a block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston University BLP and IP conduct issues

Resolved

 – External link operator, IP blocked. Woody (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At Kingston University which is recently off full protection, an IP is inserting disparaging comments into the article about a University Vice-Chancellor. This is in relation to unproven accusations of witness intimidation. I have removed these as I believe they fall under the WP:BLP criteria. I warned the IP that adding this in again would result in a block. I have not blocked due to a COI and would request an uninvolved admin take a look and make the appropriate actions. Thanks. Woody (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like the issue is being hammered out on the talk page. The problematic edits have not been readded, nor does the IP seem to be disrupting further. Woody should keep us updated if things go down hill, but on reviewing this, it looks to be working itself out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP is being very constructive and cooperative, but has requested some third party opinions. I would appreciate if someone could pop along. Thanks. Woody (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:3O and WP:RFC. As an admin, I try not to get involved in those ways, should my services be required for more drastic measures. 3O tends to repsond pretty quickly, in my experience... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, he was being cooperative. Now he has resorted to calling those that responded, employees of reputation management companies. He also claims to have his own personal checkuser tool. (The claims seem to be backed up, my ip address does start with 130.) Woody (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the diff [18] ^Avruchtalk 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WHOA... WTF? He has a checkuser and isn't afraid to use it? How does he checkuser Wikipedia usernames??? How is that possible??? This is, erm, disturbing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay calm :P ^Avruchtalk 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths... in... out... Better. Now, a) how is this technically possible b) does this represent a blockable sort of thing and c) seriously, what do we do about this? This needs wider attention from more experienced admins... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• One option: user has another account here under which he emails [User:Woody] in relation to another matter. Woody replies, and if he has a static IP, which is not uncommon for a broadband account, the IP shows up in his email header. No checkuser. Just an idea. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have only ever replied to three emails on Wikipedia, two were highly respected Wikipedia admins/arbcom members, the third I would trust implicitly. That sortof negates that possibility. Woody (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe take it to technical VP for a possible technical explanation? As far as blocking, uh... I'd guess using invasive technological tricks to violate the privacy protections could be considered blockable. ^Avruchtalk 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So done: WP:VPT#IP user claims checkuser ability: --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to use low-tech methods to find IP addresses. In Woody's case, not too difficult to find. But the IP address I came up with was over a year old and didn't start 130. Strange. Woody, if you want me to e-mail you about that, leave me a talk page message (I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit now). Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My low-tech method fell flat on its face. Wrong Woody. I'm now going to try and withdraw gracefully before I knock over any more china. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has nobody blocked this IP? Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuz we can't figure out what to block him for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think threatening to violate other users' privacy would be a good reason. Corvus cornix_talk 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree... However, I am personally leary to do so myself. One bad block in a day is enough for me... see above. If someone else concurs, could another admin handle this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked for edit warring. Nakon 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, user needs to be blocked until this situation is sorted out. Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After discussion on Village Pump, the conclusion is that the IP seems to run the sirpeterscott website, which means he can log all ip addresses being referred to wikipedia. There is no media-wiki issue, just a user losing an argument, trying to fight his way out. Have marked as resolved. Woody (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all administrators and the general community

Per this discussion previously, I've had one page of BJAODN restored, userfied, and protected to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN in order to work on citing it on a BJAODN archive offsite. Once I've finished citing this page, it will be deleted again. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing of note: Make sure that whoever completes the next switch-out moves the page that's in there now back where it was before deleting it and moving the next one into userspace. We're not trying to do a tremendous history merge here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, this page'll get deleted, and the next page up will be created and moved to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN2, or something like that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, are people still spazzing about linking to such a site? There really isn't any practical reason why we shouldn't. I know the whole DENY thing was one of the reasons people didn't like BJAODN, but you have to admit that an offsite link takes a great deal of the bite out of the glory to vandals. An offsite link isn't nearly as fun for a vandal. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that we don't even know how much of a real concern it was when BJAODN was here in full force. Just something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The off-site BJAODN is linked to from Silly Things (the successor to BJAODN), and nobody's challenged the link addition. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have trouble finding diffs for some because the articles been deleted, I would be willing to help (obviously the diff links themselves won't be useful, but the timestamp/username would be what you need for GFDL purposes). This may be less useful until you start to get into stuff that was added after about 2005-2006, since the stuff you're working on now is not recoverable. —Random832 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Theground2

Could someone please check the contributions of this user, User:Theground2. They've added a number of images to various Playboy Playmate articles and after having glimpsed one of them, I'd rather not go through the process of checking the rest of them while here at work. The one I saw was a clear copyvio. Like I said, I'm at work, otherwise I'd tag the images myself. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images reverted from articles, and SchuminWeb marked the images for deletion. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, images to playmate articles? We.. might need to.. review.. this content.. for.. um... the... consensus?... erm... so.. ah... ... never mind... ;) -- Ned Scott 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heheh....wait what where we talking about here? oh...deleting them...cause of...i guess im too distracted :)Tiptoety ^talk 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Too distracted? May I suggest a cold shower? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

lol. Tiptoety ^talk 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rikara

1st I would like to say if this is not the place to add users who need to be blocked please for give me and move it to the right place.

Rikara has broken a few rules like these.

Archives."[19] And another said, "Unnecessary, especially since past discussions/edits make it clear that if we list some, people will try to list them all, and we need to keep clutter down."[20]

WE have told this user so may times that its not needed and he keeps adding it please do something about this please and thank you.--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any rules being overtly broken here. WP:ANI should not be the first place one goes if a dispute occurs. Please try other dispute resolution options. In this case, Third Opinion or Request for Comment may be most approrpriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile, uncivil user DarkFierceDeityLink

On the SuperSmash Brawl talk page [21], The user in question DArkLink has reverted my edits numerous times, 4 times to be exact. But that is not why I'm here. I'm trying to resolve this dispute on the talk page but when I added a GENERAL discussion for the unsourced material he removes it after his own comment, saying it is unnecessary despite the crux of the discussion being whether or not the article sources are credible. He has done this twice so far, even reverting an Administrator's message to both of us. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the User:DarkFierceDeityLink has been warned previously about violating WP:CIVIL, per this warning from Zzyzx11.UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two sections of the talk page that discuss potential characters for this video game, including references to a leaked and subsequently removed video from Nintendo revealing previously unconfirmed characters. The edit war appears to be over which section to remove. I would submit that, as both sections deal with finding reliable sources (or the fact that none exist) for the inclusion of information in the article, that both sections should remain. I also note that several editors appear to be close to violating WP:3RR. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already the subject of a thread about three blocks up. Please take this to dispute resolution ASAP. Ask for a third opinion or open a request for comment and seek to find an uninvolved party to solve the dispute. Everyone is getting testy on this issue, and there are likely to be 3RR blocks for both sides, and NO ONE, even us admins, wants that. I suggest that even if it means leaving the "wrong version" up, all reversions cease and dispute resolution is used to solve this problem. If the "wrong version" stays up for 2-3 days while consensus is being built and outside opinions are being gathered, there is no real harm. If people get blocked for 3RR and the article is protected, it is a MUCH worse solution. We don't want to have to go there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users

Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a blocking admin against me in the past and has just posted a very cryptic comment on his user page about me. I asked him if this was a threat here. I don't like the implication that the wheels of justice are turning behind closed doors, and I especially am offended that this comment was made to a particularly problematic editor who has a history of POV-pushing and promoting fringe theories. This feels to me like an abuse of power. What do others think? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse and I were talking in IRC about the complaints and counter-complaints at WP:AE, and I asked an arbitrator for an opinion on a possible remedy. This should not be blown out of proportion. The fact that he previously blocked you for edit warring is not an issue; blocking once does not disqualify an admin from taking future action, if appropriate. Thatcher 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just scared, that's all. Rlevse scares me. He's quite authoritarian and rarely as engaging as other clerks I've known in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding: The Arbitration clerks have no special role in Arbitration enforcement. It is perhaps natural that admins with an interest in Arbitration gravitate to both areas, but enforcement is open to all uninvolved admins. More help at WP:AE is always appreciated. Thatcher 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, I quit wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Random POOF! I... don't get it. ^Avruchtalk 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaat? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, you/this thread really pissed him off and he left. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Wizardman 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the above. I think wikipedia's getting to me today. I should probably log off :) Wizardman 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist take a chill pill. If I would get upset each time an admin swang their authority stick I would be in a hospital talking to a shrink! Igor Berger (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not doing that right now? ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to press the panic button, but User:Rlevse actually went & quit. Two in one day. Sigh. --SSBohio 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I'm pretty sure Rlevse was Rudget's admin coach. How strange.   jj137 ^♠ 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And neither particularly justified. Let's hope both cool off and come back. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. Nothing about Rlevse's statement was remotely a threat. Given the number of arbcom requests in this topic area recently, I should hope arbcom is looking at it and Rlevse's statement was simply a statement of fact. --B (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe for a minute that Rlevse's statement was a threat. On the other hand, anyone who's been following this little drama is aware that Rlevse has no love for SA (to put it as tactfully as I can). Thus it wasn't unreasonable for SA to perceive the remark as a threat. Not having the wisdom of Solomon, I can't think of anything more imaginative than simply to recommend that the two of them stay away from each other. Perhaps someone more articulate and diplomatic than me can suggest something better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i thinkt aht rvelse's decision to leave was a smart one. ITS clear that theset wo users have so much hostility and hatred for each otehr that they cannot coexist on the same website at the same time. one of them had to leave and it was honorable for User:Relevse to volunter to sacrifice his adminship as well as this work here on wikiepdia to preserve the peace. Its' always a good idea to try to mediate these disputes befrore they get out of hadn but since these two users loathed each toehr so deeply that they could not kep from arguing Rlevse's departure is probalby for the best. the only thing that i can recomend is to block rvelse's account so that he or she wont be tempted to come abck later on and end up resuming the current conflict. Smith Jones (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? --B (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of my past experiences with this user, I must sadly report that I don't think he's joking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond, Smith Jones does tend to take extreme positions, usually with poorly-written justifications. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be assuming bad faith, but your comment carries the insinuation that SA is selfish. And no, we will not block his account just to keep him away from here so "he or she wont [sic] be tempted to come abck [sic] later on and end up resuming the current conflict." That is just absurd. —Kurykh 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And what may I say are the Mediators,arbitrators and check-users doing about this issue?..2 in 1 day is a laugh and both being admin, just shows how wikipedia is not moving forward. As mentioned before Wikipedia's democracy is no longer working..someone should do something about this 2 issues, no matter how minor it seems cause its these minor issues which can bring wikipedia to its knees...--Cometstyles 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Comment

Losing a good editor is always a bad thing for Wikipedia, and one who takes on the onerous task of clerking ArbComs especially so. I sincerely hope that Rlevse, after some consideration, decides to return to the encyclopedia - and even takes up again the role of clerk. Sometimes, often even, an authoritarian approach is required to cut through the various passions and off topic rhetoric that can occur at ArbCom - although my own experience was that Rlevse was not oppressive.

I also have some sympathy with ScienceApologist, whose unerring campaign to keep science related subjects clear from non-scientific sentiment and improper application of NPOV is both admirable and likely extremely frustrating. As said somewhere else (I paraphrase), "What other point of view other than a scientific one should be used in a science related article?"

It is unfortunate that two good, and committed in their own ways, contributors to Wikipedia are unable to co-operate with each other. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to co-exist - Wikipedia is very, very, very big (that's a scientific term, folks!) and there should be enough room for the both of them. Obviously it would be up to both parties to limit the areas where they may conflict, given the area of expertise of one editor and the interests of the other, and to avoid direct interaction in those spaces. In that way the encyclopedia is served by having both individuals involved, and disruption reduced.

I hope the matter can be, if not resolved, brought to as reasonable a conclusion as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. The loss of either of these two editors would be a serious blow to all of Wikipedia's efforts. Both are skilled and extremely knowledgeable contributors. SA's Herculean efforts to maintain Scientific pages which don't cater to the tinfoil hat brigade are as valued here as RLevse's clearking and constant efforts throughout the project. That they need WP:DR or just a gentleman's agreement ot keep a distance is clear, but neither should go. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Return

He has returned, if you didn't know already. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'all get your fingers off the panic button :) You know that *none of us can ever quit*. Once you're hooked, that's it. Wikipedia needs a warning label. Userbox it.Wjhonson (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I must disagree. I've seen too many valuable contributors decide this is a waste of time due to (eh, pick a reason, we've seen them all) & bail. Burnout catches up with some people & they say good-bye. (I guess some people don't have a life -- which must be why I'm still here.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aomen

Hi, I have recently come to realise that the user Aomen has been tagging everything furiously with WPCHINA. And I mean furiously. Like everything. Usually this is a good thing, as he seems to catergorize correctly. But at times he also does it to articles that are barely related to china like the invasion of Hong Kong. Then I looked at his contibutions. It's like....wow!! I dunno how he does it, but it's quite crazy.....he seems to tag articles in a matter of seconds, then move on. Is he a bot or something? I sorta told him to stop on his talk page....but looking at previous comments on it, he hasn't replied to any of them. So.....can someone check him up? Personally I had enough of reverting his edits ^^". Sorry if this post sounds weird, I'm newbie afterall. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Aomen (talk · contribs) has never made any edits to Wikipedia articles - his only contributions have been the mass adding of {{WPMacau}} (first hundred edits) and {{WPCHINA}} (the subsequent 5500 edits, at very high rates - see [22] or [23], for example). Only two edits that were not high speed category tagging - one move ([24]), and one edit to put "Aomen" on User:Aomen. No response has ever been made to the numerous talk page messages complaining about his repeated mistagging of article talk pages or asking him to stop. Looks like an unauthorised bot to me. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...iunno, it could be one of those unresponsive editors who often edit China-Taiwan articles (but they're often anons.)...but the bot conclusion might be more plausible. nat.utoronto 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's not a bot, I really doubt his physical ability in tagging articles alphabetically in such a short amount of times. Heck, just going ctrl+c and ctrl+v at that rate will cause a cramp. If he's a bot, then I must admire the person who created him ^^ cause generally, he's quite correct in his tagging I must admit......Dengero (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If a user is editing exactly like a bot, making thousands of identical high speed edits, then for all intents and purposes, it can be considered a bot. The response should be the same. If it continues to mistag (even at the 20% or so error rate the account seems to currently be running at), it will be blocked, and I will warn Aomen as such now (we shall assume good faith and treat the account like it's a real person, on the chance that it is. Further mistagging will result in blocking, as either it's a bot or it's a user refusing to communicate despite numerous entreaties to do so. Neıl ☎ 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So...how many more times do I need to revert his edits until it becomes a 20%+ mistag? I'm not going to do it intentionally of course, but I've been reverting quite a few tbh.....eg. One day, he tagged a heap of hk artists. The ones who sing, act, whatever. Took me like....ages to revert them all >.> Dengero (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If he/she/it makes one more bad edit, let us know here and we'll block the account. Waggers (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a curiosity, "Aomen" is as far as I know the Chinese name for "Macau". Orderinchaos 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian (talk · contribs)

Will some kind administrator either block this user for continued legal threats or give him what wants? Personally, I'm inclined to the former. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution proposed was to delete the pages and permanently blacklist our domain from all of Wikipedia. Despite the accusations of CoI and Spamming, we do neither. A blacklist + deletion of all the wiki-edictator trash pages would resolve this issue as far as we are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some diffs of specific legal threats? I've looked through this user's contributions some, and while he seems to misunderstand what the spam page is for, I haven't found a specific legal threat yet (but I'll keep looking). Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian/66.23.224.223's tenure here was tediuous and unpleasant both for Popperian/66.23.224.223 and our regular editors:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/66.23.224.223 (older version)
• User talk:Popperian (older version)
• User talk:66.23.224.223 (older version)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoNOC (older version)
  • AfD was subsequently courtesy blanked
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#AutoNOC (older version)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#Should this edit be reversed?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#User requests account deletion
• Bad faith nominations of competitors' articles (those with blue links were later nominated for deletion by me).
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ByteSphere
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cacti (software)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caligare
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosim
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellipool Network Monitor
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netdisco
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Administration Visualized
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nortel Enterprise Switch Manager
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nortel Proactive Voice Quality Management
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OutSystems IT Asset Manager
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paessler Router Traffic Grapher
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProCurve Manager
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siemens Integrated Network Management Services / System
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SysAid
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysorb
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xratel
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabbix
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenoss
• Current deletion request:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com
• Other accounts:
  • Autonoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • 66.23.224.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm still not convinced that he was making legal threats from what I saw, but he was clearly continuing a pattern of disruption, which is ample reason for the block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The legal threat is in this edit. BLACKKITE 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A block should be issued on the legal threat alone. Whats all the discussion for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- User was unblocked per an email request. They are planning on creating an RFARB and may not edit any other pages. Nakon 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The user sent me an email asking me to delete all pages and text that mention his company, since I deleted the original article. Obviously, I'm not going to do that, but I felt I should bring attention to this. --Coredesat 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit?

This edit was supposed to have been made by a bot, but the bot seems to not have the proper permission since the edit is marked m and not b and the name does not end in bot. Maybe one of you should take a look, Brusegadi (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

admin needs to block the bot and point them to WP:BRFA as it is a pywikipedia interwiki bot. β^_command 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is a valid bot on the "is" wikipedia (Icelandic???). The bot probably needs approval on "en" seperately. Does anyone know if this is so? If it is, we should leave a friendly reminder on their userpage to do so. For the record, beyond the fact that they are bot edits, I don't see a single problem with them. This is a fairly non-controversial interwikinator type of bot. But for official purposes, it should have a bot permission tag. It should be blocked for now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Im a member of the bot approval group and every bot on en.wiki needs approval regardless of their status on another wiki. β^_command 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I already blocked it. You might want to make contact with the user on his talk page User talk:Jumbuck, or atleats watch it to see if he responds there during the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's an erroneous assumption in the above. Bots do not have to have the MediaWiki 'bot right. Furthermore, blocking a 'bot that existed long before the "Bot Approvals Group" even existed, that has been doing uncontroversial interwiki linking work since 2004, whose user page directly points to a central user page that says "this is a robot", that has been on the list of known interwiki 'bots for over three years, and whose edits aren't even being criticized here, is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

  I suggest that Betacommand2 and others remember that there have been people quietly doing the legwork of maintaining the encyclopaedia with 'bots for years before some of the "Bot Approvals Group" members even created their accounts.

  The person whose 'bot you've just blocked, without even reading the 'bot's central user page and seeing that it is clearly stated to be a 'bot, or even reading m:Interwiki bot/Operators where xe has been listed since 2004, is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. You've just blocked a 'bot run by one of the people who helped to write MediaWiki, without even having an actual reason for doing so. I suggest that annoying the developer who gave us the <ref> mechanism, by requiring that xe jump through some silly bureaucratic hoops several years after the fact for no real reason, is not a particularly wise course of action. Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I was not aware of these facts. The bot will be unblocked post-haste. As I said, I thought the bot was doing fine work, but Betacommand sounded like he knew what he was talking about. My bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Bot has been unblocked. I apologize profusely for overstepping my bounds as an admin. The above complaint, that this was an unauthorized bot, seemed valid upon my initial investigation, and the first responses I got seemed to support that. I was wrong and my actions were inexcusable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Somewhat related: while rare, some approved bots don't have a bot flag. I'm not really familiar with the current bot request system, but I remember in the past where it was possible to get approval without a flag, so it could be likely that there are still bots out there like that. Though, such bots would still likely have a link to getting approval on their userpage, IIRC. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • None of my 'bots have a flag. I've no need of it, and the people who might have need of it have never asked for it. It is clearly stated on my 'bots' user pages that they are intentionally as subject to the scrutiny of their edits by Recent Changes patrol as any other account. And that's the only thing that the MediaWiki 'bot right actually is: a way of hiding all of an account's edits from RC patrol. It isn't actually necessary that an account be flagged in order for it to be a 'bot. And if RC patrollers aren't worried about all of its edits being visible to them, no-one else need be.

          In many ways, it shouldn't even be the 'bot operators that should ask for a flag. It should be the RC patrollers. It should be up to them to say which accounts they're happy to not see, by default, the edits of. It is them that the flag benefits. We 'bot operators gain no benefit. Our 'bots work the same with or without a flag. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

          • • But all bots need some sort of approval don't they? The issue for me was not the use of the bold "b" flag on the edits, it was that there was a concern that the bot was an unapproved bot. That has been shown by the operator to be false; that is he verified his bot's approval for use on "en." Regardless of whether the flag exists or doesn't, isn't it generally considered bad form to perform fully automated edits by bot without prior aproval? Again, this whole issue was clearly a miscommunication, and this specific issue has been corrected (I lifted the block and the bot is happily interwikinating as we speak), but for my own future reference, what exactly IS the policy on bots, and when should an unauthorized bot be blocked? Uncle G? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion relevant to this issue at WP:BAG#RFC. —Random832 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Link spamming - broadwayworld.com

This user [25] (and others) have been spamming wikipedia with broadwayworld links for months now, and doing nothing else. What can be done about this? There appears to be a campaign to get these links into wikipedia, with 242 here and another 83 here. Lobojo (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch/*.broadwayworld.com Ill feed this to the anti-spam people. β^_command 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave them one more warning. If they put in one more spam link, I or someone else will block them again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also rollbacked all of the spam links. Damn I love that rollback... If it happens again, we should block this IP on sight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you? I think you missed a few.... hundred. LOL. How does it work? Lobojo (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can rollback from the page history and from the user contribs list, but only if its the last edit. Once its a buried edit, the links will have to be removed by hand. Urgh. This site needs to be blacklisted ASAP. Betacommand, you work with that process on Meta. Can you do that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few hours to get home, (Im at work) and Ill use a Pocket Nuke^TM on the spammer and get them SBLed and removed. its nothing that cant wait a few hours. β_^command 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good deal! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying no links to this site at all? Or just on articles where it was spammed onto? Cirt (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the way the spamlist works, once it is there it should not be linked to at all. It will be impossible to save any edit that contains that link. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That really sucks. It was a good verifiable source on a Featured Article I have worked really hard on. Can there please be an exception made? Cirt (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I would like an answer to that question too, because I added a broadway.com photo essay link to DruidSynge on August 20, 2006 not as spam but as a specific informative addition for DruidSynge in New York in 2006. The images are not free and could not be used in the article, so the link complements the article greatly—it was definitely not intended as a spam link. What's the opinion because this link was removed today and I object. It was not a general spam link to broadway.com and not added by the editor who recently added more such links. What solution do you have if the link is not acceptable 18 months after its inclusion? ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. In that case, I would counsel we need to move slower on this one. If its a valid reference, blacklisting it would be a BAD idea. Betacommand, please wait to blacklist it before we fully investigate. This could be a bit of a problem... Maybe the user needs to be blocked without blacklisting it... Hmmmm.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Can I please now add the valid citations back into the Featured Article (also was a WP:TFA article in this state), A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant ? Cirt (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can easily not include the http:// part which makes it a link. MER-C 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is removing valid citations from that site. I just had to revert the removal of a citation from that site in the Jacob Young article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also the local whitelist for specific URL's for specific articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why it should not be blacklisted, as noted by Jayron32 (talk · contribs) that perhaps a block for whoever is spamming links after a warning would be a better idea. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it deals with multiple accounts and hard to control IP addresses. So a blacklist is the easiest thing to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not if it affects legitimate sourcing in multiple quality articles. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely not if it affects legitimate sourcing. Broadwayworld.com is a valid source of information and should not be blacklisted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Several users have come here and stated that Broadwayworld.com is a valid source, and should not be blacklisted. One Admin suggested blocking whoever the spammers are. Have we come to any sort of resolution on this? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WHOA!! BroadwayWorld.com is an important, verifiable reference source for musical theatre articles. It is definitely not spam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So is this site now blacklisted? Can we add back valid citations that have been removed? --BelovedFreak 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld.com is a legitimate source for many musical theatre and musical theatre related articles, and I honestly believe that it should not be blacklisted, as this would significantly lower the quality of several articles by removing legitimate citations (one article in particular that I've been working on is Hairspray (2007 film)). —Mears man (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe whoever was going to nominate it for the blacklist changed his mind. It has not been nominated here, nor is it at the moment in the Blacklist over here. Unless I misunderstand the process, which is possible -- can someone post an update? -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Betacommand's talk page

"...I have stopped removal for now." β^_command 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So, yes, it appears that we can put back the necessary links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More Arthur Ellis sockpuppets

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged

I'm leaving this message in response to a post by User:Thatcher. At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, Thatcher has determined that Victoriagirl1 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl2 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl3 (talk · contribs), Sunray10 (talk · contribs), Sunray20 (talk · contribs), Sunray30 (talk · contribs), Homeboy99 (talk · contribs), Sockpuppet99 (talk · contribs), Backtalk (talk · contribs), Hotgirl99 (talk · contribs), Firebrand99 (talk · contribs), Climateguy (talk · contribs) and Overeditor (talk · contribs) are one and the same. As Overeditor, Sockpuppet99, Hotgirl99, Homeboy99 and Climateguy have blocked indefinitely as Arthur Ellis socks, I wonder whether it would it be possible to block the other accounts. I recognize that not all appear active at the moment, but note that the confusingly named Victoriagirl1 has made two postings [26][27] since Thatcher presented the findings. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All blocked. Tagging in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Electra10

Legal threat by new user User:Electra10. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly a threat, and they probably are unaware of the rule. Rather than biting them, let's try a bit of education first.[28] Jehochman ^Talk 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. I don't think I bit him, I didn't respond at all to his talk about courts of law, I reported it here. However, he used edit summaries, filled in info boxes and correctly formatted the article in one edit. Doesn't prove anything, but this also made me question what was going on. Thanks again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this editor is making a point worth considering (Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats) even if poorly worded. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another legal threat. The wording is careful but the meaning is clear. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment there. I think the wording of the legal threat block message urgently needs to be more informative, I'll try to tweak it when I have the time. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Electra10 (talk · contribs) had already been warned against making legal threats by both Gwen Gale [29] and Jehochman [30]. Not only did the editor ignore Jehochman's request to remove the threat, but Electra's next post was another legal threat. I do not believe that WP:DOLT is applicable to this case, as the article in question is not a WP:BLP (Ms. Bolam died in 1982) and the disputed facts in the article appear to be properly cited to such reliable, published sources as Time (magazine), The New York Times, and the National Geographic Society. However while WP:DOLT may not apply, WP:LEGAL does, as I do not know how comments such as "I'm sorry but I am willing to challenge anyone in a court of law on this matter" can be interpreted as anything but a legal threat. As such, I blocked [31] the editor at 11:54 EST. Thank you Lucasbfr for clarifying the next step to this editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockfarm From Hell

Could we get some help tagging some of the users in here, specifically the users in Group 2? There's enough accounts there to choke a pelican. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All confirmed accounts tagged, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Someone please block this one: Gromph Baenre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. --Jack Merridew 08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks; here's another needing his button pushed: Luckyevent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Jack Merridew 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• and: Robert James Ritchie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Jack Merridew 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Both blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Another: Heaðolaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is tagged as sock/blocked but is not blocked. --Jack Merridew 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked by PeaceNT. Bencherlite^Talk 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• This assault is continuing right now with anons: Special:Contributions/89.186.90.242 (and a few others I don't have IPs for handy) --Jack Merridew 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/194.144.97.153, also on Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) --Jack Merridew 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Freawaru (talk · contribs) tagged as sock/blocked, but not blocked. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  User blocked. Bencherlite^Talk 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks; I'm going through the checkuser case and noting things here as I go. Such as:

• Ecgþeow (talk · contribs) also tagged as sock/blocked, but not blocked. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Eanmund (talk · contribs), too. --Jack Merridew 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Brondings (talk · contribs), Breca (talk · contribs)... and others I'm sure; I'm going to focus on reviewing edits, not blocks, as I can fix those. --Jack Merridew 10:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• These four now blocked. Bencherlite^Talk 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) for a week, given that there were multiple IPs behaving in this way. Any admin is free to remove / extend this as they see fit. Should the checkuser case have the recent IPs added to it? Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've extended it to indef largely because the underlying problem is no so much the tags than who put them on; this is harassment of Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure if piling-on more IPs is helpful to the checkuser process. There are hundreds, most one-off usages. They may be the same user or they may be randoms showing up from an off site link. I've seen that a bunch of times (what I think is that). My contrib history will now contain many, many of the IPs with an undo edit summary (say the last two months!). Here's a regular expression to help search:

"Undid revision [0-9]+ by [0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+ \(talk\)" --Jack Merridew 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Óðinn

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content § User:Óðinn/Templates

Said user has been going through User:156.34.215.223's contributions and reverting valid fair-use logo removals. When I requested that the user stop ([32]), he asked if I was an admin ([33]). I AGF 'd the user's question and replied with: [34]. He then replied with: "Request denied" ([35]) - this says to me: "I would only stop stalking the user if you were an admin." - Basically, I need some guidance on what to do with this situation. The user has clearly disregarded a polite request to stop and discuss the matter rather than blindly reverting. Any thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to use logos if a non-free use rationale has been provided. Óðinn is using User:Óðinn/Templates/Fair use logo (which should be in template namespace - or at least should be substituted - see also User:Óðinn/Templates), so removing the logos is being disruptive. There may be a case for excessive non-free use of images, but maybe not. It might also be debatable whether we need to include "logos" for music bands. As this could be a complex case, I suggest raising all these issues at the talk page for the non-free content policy. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Non-free content issues diverted over there. Remaining issues here are the admin comments and the incipient edit warring over the logos. I've notified the user. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not personally bothered about the logo's, it's more the user's conduct which I found inappropriate. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You started in straight away with accusations of "stalking", (from WP:STALK — Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles) it's understandable that he'd be a bit hostile. —Random832 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the claim that "Consensus does not need to be implemented into policy for it to count." is valid generally, but you can't just assert that there is a consensus to remove the logos without pointing to where this was supposedly discussed to arrive at that supposed consensus. —Random832 14:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. Many of these so-called logos are just somebody's artwork from one album sleeve. All of them (well, very nearly all) are non-free. None of them (or almost none) are accompanied with references to show that they are encyclopedic. As the editor who originally uploaded at least two of these, I'd say that times have changes with regard to non-free content, and that the onus is on those wishing to retain such material to show a consensus to do so. This I certainly do not see. Nobody should revert war over this but I think removing a non-free image once from what is meant to be a text field in an infobox is perfectly justified. I've been doing a few myself on articles I edit and nobody has complained; I'll hold off if there is a live discussion here, but I generally support their removal. Our mission is to produce a free encyclopedia, and these images, in 99% of the cases, are highly unencyclopedic. The 1% of exceptions can use fair use and display the image in the article (I oppose creating a "logo" field in the infobox), if the image is verifiably well-known and has an appropriate rationale. There is no reason that every band article should have a logo, I would submit. --John (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, the IP had pointed to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos in previous edits, but that discussion doesn't look to be a settled consensus to me. I agree that it is debatable whether to use logos in band articles. Sometimes a band is recognised most easily by their logo, other times by a picture of the band. Identification is an important part of a good encyclopedia article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That warning that should have been given to him, remember? Now would be a good time. He is revert-warring again, now as User: 156.34.142.110. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry tried to undo his logo-removing crusade and was predictably reverted. Óðinn (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert warned the IP. Haven't checked to see if he is still reverting or not. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

History merge needed

I just saw that General Welfare Clause was moved by cut-and-paste to Taxing and Spending Clause some weeks ago, and moved back and forth the same way this morning.

It looks like the google hits and the first reference in the article suggest GWC is the far more common name, but the new editor who did the original copy-and-paste move is convinced otherwise.

The article was edited quite a bit after it was cut-paste-moved. Is a history merge possible? MilesAgain (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which version is correct though? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say [36] but I am sure FooFighter would not agree. MilesAgain (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"General Welfare" is actual language from the clause, "Tax and spend" is a common pejorative term used by american conservatives. —Random832 16:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to offer some proof of that other than your own opinion? Foofighter20x (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is now sitting at Taxing and Spending Clause, which is an inappropriate POV name. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an administrator will have move it back to GWC as it was before FooFighter made the cut-and-paste move which, at the time, was already controversial per the talk page? MilesAgain (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, bd2412 undid the cut-n-paste move, moved the content to the wrong location, & left a pretty stern warning on User talk:Foofighter20x for that user. Although the talk page for the GWC is still forgotten in this mess, I see no reason to be bold here & move the article back: IMHO, Foofighter has two strikes against him at this point, so I think we ought to give him enough rope one more chance to properly participate in the discussion before he is escorted out of Wikipedia for the indefinite future. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to actually go look at the discussion page as opposed to sitting high in your alabster tower, passing judgment? The preponderance of the evidence given there shows I'm in the right. Also, I've even offered a third solution. Also I'd like to point out that your rope comment smacks of POV... Go figure. Foofighter20x (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, somebody? Please move this back to the proper name? Corvus cornix_talk 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they'll move it back once you offer up some more evidence other than what a Google search says. Foofighter20x (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry abusing helpme template

Resolved

 – all reported socks have been indefblocked--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't figure out how to fill out a proper sockpuppet report: the puppetmaster already has a confirmed sockpuppet category but I can't find the suspected sockpuppet page for this puppetmaster.

Sockpuppets are using the {{help}} template to try to attract attention and are admitting to being sockpuppets.

Puppetmaster: already blocked LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets:

• Dendanovile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (*** needs to be blocked *** ) Done. Thanks, Mangojuice. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ponterrifire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Nevanacrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Arcbarrakrane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Casuticous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Demandamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Robensturlobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Vonsarkertraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)

I've nowikied the help templates and put suspected sockpuppet templates on the user talk pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they have all been blocked for now. I am marking this as resolved. If more socks show up, notify us and we will get on blocking them as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

I was e-mailed by this user, due to him being indef blocked, and on reviewing the evidence - or complete and total lack thereof - unblocked him. The admin in question seems to have left wikipedia. The block log only read "Editor feels disruptive editing is blockworthy... I agree." - The contribs in the weeks before showed little to justify this, and the admin seems to have commented nowhere else but the block log on it.

As far as I know, I have no involvement with QuackGuru. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

the user has a few 3RR blocks, but I don't see ANYTHING in the contribs history that warrents the indefinite block. I would say the unblock is a good move here. If the user does become a problem, we can always reblock, but I really have NO idea why this one was blocked. Have you tried to contact the blocking admin in any way, such as via email? Maybe they are privy to something we aren't... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking at QG's block log should note that it looks longer than it really is. There was a series of block/unblock/reblock/unblock actions creating multiple entries for one block. I don't know what on earth was going on there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This seems like an easy call to unblock at this point... I think Adam made a wise decision here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to the block? Anthon01 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The archive of his user page from Sept. 2, is enlightening. . . agree with the unblock, btw. R. Baley (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The block would have been from late December or later since his contribs ended on Dec27th. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know that the indef was later, but the reason his block log was so long, was due to events surrounding the Sept. 1 time period. R. Baley (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience has been that QuackGuru is not the most constructive editor on the block. Whether he warranted an indefinite block, I don't know. I don't have a problem with the unblock, though he has in the past been a sort of low-level, gradual exhauster-of-the-community's-patience, so that may be where the block came from. Parenthetically, I'm sad to see that Isotope23 (talk · contribs) has apparently left, though - didn't realize that until now. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know Isotope, I fear. As for QuackGuru - I don't think indef blocks for low-level problems should happen without at least some discussion, and, as far as I can find, none took place. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't have a problem with the unblock. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, QG is not the... easiest to get along with, to put it mildly. However, an indef block like this is equivalent to a community ban, and should be discussed. --Haemo (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to file an RfC or something, go ahead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On the pages I have encountered him he appears out of nowhere (no talk page), reverts up to 3 times and then disappears, sort of like a 'drive by.' He returns a week or so later to repeat the process. Attempts to have him participate on the talk page are fruitless. Strange. Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I advise the unblocking admin to keep an eye on the users actions and talk page. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if there's an RfC and it shows consensus for him being blocked, I'll happily reblock, but, you know, let's do this properly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The "usual policy" is that a banning is just an indef block no admin will undo - if Adam wants to take responsibility for the unblock, and will keep and eye on QuackGuru, I don't see there's any need for an RfC or whatever - we can always come back here if people feel Adam isn't handling the case well. WilyD 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know the nitty gritty of the block, but I do know that Quack is on the "Sanger is co-founder of Wiki" side so that probably rubbed some folks/admins the wrong way. I personally never had any issues with this user. Just my 2 cent drive by comment :) Cheers--Tom 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never knew that. On the other hand, that garish orange sig of his... Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Avi earlier about possibly getting a pair of mentors for QG and was intending to unblock him after I had found a set. Avi was willing to do so. Would someone else be willing to join him? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools needed to fix my "helping"

Resolved

 – Thanks to User:Woody and User:PeaceNT --barneca (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to iron out some disambiguation problems with Santa Anna (Comanche war chief), and ended up making it worse, and it now needs admin tools to fix. If anyone's willing to help sort it out (shouldn't be too hard), leave a note on my talk page and I'll explain what I was trying to do, and what needs done. Sorry, and thanks. --barneca (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved per your talk page at 18:52. Archtransit (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I have got confused doing this. Posted at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen Woody (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now, I should have gone to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to begin with. --barneca (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to spoof result of AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz ?

Resolved

user:Kubek15 created the article Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz which has been nominated for deletion. He has placed comments on the AfD stating it has been closed as "Keep", removed the notice from the article and removed a note on the talk page from the subject of the article requesting it be deleted. This looks like pure vandalism but there's no aparrent gain and thus justification, and he appears to be an otherwise good editor. Perhaps he wants more administrators to look at the AfD and I'm falling for his trap! Could someone see what he's up to? If it is vandalism, could he be given a friendly talking to? Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trap worked! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

<g> Ros0709 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly talking to given. [37] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Ros0709 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Heath Ledger article

Resolved

A penis vandal put a huge penis photo into a template that is currently covering the whole Heath Ledger article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block User:ProofPlain who added it with this edit? Thanks User:John Reaves has done it now, thanks -Halo (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost completely unrelated, but Wikipedia breaks the news again (for me), here about Mr Ledger's death. Although I clicked on the source, and then looked for another source to confirm the first one. Which is what people are supposed to do, after all. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN is now reporting it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The death or the penis? John Reaves 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment not made in the first place, due to tastelessness ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Number48's user page

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.

Inappropriate userpage blanked. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi all, I'm wondering if this is acceptable to have on a user's page? The user in question seems to be a little excitable so I thought I have better throw this one up the line rather than interviening. Thanks Shot info (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

his userpage is blank. please do not use WP:ANI for frivolous buletins. Smith Jones (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I just blanked it, and was about to post here to say so. WP:CIVIL, please. BLACKKITE 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure if itis civil to blank other people's talk pages iwhtout giving them notice before hand to give them a chance to take if off themselves. `Smith Jones (talk)

Please see Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i know the policy. perhaps it would be wise to inform the user with the ofensive user info on it to avoid making sure tha t he knows it too so that he doesnt do someting similar in the future. judging my his talk page no-one has recently tried to epxlian the policy of wikipedia to him or provide him with eeven the welcome banner links. this oversight astounds me. Smith Jones (talk) 23:37, 22 January 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.

Ctx8 & Ctx9

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.

Both accounts blocked as vandalism-only and socks. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm concerned that User talk:Ctx8 and User talk:Ctx9 might be one and the same, considering they both started vandalising on the same evening – could somebody take a look? Cheers — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

there is nothign wrong with having multiple accounts, and editing with multiple accounts. Smith Jones (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

....unless they're disruptive, which these are. BLACKKITE 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well, yes, but if they're behavior is dispruptive that has nothing to do with them having two accounts. theri edits should be assessed individually and if thy are vandalizing then they shoudl be blocked in decisions independentally from one another. Smith Jones (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the decisions should not be independent. When two accounts are obviously the same user, it's OK to split the vandal warnings between them. As in, four warnings between the two (usually), then report both to AIV, it the disruption is indeed trivial vandalism. Except in a username-block, blocks and bans are against users, not accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

okay fine. Smith Jones (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked as vandalism-only; also, obvious socks. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 22 January 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.

Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of obvious disruption is a problem. This could be a case of trying to keep two accounts open to vandalise incase one gets blocked; or trying to avoid the standard warning cycle to remain unblocked longer. I would recommend that someone give these accounts a firm talking to, and keep a close eye on this. If either account misbehaves, they should both be blocked... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn... My whole point is moot now. Damn edit conflicts... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I need an administrator to please block the user DarkFierceDeityLink

This person has been removing any criticism he gets which stem from his comments towards me. While having a regular discussion on the talk page he brings up another issue and tries to troll me. Whenever I defend myself by calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why I did those actions he simply removes them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

I already posted this morning about his problem but he's at it again. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not an assasin organization that automatically blocks everyone you recommend. you have to prove tha thtis user is being disruptive over a long period of time, is obviously unwiling to refrom, and has ignored any and all atempts to modify his behavior. i think that you should try to work this out with this user, prefeably with the help ofa mediator. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is now the THIRD time today I have recommended that the entire situation be brought to dispute resolution. No one is apparently interested in doing that yet. Does any admin think its time to hand out some protections? This has gone far enough. I propose we protect the article page, and leave a notice that the page will remain protected until mediation is completed. Any seconds on that idea?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I favor Jayrons idea i am sick of seing WP:ANI being used as a first resort in every single dispute. WP:ANI is for administrators notifying of problems, not for users to recomend which other users should be blocked or killed off the internet. protections and a voluntaryt mediation seminar seems like it ould be in order. Smith Jones (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No not at all my goodman. The article in question before was Super Smash Bros. Brawl series. Pardon for me not being clear about this but I was having a discussion on the main article page for Brawl and the same user shows up bringing impolite and hostile attitude towards be (as well as slander). They are not constructive nor fall under the discussions. This isn't a simple edit war on the talk page, this is a case of him removing comments (which he did twice this morning) and he does it again tonight on a completely unrelated manner by trolling me more or less and when I respond he removes my comments. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HeaveTheClay EVERY USER has the right to reove any comment off of his talk page after reading it. Smith Jones (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not on the talk page for users, it's on the article's talk page. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

every user has the right to make any comment he wishes onto a talk page. if you cant stand ato have your contributions altered or removed, then dont wupdate or contribute to wikiepdia. Smith Jones (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, knock it off. Stop attacking everybody who comes to ANI, especially when you're not an admin. (neither am I) And apply a little due diligence once in a while instead of spouting off. It was clear that the above comments were about an article Talk page, not a user page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Corvus cornix. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

HeavetheClay said above, "Whenever I defend myself by calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why I did those actions he simply removes them." Just going on what you say here, in my opinion, calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why you did those actions may be a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks and/or civility policies; and his removing them is arguably correct (there is no consensus as to whether it's OK to remove personal attacks); simply removing them without responding in kind shows maturity, civility and detachment, in my opinion. Try talking about article content rather than about the other editor. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl protected pending outcome of dispute resolution

There have been no less than 3 posts to ANI regarding one editor or another demanding the block of someone with regards to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article. I have fully protected the article to stop the edit war. This is not an endorsement of either side in the dispute, or if the article in its current state. I have asked that the protection remain in place until dispute resolution is carried out, and a reasonable consensus solution is reached with the help of neutral, uninvolved parties. I also started a WP:RFC on this article, visible on the article's talk page. I am open to any comments on this specific decision to protect the article here on ANI. Any comments on the conflict itself, please make those comments at the RFC cited above. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

smart move— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Adrianzax (talk · contribs)

Appears to be ABF/incivil to people on multiple occasions. Was in an RV war at Christmas, and this is funny; closed it as the WHOIS resolved to nowhere near Dahn (talk · contribs)'s location, and I don't want to get a checkuser for blatant trolling (and if you aren't convinced, User talk:K. Lastochka#That guy. Will ^(talk) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Theground2 is at it again tonight

Again, User:Theground2 is adding copyvio images to Playmate articles. Again, I'm at work and would rather not pull the images up here. I checked one. Not sure how many they've added today. I'd add on to my last report of this but it's moved up the page some and I didn't know it would get any attention up there. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal being firebombed by anons

Resolved

Anonymous homophobes are vandalizing the Jake Gyllenhaal page in the wake of his collegue's death. Mainly, they're saying that Gyllenhaal died too, but it's all kinds of ugliness. Please see the history page. Would temporary protection from anon editors be appropriate now? Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection has already been requested at WP:RPP. Pairadox (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Woody (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas...

... what this guy was up to?

link (see end of markup)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On first impression, trying to overload Wikipedia's image rendering servers by including 1 px renderings of a few thousand images on one page. I have indef blocked, though if they come up with a good explanation later we can unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On second impression, I concur with the above assessment. This is a patently obvious attempt to disrupt, and should be blocked pending further explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Same thing was going on on the other subpage; removed. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.18.108.5

User:24.18.108.5 is trolling and making personal attacks at the Talk:Barack Obama page. He's been warned - can someone take a look and consider blocking? (That the attacks are directed at me is funny, but fine - I've seen much worse (and better) in real life...but I am surprised we've let the trolling go on this long.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned them again about incivility, and used the word "Block". If the problem happens again, let us know here at this thread, and he will be blocked the next time he is incivil. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:86.150.147.133

Resolved

This user has made personal attacks against me at least three times already, first on Talk:Islam and antisemitism. [38]. Then, when he was warned, and after I removed the attacks, he re-posted them, both on that page[39], and on my talk page: [40], this time adding another attack. Yahel Guhan 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ignore the troll and slow revert any attacks. Blocking is likely to create more trouble. However, if another administrator wishes to block, don't let me be an obstacle. Make your own judgement. Jehochman ^Talk 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice. His last edit is over two days ago, so unless this becomes a recurring problem, just shrug it off. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Bonaparte socks

Hello, there is a new account Harghita J. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only activity so far has been this edit and the recreation of the Székely language page that has been deleted multiple times. I warned him with {{uw-delete2}} but it was ignored. IIRC this kind of sneaky vandalism is usually done by the socks of the banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); in any case, you can check this based on this log and the deleted revisions of the same page. Please block. KissL 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed another one: Csángó Csabi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone please check this out? I think the case is simple, yet the report has been here for over a day without as much as an answer... KissL 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta

This is getting a little crazy with all the obvious meatpuppetry. Of course, it's also possible that a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to defend a little-known porn star, but... better to shoot this at home. JuJube (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Working on it. Nakon 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the page and have kept it semiprotected for now. Nakon 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't refactor AFD discussions by removing contributions simply because they are made by editors without accounts, as you just did. Editors without accounts are not prohibited from contributing to AFD discussions. You unjustly removed this rationale, arguing that the article was based upon numerous sources cited in the article, a valid argument with a basis in our policies and guidelines, solely because it was made by an editor without an account. That was wrong. AFD discussion contributions that make arguments based upon our policies and guidelines are welcome whether or not the editor has an account. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's not really all that bad. The editing history is fairly clean. Relax and simply and calmly tag the single-purpose accounts with the {{subst:spa}} template. That's all that you need do in this case. The closing administrator will be capable of figuring things out. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not quite. A couple of users have started removing "Delete" votes, as per this. This is an unacceptable perversion of the process. Also, advice to closing admin has been deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That happened after I wrote the above. And xe probably took Nakon's lead on that, clearly figuring that if it was all right to remove arguments in favour of keeping it was all right to remove arguments in favour of deletion. That's another reason that what Nakon did was wrong. It leads to other people thinking that it's all right to do the same thing. Don't do the sort of thing that Nakon just did in AFD discussions. It's wrong. There's clear admonition in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion not to do it. You can see now what it leads to. Do you think that we haven't been down this road before? The Wikipedia:Guide to deletion exists for a reason. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Odette Yustman page.

I know she was just in Cloverfeld and all, so her article is getting mad hits and all... but certain users have been edit warring on the article removing the fact that the actress is Jewish. Perhaps such attacks are based on racism or anti-semitism. In stead of the truth, some vandals are posting tenuously-sourced comments that she is Hispanic most likely to defame her.

Because of the mad hits that the article is undergoing since the success of said movie, perhaps the article should be locked down until the hype of Cloverfeld blows over. Belicia (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Odette Yustman is Hispanic, or half Hispanic, anyway. "My mum is Cuban and my father is of Italian and French descent and was born in Bogota, Colombia, and raised in Nicaragua." link. It may be that she is also Jewish, but I can't find a reference for that. If there's a reference for it, then by all means, add that reference, but otherwise, All Hallow's Wraith seems to be correct. - Revolving Bugbear 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: the editing at the Yustman article seems to be surprisingly slow seeing as she just released a movie: only an average of four or five edits a day, only one instance of obvious vandalism. Protection is in my opinion not yet warranted. I will monitor the situation; please take points of contention to the talk page. - Revolving Bugbear 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Who appointed you to "monitor the situation"? I think I should be the one to monitor it, seeing as how I know all about Miz. Yustman. Belicia (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, you reported it here to ANI because of edit warring. I am an admin, and I am volunteering to watch this situation for edit warring. That's what the admin noticeboard is for. - Revolving Bugbear 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my bad!! Sorry about that I got you confused with one of the involved parties, whoops. I think I gotta get off the meds and get my head clear for a bit. :) Belicia (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. No harm done. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to ignore the racist who thinks that referring to someone as Hispanic is a form of defamation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.212.213 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review, please

I've blocked an editor for making legal threats. WxSocal (talk · contribs) created the article Ontario Weather Service. I removed an AfD tag which wasn't followed through here and cleaned-up the article. However, completely unable to find sources anywhere, I sent it for consideration at AfD a day later.

WxSocial has now appeared on the AfD, on my talk page and on the user page of the only commentator on the AfD, threatening explicitly to sue Wikipedia editors for editing/deleting the article. Diffs: here here and (admin only) here

I request that this block is reviewed. I am not in dispute with this editor, but, notionally, I'm "involved" with him/her or his/her article, although I wasn't threatened legally (in fact, quite the reverse). And I know we like to dot and cross when it comes to blocks. If the editor withdraws the very clear legal threats, of course the block should be lifted forthwith; if people like their bureaucracy in a neat row, feel free to unblock and reblock just so it isn't me that's doing it, if that floats your boat. Or whatever you decide, of course. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be something in the air this week. Out of curiosity, was he told about the NLT policy before his block? - Revolving Bugbear 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Or, at least not by me and not by anyone where I can see it. So no. Has policy changed so we now warn/ask for removal and then block after the damage has time to set in? If so, I'm surprised and disagree with the change loudly, but profess ignorance as an excuse. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good block. If we've changed to warning people and not blocking, that's news to me as well. As I understood it, people may not continue to edit while pursing legal action, so any legal threat warrants immediate blocking. We always leave these open to removal if the editor chooses to recant anyways. Shell ^babelfish 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One additional thought -- implied legal threats merit warning, but this was a clear statement that legal action was being taken. Shell ^babelfish 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts, Shell. I was just curious. I feel better about NLT blocks if it's clear the person's aware ahead of time, being as, in my experience, NLT blocks usually just make the threats intensify. But you are correct that it's a good block. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Making legal threats or death threats have always been a quick ticket out the door on Wikipedia, a policy embraced after long experience gained from Usenet where the kooks often did crap like that. Maybe now that only a minority of us remember the "wild-west" environment of Usenet anyone might consider it a necessary first step to warn someone about this kind of gross misbehavior, but think about it this way: do we need to state the rules of behavior for everyone who comes to Wikipedia? If I was in a group of people discussing some topic, & one suddenly threatened to sue me for what I said, do I need to first warn him that he broached etiquette? Yes, it's important to first remind people about the rules, but in some cases if a person cannot figure them out for themselves, we shouldn't need waste time on them. -- llywrch (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree. It was a good block. I was just asking because these things have a strange way of developing. - Revolving Bugbear 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur this was a good block. If the user shows contrition on their talk page, we may unblock then, but this behavior cannot be allowed to continue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Obituary on the main page

Resolved

 – Talk it over with Neil (talk · contribs) or participate in the over-arching discussion — Scientizzle 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

someone has posted an obituary for Heath Ledger on the main page. It is my understanding that there is a rule against obituaries on the main page unless the deceased is a head of state. --Ted-m (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold!!! Deleite it. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, unless Ted-m is an admin. It's not an obit, however, just a news item. Benazir Bhutto was not a head of state, and we had her death there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Though this is a moot point (see below), Bhutto was a former head of state; that would still count, in my estimation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bhutto's death was a bit more significant to world events than (presumably) Heath Ledger's will be. But then again, there is an ongoing discussion about this here. You could also talk to Neil about this, as he's the one who posted it. I continue to fail to understand why people start ANI reports before contacting the user who created the "incident." Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was added by Neil (talk · contribs) in this edit. The criteria cited for the addition is here: "A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion." — Scientizzle 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, an extremely thin (b) at best. Let it go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally avoid putting it on the main page, but I'm not particularly concerned about it, either. Ral315 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by Zocky (talk · contribs) - I understand why, it was borderline (b). The problem, if any, lies with the ITN criteria themselves, and I'm trying to get some discussion started in the appropriate place. Yep, Ted-m probably should have just asked me, but no big deal. Neıl ☎ 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger's death.

really very sick, probably someone from Conservapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.75.195 (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger...

heath ledger...

I don't want to look through your book-like page for reporting I don;t know how many kinds of improper use because that'll take me all day, but if you look up Heath Ledger on the English-language Wikipedia it says "Heathcliff Andrew Ledger is a fag who died of aids after fucking a cowboy". So that might be worth taking a look at... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.160.199.204 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed. [41] Pedro :  Chat  10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

Somebody has written something really offensive and homophobic on Heath Ledger's page. Please could you remove it.

10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the thread above. It's been fixed. The article is semi-protected. Pedro :  Chat  10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Resolved

Hi, I left a note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors with an {{editprotect}} tag but the caption still seems off. Could someone cleverer than I with templates check it out? Benjiboi 10:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

replied there, I removed the abbreviation but apparently "1 in" is correct :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great! Benjiboi 11:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal information added to a non-active user's page

I don't know if this is something that an admin will want to take action on or not. User:Mark LaRochelle was an editor for a short time, but has been inactive on WP for the past few months. Recently another editor (or 2) has been adding personal information about LaRochelle, including an email address, to his user page. I rv'd this once, but the information was replaced without an edit summary comment. Since LaRochelle used his real name as his user name, there wouldn't seem to be any egregious invasion of privacy here, but it doesn't seem entirely appropriate either. I'll leave it up to admins to decide whether to pursue this. RedSpruce (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The user re-adding the material has a new username, for which this is (at present) their only edit. The new username is Mglarochelle (talk · contribs), quite similar to the Userpage being edited. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As the orignal entry was "Welcome to my user page" I've deleted the whole thing per WP:CSD#G11 - the e-mail address also resembled the username(s) and look slike a law firm or lawyer advertising. No loss, and the real account holder can simply restore "Welcome to My user Page" if they wish. Pedro :  Chat  14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:136.8.152.13

Resolved

 – — Satori Son

Please check the recent edit history of User talk:136.8.152.13, I am not sure what to do. I am ok with the user removing comments from the talk page of the IP they logged on, but there is a lot going on and I am not sure how to proceed. Also it is time for me to go to real life. Jeepday (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the IP editor understands the issue now. — Satori Son 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alikoyakk

User continues to disrupt certain articles that are related to Islam (e.g. Afterlife). User disrupts the articles by adding in (Possible WP:COPYVIO) copy/paste material: [42], [43], and [44]. I've warned him numerous times all of which he has ignored. Such vast additions of blatantly copied material are unconstructive. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The material added in those diffs is definitely copyvio of this website. The others may be as well, I'm checking. They are all the same, which I missed on the first go. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism of 99.237.253.131 (aka HinduMuslim)

I think the article of Islam in India should be block because Contributions/99.237.253.131 (or aka HinduMuslim and Vikash83) has always attacked my in my Talk Page because I've only added sources of Indian Gov., CIA, U.S. Department of States, etc...all were showed the common estimates of Muslim population in India as 148 million or 13.4% (please look at its history [45] and here is his attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World

And he is staring to vandalize some Chinese or Buddhist related article such as Religion in China, List of religious populations,History of Islam in China, Islam in China.

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume you want Islam in India protected? I'll take a look at the editor's contribs. Useight (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of his work seems to be good faith edits, but it does look like there's some sockpuppetry and vandalism here. Useight (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial block needs review

Resolved

 – No need to further beat the dead horse here. Nothing left to discuss--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

While patrolling CAT:RFU, I saw the block of CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has a very long block log and has been indefinitely blocked by Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't agree or disagree with this decision, but considering the potential controversy and that this is a long-time user, I think it needs to be reviewed here. The immediate issue (straw that broke the camel's back?) seems to have been a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama‎. I'm going through diffs now. I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action. --B (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to leave the block. His block record speaks for itself. I denied the unblock request, but I would be willing to let the block be recinded based on consensus here. I am shocked and amazed this user was allowed to continue this long. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having a long block record isn't in and of itself a reason. --B (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK.. How about, he has repeated violated Wikipedia policy and community standards beyond the point where a reasonable person would tolerate it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking at diffs ... but based on what I have seen, the Obama-related edits are over the top. If he is allowed to edit, it would need to be with the requirement that he stay away from such things. --B (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean again? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of the conditional unblock after an indef being tried and failing miserably, I'd support this block as well. Wizardman 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His problems seem to be related to Islam and that is the only topic he edits. A topic ban would seem to severely limit his editing possibilities to the point that there would be no difference between that and an indefinite ban. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that block log and his headache-inducing one-man crusade on the Barack Obama talk page, I have to support this. This is a POV-pusher who's been here much too long. Grandmasterka 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well fellow Wikipedians can see my block rationale on the blocked user's talk page. The bottom line is that the user was blocked repeatedly in the past to the point where he was finally indef blocked for exhausting the community's patience. He was given a second chance on conditions set by User:William M. Connolley and then went on to be blocked 3 more times two of which were just last month. I felt it neccessary to finally act when I saw that he was trying to perpetuate a well-established political smear on the Barack Obama page. As I stated in the block rationale, the user is a net detriment to Wikipedia whose actions show that he has no intentions to change. --Jersey Devil (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question, suggestion

Folks, I clearly acknowledge that CltFn has been difficult to deal with, and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong. In the latest Obama related issue, people seem to disagree entirely with mentioning an issue which received quite a bit of coverage (the madrassa bs). On a fundamental level it does deserve to be mentioned, just probably not as extensively as this editor would like. That's a problem for dispute resolution though.

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all? I haven't had the best experiences with the arbcom, but it seems like the fairest thing to do is refer it to them (or at the very VERY least a WP:RFC/U) to discuss an indefinite block.

If not then the community is failing to extend good faith to CltFn by not assuming that there is any way to resolve the problems but through blocks or bans. (No disrespect meant to Jersey Devil who is a good admin, but people really ought not be indef blocked by admin decree as there is just too much room for error.) Anynobody 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough concern. If you would like to seek additional community input on this, feel free to open an RFC or ArbCom case or anything like that, that is your perogative. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CltFn from late 2006. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• CltFn has exhausted the good faith of the community. He has used tags as weapons to try to force his POV into the Obama article. He achieves no consensus for his additions, so he tags the article with disputed tags, NPOV-tags, whatever it takes to push his POV. He bludgeons others at talk, presenting the same discredited points over and over again, and edit wars at the main article. I'm not crazy about blocks being levied against WP editors, but this one has been richly earned. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block. I am not in any way endorcing his edits on the Obama talk page in any way, as I actually support Obama as a presidential candidate, but I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block. I think a month would be more reasonable, and maybe if he continues after that if he continues an indef. block would be more appropiate. Yahel Guhan 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's really not. Have you checked his block log? It's a mile long, and he's not been "good for over a year." In fact, looking at that block log, he was blocked 3 times during November/December, and when he came off his last block, he began his crusade at the Obama article. His is a richly-deserved indef, and should stay. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked 3 times since the last indefinate block was lifted. This particular block was his third in less than 30 days. I would propose that, while after the last indefinite block was lifted, he was on fairly good behavior for a short while, he was apparently returned to his old ways. How much disruption is enough? He's been blocked 23 times in the past 3 years; thats an average of about once every six weeks. How often do you propose we let him disrupt Wikipedia? One week out of three? Once a month? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to focus more on what he did in the last 365 days, rather than in years before on wikipedia, as people can change over time. While he has been blocked a lot in the past, in recent times, he has only been blocked 3 times before. All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself (although if he is, it is a very weak attempt). Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point. Yahel Guhan 06:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, if an indefinite ban is too much (and I'm not saying it is), perhaps banning the editor from all topics related to Islam or from making edits related to Islam on articles not related to Islam would be an acceptable alternative. If after an indeterminate period of time the editor has proven that he is able to play well with others in other areas of Wikipedia, perhaps the ban could be lifted for an indeterminate period of parole in which the editor is allowed to edit on Islam related topics and make edits related to Islam on articles not related to Islam. If after that period they continue to be productive and have proven themselves able to make edits related to Islam, perhaps a miraculous reformation has taken place and they may be allowed to edit unfettered. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people can change over time. Three blocks in the last 30 days, all for being disruptive, all appear to be fully justified. I would say he is changing, though not for the better... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

well it seems consensus is agianst me on this one, so I give up. Yahel Guhan 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While reform is possible, it should be noted that the 4 blocks since November have been for behavior similar to what got him the indefinite block a year ago. It seems that at a minimum he is slipping back into old habits and these old habits were not dissuaded by the three blocks the preceded his indefinite block.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. I endorse this block. Lara❤Love 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who are constantly disruptive should be blocked. Block endorsed per Lara, Jersey, Jayron, and common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd not come across CltFn before last week, when I nominated an article he wrote, Prophet of Doom, for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom is overdue for closure - could someone please take care of it?) I looked at his contributions at the time and concluded that he was a classic WP:SOAPBOXer - essentially a single-purpose account being used to promote Islamophobia - not merely document it - through the systematic addition of dubiously sourced or unsourced material and articles. His editing to Barack Obama and Barack Obama media controversy (which really needs someone to review it for BLP violations, by the way) was particularly dubious. I'm totally unsurprised that it's led to a block. I think that given the past record of blocks, the warnings and the continuous SOAPBOXing of the editor, an indefinite block is justified in this case. CltFn's activities were fundamentally incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agre that an indef ban is not unwarranted. However, A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process? Perhaps a total topic ban on anything related to two topics which he feels overlap: Islam, and the 2008 Presidential election. If he agrees to the DR, participates as a model individual, and abides by the results FOREVER, then letting him back in general would be permitted. This method would give absolute credibility to any further ban attempts, as we'd be able to say that truly, everything we could do was tried, and his militant views couldn't be assuaged through reason and rational thinking, and so he had to go. I think his theory and agenda are absurd and border on bigoted, and I highly doubt he'll make it through the DR process. That said, I think that rather than have this hash out again and again, as so many indef bans seem to, we can actually either show him a better way to act here, or thoroughly impress upon him that he's never going to fit in here. If we don't take the time to get one of these two ideas into his head, I have NO doubt that he'll be back here socking up the joint, and none of us want to do another round of whack-a-mole with another sockpuppeteer. ThuranX (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit's unblock

An indefinite block is completely warranted given the track record of this user, but this discussion has been overtaken by events; namely Archtransit unblocking him. east.718 at 22:21, January 19, 2008

Endorse original block, for what it's worth. We do not need this kind of POV pushing. I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also. Orderinchaos 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked the user. The clear consensus is to keep the block and the unblock was made by User:Archtransit without even discussing it here.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, Support indef block of CltFn and now support the de-sysop/recall of Archtransit. AT has now twice (at least twice) used block/unblock with no discussion. A loose cannon does not need the extra buttons. R. Baley (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I support the indef block, based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition. In other words, it's his last chance and if there's one more problem, he's gone. The risk is that there would be one more problem. The potential benefit is that he becomes a useful contributor in other areas. I don't know what the other case you are referring to is, but in this case, I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it. After looking at contributions, I'm ambivalent between indef block vs last chance/topic ban. The point is, though, that if someone is willing to keep watch over him, there's no reason not to let him. --B (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been under the watchful eye of an admin (for about a year now, afaik), and it hasn't helped. AT's other block was handed out to Jehochman (see AT's talk page -I assume the info is still there). R. Baley (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh .... that's a bad block . --B (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this admin might need to be recalled. He's only been an admin for a very short time and already he's blocked another admin and unilaterally unblocked this user.--Jersey Devil (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an 'Adopt-an-Admin' program? Or can we go back to his RfA and trout him with his own answers till he gets the fish smell point? This was an awful unblock, and I'm someone willing to yield to a 'final chance', but not without consensus. This was imperious, to be kind. ThuranX (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jersey Devil and R. Baley, I've just spent the last couple of hours following diffs in the recent cases involving him and I'm just completely shocked by what's been going on. It needs to go to arbitration, though, he won't honor recall for a month and so any havoc wreaked in the meanwhile is our bad luck. With regard to the block, I endorse the block. Enough is enough, I think, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes me think this person is going have a major turn around. Sarah 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recalling Archtransit is as yet not possible - his recall criteria allow for the process to begin only after 30 days. This is, in fact, his 3rd bad block in the less than two weeks since his RfA passed. ^Avruchtalk 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One of many reasons why recall is a farce. This user should be desysopped and should undergo RfA at a future time when he's actually ready, IMO. Orderinchaos 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've marked this as resolved again, since there are a dozen or more users who've weighed in to support the block and only two who have raised any real objection. The unblock was incredibly bad, given the discussion here, and CltFn's past "reform and relapse" behavior. Thus the issue (as far as the block is concerned) is resolved. How Archtransit is dealt with is more what might need to be addressed now. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some bold admins, and there are many old admins - but there are very few old and bold admins. While vexatious for some, inappropriate unblocks (not an opinion on this case, I have not followed it) are not the worst mistakes a sysop can make - it can easily be remedied, and any effect is likely minute regarding the quantity of vandalism that occurs all the time. As for questioning the judgement of another admin by reversing their action... Well, isn't that what we are now doing with the unblocking admin? Either sysop judgements can be questioned, or they can't; obviously they can, so we should try to ensure that it is done in the appropriate manner and with as little controversy as possible. Hopefully Archtransit is on a steep learning curve regarding the proper way of doing things, but please let us not stifle the independent reasoning of one admin - there should be various methods of applying the mop to get to the desired result (a better encyclopedia). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further proposals

We have not yet given the person the chance to defend themselves, nor taken any of the opposition's opinions. I am not in support of the user but I am opposed to treating defacto banned users poorly.

If we don't want to unblock them, allow him to edit for 7 days and evaluate those 7 days, how about other options?

How about DR? How about conditional unblock to pursue DR and associated edits (contacting anyone on their talk pages to ask them to provide evidence, etc.)? The dispute would be "Review of the user's edits between 28 December and 17 January that should result in blocking of the user". The DR solution is not my idea. It was mentioned by someone else. Archtransit (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The user was previously blocked ~23 times. They have exhausted their chances. Until they provide a reason to think that future behavior will be different, I cannot support an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. The consensus is overwhelmingly for keeping the ban. Please stop wikilawyering. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The user should have the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no interest in defending him. I am interested in allowing him to defend himself. Others have made comments which defend him or the process. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has the opportunity to defend him/herself by posting their statement or response to their talk page and an admin will move it across for consideration. It's no reason to overturn a block. Sarah 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It also disturbs me that Archtransit didn't realize that this was the process for blocked/banned users to appeal their block/ban during the actual term of it. -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• CF's actions have exhausted (are exhausting) the patience of the other editor's here. I think that AT's actions have served as a reminder however: one of the main reasons the CSN was finally shutdown (and decisions there overturned!) was the speed at which indef blocks were implemented. If there is to be any hope that this ban sticks, I think we should not mark this thread as "resolved" for at least 3 days following the initial post. Keep it open for comment, lest it be overturned later by people who have a higher tolerance for this behavior when they're not the one dealing with it on a day to day basis. R. Baley (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My (William M. Connolley (talk)) opinion

Twas I that unblocked CltFn about a year ago on strict conditions (1/7 RR, strict civility, use of talk pages to discuss controversial edits). I cannot now remember how I got involved. Although those conditions have been by-and-large met, they have on occaision been broken, and I've had to block C for it. Worse, not every one C interacts with will be aware of the conditions - why should they be - and so other problems have gone unreported. Recently, people have been complaining again & C has definitely broken parole again, over editing the BA article. The trouble is that the edits wouldn't get a block were C not under restriction, and the problem always is that the straw that breaks the camels back is but a straw. If the community wants this to be an indef block, then I don't see any reason to complain. C's defence against block shows no ackowledgement that C was breaking his parole, which is a bad sign William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

new proposal

If you will notice, I have never commented in defence of the blocked editor's actions. I have quoted others' comments that question the block or some aspect of the situation. My desire for intervention has been because there was never a unanimous decision if one reads carefully.

Please understand that my efforts in ANI is to have positive change. It's for Wikipedia. After all, it's easier to do nothing than to do something. Given that ArbCom usually doesn't permanently ban others, may I suggest a fixed term after which I pledge to work closely with the blocked editor for a fixed period of time? This would partially satisfy those who desire a block.

After 8 weeks of blocking (the exact period doesn't have to be 8 weeks), there would be PREAPPROVAL by me of each edit for the first 7 days. I'd use constructive criticism, encouragement to harness the user's knowledge in other areas, guidance for the use of reliable sources (those of you who haven't studied my edits may not know that I was one of 2 editors to bring a major article to FA status and that a reference was used for nearly every sentence - not a shred of original research), and even censorship to veto certain edits. During next 7 days, notification and explanation of edits would be required but not preapproval (assuming satisfactory progress during the first 7 days). At the end of this period, the user would be AUTOMATICALLY BE BLOCKED. A stellar record (or a series of proposed, but vetoed edits on my own talk page) would be the result at the end of this 1-2 week period.

This is an unusual opportunity for both the user and the community. It is extremely rare that another user will devote so much time to a single editor. I might note that admin Reedy Boy did go over a difficult article that I was trying to write and needed help soon after I signed up. May we have at least a little show of support for this proposal? If support is attained, I will notify this board that unblocking will occur no sooner than 8 weeks from now. Ok, I agree to let others punish him more; unblocking will occur no sooner than April 13, that's 12 weeks, 50% longer than the originally proposed 8 weeks of blocking. This is a no risk proposition because the first 7 days would be preapproval of edits. Others have made positive comments on the quality of my article edits before so this preapproval comes at absolutely no risk to Wikipedia. The blocking period would be practically the same (indefinite minus 14 days of preapproved edits or supervision versus indefinite). Over the next 50 weeks, the user would be blocked for 48 weeks versus 50 weeks so net blocking is 98% of Jersey Devil's imposed punishment. Can't the proponents of indefinite block compromise on just 2%?

Again, in summary:
1. Indefinite block for now.
2. Unblocking on or about April 13 (that's 12 weeks, up from the originally proposed 8 weeks of blocking). 3. 7 days of unblock requiring preapproval of edits by me (unless someone else wants to volunteer), followed by 7 days of consultation when editing (if the first 7 days was satisfactory.)
4. Indefinite reblock at the end of the 14 day period. The user could petition for unblock and have a record of either vetoed edits (none of which appear in the articles) or constructive edits to show.

About 20 years ago in an unnamed Middle Eastern country, a young passer-by (who had a cast on his leg!) helped me out probably while his sister was protesting under her breath ("you can barely stand up yourself, why are you helping this bloody idiot foreigner?"). He was one of the million people of his city. CtrlFn, if you are reading this, you should appreciate this proposal. Of the more than 1 million registered users, nobody else has made this proposal for you.

These efforts are made only because a process was started. That process was to recognise that there were opinions expressed by other editors, opinions such as:
I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - see talk page

also note:

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B (being critical of JerseyDevil’s wheel warring)

In essense, I'm saying use indefinite blocks only for vandals and the most extreme misbehaviour, and use blocks of months (up to a year) for everything else. This system would be workable, and is how Wikipedia used to operate, but in the current climate it may be difficult to persuade some admins to agree to it. .... .... You might want to examine the reasons (sometimes spurious) that people give for indefinite blocking and banning. In the past, this was done as a last resort. Now, it happens all too often, usually the first time someone shows the slightest signs of not understanding how things work around here. Instead of mentoring and guidance, the response is "indef block". Carcharoth Archtransit (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not support this proposal, as Archtransit has shown a distinct lack of good judgment in the use of his tools, over multiple instances, and as such, I do not trust him to implement this solution. CltFn long ago exhausted the patience of the community, which was clearly demonstrated in the above discussion. Archtransit made not one post to the discussion before unblocking, and has continued to refuse to acknowledge that unblocking against clear consensus (which does not require unanimity), and before notifying the blocking admin, was a large mistake in judgment. To my mind, the only issue left to resolve here is how to deal with Archtransit's continued misuse of the tools. -- Bellwether ^B_C 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me point out some of the underlying asumptions here:

1. That the blocked editor will agree to these provisions and abide by them in good faith.

2. That you and he will continue to edit for the entire period proscribed.

3. That you will remain an editor and an admin for the entire period.

4. That you will be able to exercise complete control over the edits of another editor for 7 days, and nearly complete control for an additional 7 days.

5. That the community will accept this proxy as a sufficient safeguard for the brief time period it exists.

6. That after this time period has expired, the process will have made any impact on his edit pattern whatsoever.

Additionally, your advocacy of this approach makes me wonder if you believe this should be the standard in dealing with disruptive edits. We're not here to handhold disruptive editors - if they can't constructively contribute, they should be shown the door. As it stands, we gave this editor many chances to demonstrate that he can constructively contribute and he has ultimately failed to prove this. I don't know that I agree that "indefinite" blocking has become synonymous with "permanent" blocking (that is, I believe it has and that it it should not be); the idea that it is undefined until a more definite period can be agreed upon has merit. Still, I don't see that this particular editor makes an ideal test case for revising the bureaucracy upward by orders of magnitude. ^Avruchtalk 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I think this is a new standard? No. You'll never find enough admin to do it. Will the user cooperate? If not, then it's a clear cut reason for blocking, i.e. failure to cooperate with a special, labour intensive effort to help the user. Few threads on ANI become this long so resolution of it may be through novel solutions. Regarding #6, it doesn't matter if the process will have made any impact on the user's editing pattern as the suggested plan calls for reblocking after the 7+7 day period. Others may propose other solutions if you wish. Archtransit (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It does matter, because if it doesn't ultimately make a difference what is the point of going to all the effort? I think an assessment of whether it is reasonably likely to achieve any desirable outcome is appropriate here and suggests that the effort is more valuable directed somewhere else. ^Avruchtalk 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be the one doing the effort, not you or others. It's a no-risk solution, no-effort solution (except for me). I don't intend to sell the plan more. Take it or leave it or suggest modifications or an entirely different solution. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't trust your judgment *at all* so I'm afraid it's a very strong no from me. Sarah 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that here the pendulum has swung too far the other way; Archtransit seeks to atone for his prior mistakes with a herculean, nay sisyphean effort. Being a good admin is tough, attempting to become Atlas (to continue a metaphor) smacks of public flagellation. What's really needed from AT is a little guidance of his own. CF made his bed, he can lay down in it. AT, I suggest instead that you spend some time here reviewing the way good admins work. And the best admins' names will be up here regularly, as their hard choices are most subject to review and complaint. If you want to hold your own buttons, you should learn to use them better. Both you and the project both benefit the most NOT from another quixotic attempt at redeeming a bad editor, but from turning a tepid admin hot. I cannot in good faith support this. To be clear, I don't have overwhelming objections to you maintaining the tools yet, but i have som small doubts. I'd much rather see you fix you, than see you try to fix others while needing fixing yourself. ThuranX (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with ThuranX. It would be more productive for the encyclopedia for Archtransit to work on being a good administrator, and leaving CF banned. Maybe after 6 mos, Archtransit might review the ban? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to mark this thread as "resolved"

I submit that this discussion has run its course. It has been 4 days since the initial review was called for and due diligence has been respected. The consensus for now is an indefinite block of CltnFn. R. Baley (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Enough people have had their names dragged through the mud on this one, and the deceased pony has been flogged enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference removal

I am having an issue with another user, who keeps removing reference sections that I add to articles. The user claims that the references are “un-encyclopedic”, claiming that they do not belong on Wikipedia. The references are in fact a script to a video game, which is solely being used to verify information. In-line citations would accomplish the same thing, but also take up too much space and what not. Furthermore, the user is failing to even read the content, as it also contained other types of third-party references.

Articles where I have encountered these problems include: Chris Redfield, Billy Coen, Jill Valentine, and Rebecca Chambers. Here is an example of typical exchange of edits, [46] I’d like to add that I have tried to made sure that these references comply with WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:Verify, and clearly pointed this out on the user's talk page. The user has politely responded, but only backed up their argument on the grounds that they feel the content does not belong. What is the best solution to this problem? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement: I have removed the sections that as I have clearly stated (User talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles), contain links that do not verify any information within the articles, besides to show several games story/scrips that (in several cases, indirectly if at all) feature the character of the articles.  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I fail to see how the ReHorror reference fails to verfiy information, when it contains an official in-game transcript that summarizes all the Resident Evil video games. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this, one on one! But as I state, the reference is for all Resident Evil games, and doesn't aid the singular character articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ShadowJester07

Is there ayway to stop this user blindly reverting edits, they are not only re-adding the removed links, but are also removing formatting, and spelling corrections made to the articles (See history of Jill Valentine for details)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be both past WP:3RR, but the edit war is almost 10 hours stale on that article so I'm not going to do any blocks. —Random832 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of passing the WP:3RR rules (though if I did, it was unintentional, and I am thankful for your mercy), I think we both may have gotten upto three but not beyond! If he again reverts the articles to include his content, what should the correct course of action/complaint be? I do not believe that I am doing anything wrong by removing it, but it is not my intention to be involved in a edit war! And it is not my intention to have fellow wikipedian blocked from editing, just because of a few good faith edits that are in error!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the articles alone for a while and take it to a talk page. Edit summaries are a poor substitute for actual discussion. As a sidenote, how is it that you think character articles don't need to be sourced? —Random832 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed, on our personal talk pages (User_talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles & User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm#Resident_Evil_articles), but they wouldn't listen and just treatened me with being blocked if I did not allow them to keep the information within the articles, with out any attempt to use it to reference the actual content. the links that User:ShadowJester07 added were not sources of information to the article its self or references to the content of the articles, it was more as: "here's the whole plot to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them" and it was the exact same links in each article. I kept adding reference/citation tags for the articles in question (though they keep being removed when User:ShadowJester07 blindly reverts the edits). I wouldn't argue if they were worked into the article (with any breach of copywrite sorted out), but I don't see how they can be?  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

References are not required to be inline/footnotes to be used, and the content of the game is a very valid reference to use for making claims about a character. However, the copyright issue should be looked at. Do these sites claim to have permission to post the scripts? —Random832 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they (the websites) don't have any permission (and several state not to use their content on other websites), also they arn't being used for making claims about a character, instead they are just a list of links, the user (ShadowJester07) will not settle for the links to be includded as external links, and instead wants them listed as "General references", I guess that this is more about formatting of the article, but ShadowJester07 keeps refering to them as References, when they arn't being used as such, and the articles really need to have real world references and citation, which is being made harder to secure by all this (I could be tracking some down, but instead I'm having to wait)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a general reference is, it's a reference that is used as a general source for various facts in the article rather than being attached to a specific claim with a <ref> tag. And, while real world context is necessary to justify having an _article_ about a character, in-universe references are certainly permitted to cite in-universe information about the character (e.g. what year they're supposed to have been born). —Random832 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that with "and several state not to use their content on other websites" you are misunderstanding my question on whether the sites have permission - i'm not asking if the sites are GIVING permission to use the information on wikipedia (irrelevant since copyright doesn't exist for ideas and facts, only for the words etc used to express them, and wikipedia isn't posting copies of the scripts), i'm asking if they have permission FROM the company that makes resident evil, to post the scripts on their website - is this what you meant by no they don't have permission? —Random832 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not include the actual text as a footnote as used in Final Fantasy VIII and other video game featured articles? That way the reader can see exactly what characters were saying if they wish to. The links to GameFAQS etc. aren't needed then. Someoneanother 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That way the specific text is cited (a reader shouldn't have to pick the bones out of a transcript just to get confirmation of who said what), but the further reading is intact. As an aside, don't forget we have the gaming wikiproject to discuss these things. As far as GameFAQs throwing their weight around about 'copyright', the entire transcript isn't being reproduced (or even a significant part of it), so they've not got a leg to stand on, surely? It's Capcom's dialogue, not theirs. Someoneanother 12:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The question I've asked twice now, and that has not been satisfactorily answered, is does GameFAQs have permission from Capcom? If not, we can't link to them. —Random832 13:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it very much, the first gamefaqs script has this at the top:

• Resident Evil Zero Game Script
• Resident Evil Copyright 2002 Capcom Co., Ltd.
• GameCube Copyright Nintendo
• FAQ Copyright Clark Gibson

IE the writer covers his or her arse, then claims copyright over their derivative work. Due to Japanese publishers dealing with a lot of homegrown fan activity IE manga, fanfiction etc. they often see this kind of thing as typical fan behaviour rather than infringement, but in terms of actually bestowing permission there's no indication that it has been given or that Capcom would bother. Someoneanother 13:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia's policy is not to link to blatant copyright violations, "typical fan behavior" or no - I think the matter's settled now. Cite the game itself if you need to (inline citations with quotes would work best for this), not an unauthorized copy of the script.—Random832 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks for your time. Someoneanother 19:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing on Numerous U.S. Political figures articles., Now with personal attacks.

I had previously reported this situation:

User:Anappealtoheaven Seems to be having a serious problem with writing in an NPOV style. Despite warnings [47], [48], independently given from two editors recently, and more in the past, one example, see User talk:Anappealtoheaven for more, his only responses are screeds [49] about how Wikipedia needs to be free of outside influences [link]. Some examples of his problematic editing are seen: At Mitt Romney, where he injects POV[50], gets reverted[51](this would be a third editor recently identifying POV). At Mike Huckabee, he edits again to show purported hypocrisy [52], and is again reverted for POV [53],[54]. He edits Ron Paul to a pro-Paul POV. One is seen here: [55]. Although the fact is cited, his edit and summary imply, at least, that something special about Paul other than the online presence can explain the fact, although he only cites 'time', an indication of POV editing. There are numerous examples more. One last egregious example - [56], he smears McCain and Graham as 'lockstepping' with "liberal democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's heated legislation ". The only intent to his wording is that he seeks to disparage their 'conservative street cred' by tying them to a 'liberal democrat'. It's partisan game playing of the worst sort. Please note that between reverts and notes about his edits, there are at least five editors noting POV, as well as previous warnings on his talk and article talk pages. Should anyone doubt he has an agenda here, please read his User Page essay about his Ron Paul support. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was archived, unnoticed, at 08:22, see :[57]. Five horus later, assured that it was archived, the editor left me this personal attack. I am again asking for an admin to review his conduct, esp. as it regards the original complaint. This is not a content dispute, as it regards one editor spanning numerous pages and multiple editors reverting his work, and his attitude regarding that. Please examine this. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that did you take personally? What he put in the Graham article seems to more or less reflect what the ref he added at the same time says. If that's the most egregious thing he's done, :shrug: -- Kendrick7^talk 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I find his assertion that if I oppose him i must be ar ight wing neo-con offensive. I find the ideas of Karl Rove and his minions reprehensible violations of American ethics and expectations regarding government. Likewise, I find the tarring and feathering that AATH does to articles he edits to be a problem. If you look, you'll see that I'm not the only editor objecting to his actions. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone but us Massachusetts liberals were neo-cons. I guess I need to get out more. Well, I need a new {{current pol}} to babysit since Dodd dropped out. I'll watchlist a few of those if it'll help. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the POV pushing and personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, without going too deeply into my offwiki life, I read Ars Technica's soapbox for my political agitation and cogitation, so I don't 'identify' easily into any one group. I let those debates percolate in my mind. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment but it appears corrective action was already taken. This should give a little time for them to reflect. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 5:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As requested by ThuranX, I am going to stop by and say that I agree with him/her that this user pushing a POV. He has gone way over the line, as we and several other editors have noticed. He should be blocked indefinitely, I think, not only for pushing a POV, but for continuing in his personal attacks after being warned on everything. It is clear to me he is only on Wikipedia to push his POV. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats implied by User:Tandorosti

Tandorosti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In this the edit summary suggests legal threats. This editor's history has many other legal threats implied in it. MKoltnow 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• i recomend blanking his talk page to punish him. in accordnace with WPOBOLD wikipedia must boldly refuse to toelate any atmepts at intimidation or legal threats. Smith Jones (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk)
  • Given that the user's talk page consists entirely of warnings for this or similar behavior, I'm not sure that that would be the most effective course of action. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't revoke editing privileges as a punishment. We revoke editing privileges in order to protect the project. This is why we revoke the editing privileges of persistent copyright violators (who could otherwise land the project in legal hot water), for example. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant this edit. Do you have diffs for these other legal threats? While legal threats are against policy, blocking users is a last resort. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I linked to the version rather than the diff. I'm not sure what good diffs would provide. The user has a short edit history and nine of the last ten edit summaries state that legal action has been taken. I didn't think that was the proper dispute resolution process. MKoltnow 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The material in question was highly BLP bad, coming from a blog. The material has now been removed (also per an OTRS complaint). If a good source is added with the material and threats continue a block may be in order. However, that doesn't seem like a good idea at this time given how egregious this material was from a WP:RS/WP:BLP perspective. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Good enough. I just got concerned by such an inflammatory edit summary. MKoltnow 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? On vandal patrol, didn't realize this was a content issue. So unfortauntely, I've reverted him twice for removing content. Just FYI for transparency. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, someone just blocked him for continued legal threats while blanking what appears to me to be well-sourced info on another article. I need to head to bed now, but I someone should contact the two admins (the blocker and the one who handled OTRS) and figure out what is going on.JoshuaZ (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've notified the blocking admin (User:ERcheck) about this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Legal threats are not tolerated and can result in an indefinite block. The editor included the same note of "legal action" two times after being warned. The block is a short block that will hopefully get his/her attention and hopefully prevent this again. If there is a reason that I'm missing why this block is inappropriate, please clarify here. — ERcheck (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Legal threats are an extremely serious concern. If the editor is being serious, then he should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2L84UBB (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While of course legal threats shouldn't be ignored entirely, as they often stem from legitimate BLP concerns, his edit summaries show he's repeated the same legal threat no less than eleven times. This is pretty clear as far as I see it; don't undo before you check it out, but certainly block him indefinately. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The block was not issued for the deletions, noting the BLP issues/the reason that the editor was removing the content. I only saw one warning to the user on using legal threats, which was given 5 minutes before the last edit. AGF, it is possible that the editor did not read it before he made his next edit. The editor now has a chance to read the policy. As I noted in the block warning, if it occurs again, in indefinite block will be issued. — ERcheck (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You are going to escalate a block over an edit that says it is removing defamatory material about living persons? What on Earth do you think you are doing? Please read Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

that's an essay--myself, I think keeping legal threats out of wp is as important as keeping out what are alleged to be blp violations. Uncle G, you most most recent reversion [58] did remove sourced appropriate information, that Trita Parsi is a president of the organisation. In fact, the council on its own home page [59] lists these people as officers, and is a RS for the purpose of whom its president is, DGG (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but its a GOOD essay, and Uncle G was right to cite it. What is wrong with taking the time to investigate the situation before indef blocks are handed out in this case? If the user in question has legitimate concerns, he may be unaware of how to do it the "right way". Our first response should be to help the user understand how to do it the right way, not to block them indefiniatly at the first sign of a problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We can address their concerns at the same time as blocking a user who claims he's already suing us (if you believe the first half of his edit summary, why not the second?) Someguy1221 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Snowake36

Resolved

This user seems to have moved their talkpage into mainspace, copying over the speedy nomination John Prola - can someone clean up this mess? Their actual userpage is also rather odd - can't see how this helps in encyclopedia building so that might need looking at also. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Move undone. I think his user page is kinda funny (in more ways than one), but I don't see the harm. If he reposts it again let me know and I'll salt John Prola. Neıl ☎ 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this. Exxolon (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditio.ru

Please see User:Afinogenoff/us trd and Category:Traditio.ru users.

I'm told that this site is blacklisted on meta for radical nationalism spam. - Revolving Bugbear 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

+ Category:Traditio.ru user - Revolving Bugbear 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So is traditio.ru, like, the Russian answer to Conservapedia? 131.111.8.96 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That I couldn't tell you. I did, however, find a mention of it in a Stormfront post, which leads me to believe it is entirely inappropriate for a userbox ... - Revolving Bugbear 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New admin needs assistance

Resolved

I'm not sure how to do a range block (or IP block) for that matter and the help page said to bring it here. I just issued a "last warning" template to User talk:99.236.83.174 for vandalism to the article Waterfall (of all the random....). I would love someone else with buttons to look this 99...contribs over. It's really slow vandalism so I'm not necessarily saying a block should happen immediately, just want summore eyes on it. And if anyone is so willing to go the extra step of visiting my talkpage with helpful links for blocking? Thanks Keeper | 76 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block right now, but the final warning you gave is okay. It looks like it's coming from a kid who just got home from school. Don't range block, for goodness sakes, but a 24 hour block (or 31 hours) if he vandalizes again is appropriate. - KrakatoaKatie 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KrakatoaKatie (and Bearian on my talkpage) for your help. I won't be doing any range blocks now or anytime in the near future, if ever. Appreciate the quick replies. Keeper | 76 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't make those if you don't know what you are doing. It is easy to block tens of thousands of IPs, and miss your target, or not even encompass it. My lovely line at the top of Wikipedia:New admin school/Blocking#IP blocks/unblocks explains. Prodego ^talk 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Publicity

Can someone take a look at User:Publimedia.nt. I have seen the account at Nicaragua posting stuff that looks spammish. I addition, it might be an account owned by a group and not an individual (judging by name.) I have warned before, but perhaps someone with more authority can help. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Given a final warning for spamming. Nakon 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the user name, and the type of edits, why don't we just block the account? Tiptoety ^talk 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Block'em. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all we need now is a admin willing to block.....*hint, hint* Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a final warning on the page, and no edits since then.I think unlikely to return. DGG (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag-team vandalism: User:Kww and User:TTN

Take it to the RfAr. We don't need EPISODES drama everywhere. Will ^(talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Archivebox template update and unwanted pagemoves.

A few hours earlies MrKIA11 decided to change the archivebox template format. While im already wary about changes to a much used template, i deem this particular change very ill prepared, and even quite prone to failure. Also man should notice is that there is no consensus on this change (And actually no one involved), other then the two users involved in the edits. [| Source]

A small summary of the events

First of, the user edited a lot of user pages which contained an archive box and edited the parameters for the archive boxes there, without the owners consent. Multiple users already complained aboutthis on multiple archive related pages and the users own userpage. Also if i understand it correctly, the new archive box has some of the existing parameters eliminated from excistance. | Example of an unwanted edit

After that, the user 'moved the archives of a lot of users to different locations[[60]] Also, this was done without the users ever knowing, much less to their agreement (Also several comments came in about this).

Last: Its quite likely that this "Update" will break more then it fixes, especially considering that it was mainly to "Standardize" Archive boxes. An example of what might be broken are the archivebots. Take this Miszabot configuration line:

archive = User talk:Excirial/Archive %(counter)d

This line determines where the bot should archive discussions to. however, with all the archive moves, the bot will start a new archive at the allocated page, meaning that the archives will have two formats. First, the moved page format, second, the format the user has still installed in the archive code. Anyway, i think this entire operation could turn into one bloody big mess. Not only were user pages adapted and subpages moved without the user agreeing, but also templates were changed without any consent that i know of. In all due honesty, i got no idea how to handle this entire situation, so i hope im in the right place here for that. With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. MrKIA11 moved my user-space talk archives[61][62][63][64] and altered the archive box on my page[65] - if there was a problem with my use of the template (which AFAIK does not have to be a standardized or uniform box) or the naming of my talk archives (which again AFAIK can be named to my personal preference, ie by date or by number) it might have been nice to drop me a line discussing it rather than unilaterally intervening in my user-space.

All that said I'm not exactly complaining about this - but if there is a bug here, as Excirial believes, we now have a big problem. I also think it is a bad precedent for any one to unilaterally intervene in another's user-space without proper cause (proper cause being, for example, a WP:NOT violation or a SUBST issue)--Cailil ^talk 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was affected by this and very much did not appreciate it. I posted a message on Template talk:Archive box and was directed to a "slightly larger discussion" which involves the two editors mentioned above. I agree that this is a potential problem. Not only that there is a potential bug with automated archiving, but this user has no right to move other's subpages without the editor's consent. I also don't see the point in the removal of the width parameter, as it's obvious many editors use it. A change that affects so many users should first be discussed with the community. Lara❤Love 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to cause this much of a fiasco, and am sorry for any problems it may have caused. I won't mess with users pages in the future, as I shouldn't have done in the first place. The problem originated with the fact that I took the thoughts of the other person I was discussing this with with more than a grain of salt, because of the fact that he is an admin, and seemed to have good facts that I did not realize. After all this, I will be keeping the width parameter in my new template proposal, and I would appreciate and more comments or suggestions for it. As for bot coding, for the few (although the above page seems to be show many, it is only 7 users, 2 of which have responded, 1 being a thank you) archive pages that I moved, were not being auto-archived. I did not change any template coding, and so this should not pose any wide-spread problems, only for those that I changed, who can undo it. I too quickly assumed that it would be easy to just undo my edit, and so what pages I was editing did not worry me too much. Again, sorry for any difficulties, MrKIA11 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Trumbull High School

I just reverted a large amount of vandalism by several different editors to the Trumbull High School article. It looks like this has been going on for several days now, I'll keep watch on it, but other people should, too, if it's become a frequent target of vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is a good place to go if you want a quick response to widespread vandalism concerns. Good catch on this one, and if you need protection, list it there. You (usually) get a fast response, often in minutes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough for protection yet. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B01H4XXORZ

Resolved

 – East718 took care of it--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd just take this to AIV; but since this user's last edit is about an hour old, I'm not sure that anyone would pay attention. This is a new account that from the very first edit showed that vandalism was the only reason for its existence. After some additional vandalism (including to my user page), I had worked them up to a final warning, after which they created the article Obsidian (RPG), which I've speedy tagged, as another act of vandalism. (Don't attempt to access the url therein; it's pretty disgusting.) Can I get an indef block on this guy? Deor (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. east.718 at 02:52, January 24, 2008

Harassmen from User:One Night In Hackney

User:One Night In Hackney has made it a point to harass me today over an article about me that someone else wrote. While I did correct some misinformation, and added other relevant information, it fit within the bounds of acceptable edits.

On his own user page he made statements to another editor indicating that his recent spout is not in good faith, but rather to "get back at me" for adding info to the article about my history activities on Wikipedia.

Hackney then demanded citations for nearly every sentance in the article, so I provided them. Each time I provide them, he deletes the references immediately, and has now taken to taunting me on various talk pages.

Please help. I'm happy to help contribute to Wikipedia in every way I can, but editors like this guy and some others really make that difficult! Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear your frustration. I am familiar with the Hackney situation, and my advice is to let it drop. He was a bit harsh in some of his criticisms, but nothing I see that warrents any action by administrators here. Seriously, just let it go for a few days. I would advise avoiding contact with this user, ignore them, just don't respond, as that will only inflame the situation. This will all blow over, and you both can go back to editing productively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone to review my removal of unreliable sources which is documented here. The sources are unreliable, 404, or do not source the information in the article. He's repeatedly claimed my removal of those "sources" is "vandalism". Best thing to do in my opinion is close the AfD per WP:SNOW. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackney, I am going to make the same recommendation to you that I made to the user above. Let is all drop. Don't defend yourself, don't explain your actions, just pretend like none of this happened. If the both of you let it go away, it goes away... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine / User:Freedomwarrior

User Freedomwarrior is edit warring, and appears to have violated 3RR beginning here (note that his series of edits began before, including his change to this it may be more than three).--Gregalton (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The page in question has been protected for 24 hours, Freedomwarrior has already been given a 3RR warning. In the meantime, please discuss your dispute on the talkpage and ensure that all sides understand that violating 3RR results in temporary (at first) loss of editing privileges. Other admins are welcome to further act upon this situation including blocks where needed, and to reverse the protection without input from me. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning User:Hopiakuta

Resolved

Doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, nothing to do for admins. Orderinchaos 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I initially posted my concerns here of User:Hopiakuta making legal threats against me of libel in their edit summaries, and the further accusations made against me for no reason of hypocrisy, dictatorship, slander, conspiracy, committing fraud, etc. etc. etc. The only response I have had at the other page is someone saying that it's a user with a very long and drawn out history of problem edits and that I should raise my concerns here instead. I have briefly read through the specific page related to this user and can see no prior examples of the user making such accusations against others, so where do I add what I have experienced so that the admins get a full picture of what's going on? -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that your first move is to list all the diffs or link to the users contributions page so that anyone who comeshere can see what dastardly ddeeds User:Hopiakuta has perpetrated and get a full view of the sitatuion. You should probably warn him if you haven't alreadythat you've opene dup a discissuon about him on this page since that seems to be commonly procedure used here. Smith Jones (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to leave this to an admin who has previous experience of this user; there is an issue in communication, and needs to be handled with tact. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I would prefer. All the diffs concerned are listed with descriptive dialogue at the first link in this section, I would rather not have to list them here all over again. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory is a bit hazy: is this the young man with a handicap? If so we need to be sensitive and tactful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is belived that he has some cognitive disability, see this diff. I think this is a very complicated issue that has been attempted before with little success. There was an ANI thread about 6 months ago. I will try and find it. Woody (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the appropriate/relevant links are at the top of Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina, including links to two previous discussions on ANI. (I realize this may be quite a daunting reading list.) 131.111.8.102 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to stem from this edit. Clearly an accident, but I can see how he might have misunderstood (particularly as people's reactions afterward were unhelpful). —Random832 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And, later on, this made things worse. —Random832 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a role in this that I believe was initially inadvertant; somehow one of my posts at the British Airways Flight 38 talk page (the first of Random 832's diffs) resulted in the deletion of Hopiakuta's comment. I'm looking further into what has happened from my actions and have apologised to Hopiakuta on his/her talk page. I'll post more there. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All the same I didn't do any of that and yet I still got full vitriol and, frankly, unnecessary accusations of every editing crime imaginable for it. I'm not worried about myself because I've learned to develop thick skin through online experience: however what about the next user who makes an innocent enquiry and finds themselves on the receiving end of what I assume is a lot of pent up anger? Are they going to be able to shrug it off as well? I think in the interests of wikilove some tactful admin known to the user should still drop some kind words about checking of facts before leaping on people. An apology wouldn't go amiss either. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pattern of behavior with this user; see for example [66] or [67] or [68]. I understand what others have said about this user and his issues, but these things are gross violations of WP:NPA. Looking through his talk page history, I found no evidence that he was apologetic for those things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no legal threats involved. He said he was removing what he believed to be libel, he did not indicate at any stage that he intended to action such. As for the pattern of edits, I can actually see it from his point of view, he feels he is being censored by others (if you read the diffs one after another that's the picture which builds, even though neither user involved intended to do such, and one appears to in fact be a system bug which has bitten me a couple of times before.) Orderinchaos 11:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At first blush the user's style and signature seems to suggest someone who purposely wasn't following the informal style guidelines which isn't prohibited but what I mistakenly thought was mere vandalism with a few random thoughts thrown in. It took a few extra moments to distill the message in there and simply dismiss the extra lines. After I saw the similar message style and signature on several talk pages I realized it was constructive editing. Benjiboi 12:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My point (and I think the point of Prosfilaes above) is the personal attacks this user engages in, disability or no, are unacceptable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the pattern of edits, I'm not sure I care how he sees it. "You do not explain your complaint; so, my problem is very much, you, specifically, absolutely, completely, definitively. Obnoxious, noxious, elitist, imperious, imperialist, plutocrat, oligarch, handicappist, manure." is completely beyond the pale. If ScienceApologist or one of many other editors made that edit, it would probably earn them an indefinite block.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How can this issue be resolved? What does "nothing to do for admins" mean? Evidence has been provided that a user is making personal attacks against other users for no reason, and this discussion being resolved is just allowing it to continue. We have been told that this user needs a tactful admin to approach them because of various needs that they have - are you telling me that their behaviour is allowed because they have a disability? Other users would have had sanctions placed on them by now. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request block of abusive sockpuppets

User:Runningman01 is transparently a sockpuppet of User:Punkguy182, aka the banned user User:R:128.40.76.3, and the banned User:A.J.1.5.2., and many more (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:R:128.40.76.3 for older history of this user, and links in this thread for recent history) request more blocks. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked - obviously disruptive socks of one another and of R:128.40.76.3 (talk · contribs). I have closed the Punkguy182 talk page - if he wishes to appeal or complain, he can use User talk:Runningman01. Neıl ☎ 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. nb: I redirected User talk:Runningman01 to User:Runningman01 before I saw this; he could always undo it (he knows how). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IP: 71.99.126.188

Resolved

 – Nakon's rangeblock appears to have resolved the issue for the time being --Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is becoming a real nuisance, purposefully adding false info to these pages: Prague Spring, Czechs, and Czech Republic, and has made disruptive and insulting comments. Problem is, that it's a dynamic IP address that has just returned from a block and attempts to mask his vandalism by either making his/her edits appear as reverting vandalism, or entering "typo" or "grammar" to the edit summary, I'm not sure what to do, but I think the IP should be blocked and maybe the IP range, maybe it would help to semi-protect the pages. Anybody offering help?--The Dominator (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, this is one of the person's previous IP talk pages: [69], where they have made disruptive edits, please check the contributions as well, breaking Wikipedia's policy on civility and refusing to discuss the matter in a civilised way.--The Dominator (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. The IP vandalised the pages before January 8. They were blocked as such on January 8. Since that date, they have no vandalism, and their last edit was January 11. As the IP has not edited in two weeks, and the only vandalism in the contribs history has been dealt with, I see no further action to take here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my first message? it's 2 different IP addresses, but it's clearly the same person. 71.99.126.188 and 71.99.117.144 and a whole bunch more.--The Dominator (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Unresolved it. You didn't make that explicit, and only showed us the one IP address. Hold on while I investigate further.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is using dynamic 71.99.0.0/16 IPs. This particular IP range is currently blocked on the Czech Wikipedia. TML (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It looks like the XXX.144 had been blocked previously. The XXX.188 has only edited today. I don't see the blatant vandalism here; I don't speak Czech or whatever language the words he is changing are in. Could you perhaps give us some more background so we can understand the details of what is going on? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I made a full translation, it would be very vulgar, so just to get the picture of what we were discussing, he left an extremely offensive comment (in Czech) on my talk page, and I responded in Czech to try and get him to discuss and persuade him. In Czech the short form for "Czechs" is Češi, and archaic Czech is Čechové. He keeps removing the former, and in his edit summary writes "revert vandalism" or something like that. Consensus has been reached (also see talk:Czech Republic) that the common forms will be kept. He also writes in the Czech Republic article, that the short form for the CR is Čechy, this is incorrect as that refers only to Bohemia and always has. The user then, went through my contributions and started reverting my edits at random, he has been blocked but it seems like he's back, he still refuses to engage in civil discussion.--The Dominator (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Dominik's account - this IP range has been a persistent problem on a number of articles. Blocking and short term semi-protection has been fairly effective, but I'm starting to wonder if a range block may not be a better solution. Either way there may be some impact on innocent IPs.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that he has started undoing my edits at random again, look: [70], obviously undid my edit just for the heck of getting me angry.--The Dominator (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are on to the third IP address now - 71.99.126.188; 71.99.85.203 and now 71.99.121.55. I think a range block is the way to go. I've never attempted one, so I think someone with experience should take a look.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, third IP today, at least sixth overall. And I'm pretty sure that he has vandalized Czech Republic months ago, since on the talk page there is an IP starting 71.99 that has made similiar edits.--The Dominator (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put. I am inclined to agree that, based on what I am seeing, that a range-block may be in order. Any potentially affected "innocent bystanders" can still create accounts if needed. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to handle a rangeblock. Can an experienced admin who has done them before see if this seems a reasonable solution, and if so, do a range block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and anonblock the 71.99.0.0/16 range for a bit. The IP is part of Verizon's /11 netblock, but it appears that all of these address are within the /16. Nakon 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You may all be interested in Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing spoilers

Resolved

 – All sorted now.

A group of editors working on article related to The Wire (TV series) has apparently decided to remove information they consider to be spoilers. The root cause is the fact that new episodes of The Wire are available on HBO On Demand seven days before they air in their regular timeslot. HBO On Demand is available from most cable companies and is included with a subscription to HBO.

For the most recent episode, information has been removed several times citing "premature spoilers". (see history) Similar removal of "spoilers" has taken place on several other Wire articles [71] [72] [73]. In my opinion, if the information being added is verifiable from the episode (i.e. no speculation, interpretations or original research is present) it's not acceptable to remove the information as "spoilers" (per WP:SPOILER). Chaz ^Beckett 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of spoilers for being spoilers is not justified. In fact, by removing spoilers, one risks creating "teasers", which are in fact of little use to anyone and unencyclopaedic. LinaMishima (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an argument that posting removing information about an upcoming episode that came from leaked clips, scripts, etc., would be acceptable, as - until it airs - the producers could change anything. The first airing is when the episode's contents are confirmed. The fact that this is the network making the actual episodes themselves available, however, makes that concern moot in this case. I'd recommend that each lead specify when the episode became available, in relation to its airdate (which is a little unusual, enough to merit a mention in the lead). This should make clear that the plot summary that follows is indeed a full plot summary, and should remove any perceived need for a spoiler warning. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded LinaMishima (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The big letters at the top here pretty much answer the issue. Whomever is removing the content should be reminded of this, and then warned for edit warring if it carries on. Coldmachine^Talk 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's chiefly Opark 77 (talk · contribs) - I've left a note on his talk page. Neıl ☎ 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about this issue prior to making any reverts. I did so specifically because I was adding information relating to episodes as they aired on demand back in late 2006 and was asked not to. This year I asked if that was still the preferred approach, received a positive response and have worked in line with that response. I've never broken the three revert rule and my edits were motivated out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia as I have stated on Talk: The Wire (TV series). I have directed users to that discussion in my revert edit summaries in the interests of working collaboratively but I admit it was remiss of me not to do so every time. Obviously the result of the discussion here at ANI is that we should add information as the episodes air on HBO on demand and I'm happy to go along with that. Apologies for not being fully aware of the latest spoiler policy. However, I made a suggestion of an approach and was given the approval of an administrator. I've acted in good faith and aimed to improve the encyclopedia.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts that - I think this can be marked as resolved. Neıl ☎ 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

D&D vandal harassment

Resolved

 – Handled at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bad boy from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man is dogging a bunch of articles as anons; could someone go handle my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? A bunch! FYI, I'm going to list all these IPs at the CU case in case it is useful to User:Alison. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another admin took care of it. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP defamation

Resolved

149.254.200.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent vandalism, blocked, now defamatory comments -[74]. Not current so AIV inappropriate. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours as a precaution. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded image

Resolved

 – Image deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if an 11 year-old girl has uploaded an image of herself. This isn't, officially, against policy, but I feel it's a little dangerous. Any ideas? Is there a way we can delete it? Should we delete it? Thanks! --omtay38 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thee is no picture there now, so eitehr someone dleted it o ryour link is broken. Smith Jones (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Kylu deleted it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again a failure of due diligence. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Findings of fact ~Kylu (u|t) 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what was the "failure of due diligence" here, Corvus cornix? It looks to me like all worked as it should: Somebody noticed a problem and reported it; somebody else saw the problem (or the report) and fixed it; somebody reported that. What am I missing? -- Why Not A Duck 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was directed at Smith Jones. I wasn't clear. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block review

Resolved

 – 3 unblocks declined, pp

I have just blocked Rikara (talk · contribs) for incivility and personal attacks. As I am involved with him, I would like other admins to weigh in on the block. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the edit summaries are pretty incivil.   jj137 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've also declined the unblock request. Nakon 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And he has another one up, this one incredibly incivil and half-true (the only other editor who used a personal attack in that conversation was warned as the insult was mild and it was his first offense). Again, I'm not reviewing; I don't want another admin abuse thread on me, frivolous or otherwise. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page for the duration of the block. I don't want to extend it right now since there's a chance he's just blowing off steam, but at the first sign of a resumption of this behavior after the block expires, a much longer block would be in order. Jeske, can you explain what your involvement with this editor was (not disagreeing with the block, just curious)? MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the users reverting his unsourced/original research additions to Super Smash Bros. (series) and had filed a 3RR report on him after his fourth revert. I also rebutted his claims on the talk page of said article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - looks pretty un-civil to me. Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin here, so sorry if I'm out of line. This guy was blocked for 24 hours due to personal attacks, but his 3RR Violations have yet to be reviewed. I think a second 24 hour block may be in order. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The 24 hour cooling off period should be sufficient for a first time. If he comes back and does it again, either incivility or edit warring, another block can be issued. (I'm also not an admin)Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but his thoery of "the 3RR is bullshit" would just be supported in his views by letting it go. That wouldn't sit well with me. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I tend to agree, but at this point the 3RR block would be little more than a blunt instrument applied with about as much dignity as V-Dash's rhetoric. Blocks are never punitive. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cooling off" blocks tend not to do the opposite of "cooling off". That said, 3RR may be an issue, but I have not looked into the situation, so I am not qualified to judge. --Iamunknown 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The user and I were sparring over information in the Super Smash Bros. (series) article; he was adding unsourced information obtained from theories, leakers, and extrapolation and I (and several others) reverted him telling him to cite a source, to which he responded belligerently. I reverted him thrice; to avoid getting pulled into a point-of-no-return I disengaged, requested protection for the article, and filed a 3RR report once he breached 3RR. He reverted three more times afterwards, for a total of 7RR within app. 45 minutes. When he came to the talk page (meaning no disrespect to the person I'm comparing him to) Joseph McCarthy's own behavior during his witch hunt wasn't as vile as this user's behavior was. He demanded that other editors "listen to him" (despite the fact that the reverse was true; it was he who was flat-out dismissing us) and stated that the 3RR is "pointless", resorting to using personal attacks, which ended there when I blocked him. Even on his talk page, the last two of his three declined unblock requests were rabid, and I had to request protection to stop him from abusing the unblock template. That's the CliffsNotes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HemperorOfSmokeLandVillez.dum

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Friday

This user has been mentioned before here, and I reluctantly raise the issue again. His edits to Bourke Engine are becoming beyond disruptive and I have just reverted him once more. His edit summaries are almost as long as his edits, and are, well, eccentric to say the least. Other users and I have tried to reason with him, but it seems to be a one-way process, in that he is not communicating as we might expect. He does not appear to have learnt from a previous block, and while we should assume good faith, enough is enough. I would take it to WP:AIV, but it would be difficult to sustain an argument solely based on vandalism. He clearly believes in his POV, but is ruffling feathers in the process. Community input would be welcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he just got blocked, and i am all for it. Do not see any constructive contributions, and has not learned from a previous block. We can do without him. Tiptoety ^talk 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand,he is clearly passionate about his subject, but on the other, his style has got him blocked indefinitely. Won't argue with that; perhaps he'll come back when he straightens out a little. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I went ahead and indef blocked based on his latest gibberish. We don't have to agree whether he's trying to be constructive or not- we can focus purely on the effects on his editing and avoid speculation. In my view, he's not able to contribute meaningfully or collaborate with others. So I did what I thought was best, but as always, if anyone has a better idea, go for it. Friday (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - Thinks its the best thing to do at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto There is a difference between "can't communicate" and "won't communicate", but it seems all the chances here have been thrown away. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Since there was not the slightest change in behavior after the previous block, a series of escalating blocks would be a waste of time. Acroterion _(talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef block as well. I'm actually fairly impressed with how many editors tried to engage this user and give them guidance. But in the end, AGF obviously has its limits, and Friday acted appropriately. — Satori Son 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial vandalizer

Resolved

I propose blocking Legendk1:

Look what he's done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Legendk1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason7825 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a welcome note and a warning to stop his / her disruptive edits. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Clearly not here to edit positively. Nakon 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvass violation here by User:TlatoSMD - review?

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

Posting this here for two reasons:

• 1. To counteract the serious canvassing by the above user
• 2. So that an uninvolved admin (if there are any) can review the canvassing and the appropriateness of the uw-canvass I left on the users talk page.

^Avruchtalk 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it all back (I think). Gave a severe warning. Can you sign the warning you gave them please. Viridae^Talk 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already have. ^Avruchtalk 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, I wonder if TlatosMD is a bad-hand account - huge portion of total edits (1/4th of about 200) just to the AfD and article in question. ^Avruchtalk 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RCU check re certain banned editors such as BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc as I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have grounds to make this allegation, please don't say things like this. This user has been editing for a while - at least since early 2006 from what I can tell (considering his user name used to be spelled differently). ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This individual has edited a variety of articles, not just PAW ones. Besides, it makes sense that an editor that has been heavily involved in editing a particular article would be active on an AfD for that article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its a different version of Tlatosmd (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Lots of edits under that account (including many to anything remotely related to pedophilia). ^Avruchtalk 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No question the user was canvassing. But wouldn't it be better to solicit recommendations from admins not directly involved in the deletion debate? That, after all, is the point of posting to a broader noticeboard such as this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, I think? ^Avruchtalk 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed the canvassing and rolled it back before I noticed the post here. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Requesting an opinion below. --SSBohio 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really happy with Viridae editing my user page to remove his notice.I see no provision of WP policy to justify it. From WP:CANVASS: "The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page." If he has done wrong deal with him, not by removing his comments; it's he who should be our concern with. I can protect my own user page and do not need help from others. I can deal with canvassing perfectly well myself also--I do not always give the same opinion upon reconsideration. DGG (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the oft-misunderstood aspect of *random* canvassing - the person is just as likely to oppose as support. Orderinchaos 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Undelete Request for “Civility of Yankee Imperialism”

Resolved

 – This is a matter for Deletion Review. — Satori Son

A new page: “Civility of Yankee Imperialism” was recently removed: “The result was delete as original research. Closing under WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).”

Every sentence on this new page, reproduced below the text of this paragraph, is a verifiable assertion derived from one or more of the reliable sources provided. These sources are academic books and articles that passed through a rigorous process of scholarly peer-review before being published by well-known presses. The views of the competing scholarly schools discussed on this page are represented fairly and presented, as far as possible, without bias in a manner inclusive of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources addressing the subject of the proposed Wikipedia entry. This page contains no original research whatsoever! The notability of the entry can be gauged in the scholarly reviews of the new entry’s most important source: Steven Schwartzberg, Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003). Excerpts from these scholarly reviews are accessible at: [75] Longer excerpts are available at: [76]

Click [show] at right to expand text of deleted article.

A debate among diplomatic historians and Latin Americanists has emerged in recent decades centering on the dynamic relationship between US policy and political developments in Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. The two sides in this debate on the character of US - Latin American relations during these years might be referred to as the cynical school and the civility school. Most of the scholarship of the last generation or two has remained within the confines of the cynical school. This scholarship emphasizes the influence of the Second World War, and the growing Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, in determining US policy and shaping political developments in Latin America. It emphasizes US covert intervention in Guatemala in 1954 and the role of US condescension and racial prejudice in combining with selfish US interests (especially security and economic interests) to determine US policy.

The scholars of the civility school maintain that different expressions of concern for the common good determined the ways in which more particular US interests were understood and pursued. They argue that US officials, depending on how much they cared for the human rights of individuals relative to the dignity of nations, expressed concern for the common good in support for democratic solidarity and in respect for the national autonomy of others. They hold that there is a liberal tradition in US policy that has promoted a shared commitment to democratic progress as a foundation for international cooperation in the pursuit of common values and interests (as well as for the pursuit of more particular US values and interests) and a conservative tradition that has promoted mutual respect among diverse countries for the autonomy of each as such a foundation. The scholars of the civility school focus on the ways in which these liberal and conservative traditions have informed the conduct of US policy. They also emphasize the ways in which political developments in Latin America are largely autonomous of US policy and help to determine changes in US policy while being somewhat affected, in turn, by these very changes.

US Cold War interests contributed to policies that at times had a decisive effect on instances of regime change and regime maintenance throughout the period from 1944-1954. So did Cold War concerns within the internal politics of the countries of Latin America. The fairly consistent strength of these interests and concerns was compatible with an extraordinary wave of democratic openings that began in 1944 and with a subsequent reverse wave of democratic breakdowns and military coups that began in 1948. The relative ascendancy of liberalism or conservatism among US officials determined the ways in which US Cold War interests were defined and pursued. The balance between liberalism and conservatism in US policy was determined by the moral convictions of individual US officials, by their optimism and pessimism, and by the strength of largely autonomous democratic movements on the ground in Latin America.

US policy played a decisive role at only four, or perhaps five, critical junctures in the history of Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. It did so by helping to tip the balance to the democratic side in a few close contests: in Cuba in 1944, in Ecuador in 1947, and in Costa Rica in 1948. It also played a decisive role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Guatemala in 1954. The president and other important leaders of this Guatemalan government, however, considered themselves Marxist-Leninists and their long-term commitment to democracy was dubious to say the least. US policy provided the democratic side in Brazil with significant assistance in 1945, and inadvertently provided significant assistance, perhaps even decisive assistance, to authoritarian forces in Argentina in 1946.

References

• Bethell, Leslie and Ian Roxborough, editors. Latin America between the Second World War and the Cold War, 1944-1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

• Blasier, Cole. Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985).

• Diamond, Larry and Juan Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, editors. Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder: Lynn Reinner, 1988).

• Dozer, Donald Marquand. Are We Good Neighbors: Three Decades of Inter-American Relations, 1930-1960 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1959).

• Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

• Green, David. The Containment of Latin America: A History of the Myths and Realities of the Good Neighbor Policy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971).

• Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan, editors. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).

• Lowenthal, Abraham F., editor. Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).

• May, Ernest R. “National Security in American History,” Graham Allison Gregory F. Treverton, editors, Rethinking America’s Security: Beyond the Cold War to the New World Order (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), pages: 94-114.

• Rock, David, editor. Latin America in the 1940s: War and Postwar Transitions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

• Schmitz, David F. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999).

• Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. “Rómulo Betancourt: From a Communist Anti-Imperialist to a Social Democrat with U.S. Support,” The Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 29, Number 3 (October 1997), pages: 613-665.

• Shils, Edward. The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society edited by Steven Grosby (Indianapolis: Libery Fund: 1997).

Steven Schwartzberg Steven Schwartzberg (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're in the wrong room. deletion review is two doors down on your left... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayron is correct. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civility of Yankee Imperialism, next step is Deletion Review. — Satori Son 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions broken

Resolved

 – A good Samaritan took care of it. east.718 at 21:08, January 25, 2008

Don't know where else to post this as it concerns admins only, but the page for image deletions has been broken ever since the new preprocessor went live (try here). The dropdown box was borked until I fixed it somehow earlier tonight, but another problem is that there's two hanging <td>s in the HTML of the page, which is breaking all scripts right now. east.718 at 10:10, January 25, 2008

Works fine for me, but I don't use any scripts. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would head over to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if it hasn't already been fixed. (I don't use scripts either). Woody (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

can someone deal with this please

Resolved

 – lessons learned by everyone--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Someone feel like dealing with these gems please: [77] [78]. Before someone points out the obvious, it was NOT an attempt to bait him, I honestly do feel very sorry for him about his recent circumstances, as Dan said - I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. That said if he is going to participate in admin actions he is still required to explain his actions, wikipedia is not and never will be, therapy. Can someone also post the relevant notice on his talk page, me doing it would look like antagonism and is ulikley to get a good response. Viridae^Talk 12:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, can you explain, please, why you unblocked without discussion just because it was mentioned on Wikipedia Review? When I last checked, the blocking policy was very clear that admins should not unblock without discussing it (properly) with the blocking admin, or on AN/I if the admin's not available. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JzG for 24 hours. I don't care if he's an admin, has been around for a while, has lots of friends, and has just suuffered a loss; edit summaries like "Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period" are not acceptable. There is a limit, and Guy crossed it. I confidently expect someone to unblock him on some specious reason without discussing it with me. Open for discussion here, though. Neıl ☎ 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, that is extremely unhelpful and misses the point that the unblock was very provocative. Please unblock him so we can all discuss this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I urge you to reconsider. Blocks are preventative, not punative. Blocking Guy will mean he cannot (unless he unblocks himself) add input here. And whilst I agree that his loss is not "carte blanch to act like a dick",[79] that's still a hard stance and an unhelpful comment on his talk page at this time. IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries and blanking comments from his talk page are hardly new behaviour from Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, blocking is overly harsh. Please unblock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4)Please unblock JzG. He is a grumpy editor but common decency means he is allowed to be particularly so when being trolled at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. That 4 people above (5 if you include me) thought it appropriate led me to do so. As an aside, blocking is not to be used in this way; not against admins and not against "regular" editors. There was no iminent danger to the encyclopedia because Guy was rude in an edit summary. Yes he was rude. Yes, he has been so before. But unilateral blocks are not "punishments" for bad behavior, and should not be used simply to correct someone's behavior. There are other avenues to fix this, and blocking is not one of them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it another half hour for feedback - if none is forthcoming then I'll unblock (although I personally feel a block was entirely appropriate, and there's nothing stopping Guy discussing it on his talk page, I will go with the majority here). Neıl ☎ 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's moot as Jayron didn't even give me a chance to respond. Clearly, 22 minutes was enough for a full and frank discussion. Sigh. Neıl ☎ 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Jayron's unblock and his reasoning. Sorry, Neil, but I don't see what you planned to achieve by blocking him for a day. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted with notice of unblock) I don't really see trolls as a reason for blatant incivility towards another user, especially towards a fellow administrator, no less. I would remove the block on JzG that was just placed on him, but once he is unblocked, he should not to be permitted to continue without consequences. — Save_Us † 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking an editor he blocked without discussing it with him is improper; attempting to discuss it with him is trolling. So just what is somebody who disagrees with him to do? I sympathize with his family loss (though when I tried to express sympathy earlier it got taken the wrong way, so I've stayed away since), and would fully support everybody laying off him if he took an understandable wikibreak, but his situation is not a blank check to let him keep jumping into controversial situations, act uncivil, and expect everybody to keep cutting him slack. This runs out eventually. There's a "sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" issue in saying that blocks are not supposed to be punitive as a reason to undo the block on him, when he's long been a prominent member of a faction that treats blocks in a highly punitive way. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy gets away with murder, such as here, where two rancorous and foul edit summaries were met wit a short block to prevent further incivility, and within 22 minutes he was unblocked without my even having a chance to respond. Is he really that above the law at this point? Neıl ☎ 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy is always above the law, as far as I can see. I really wish this hadn't happened at this time in his life, but he really used up any slack long long ago. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, your "short block" would not have prevented further "incivility", since the offending edit summaries were made on his talk page where he could edit despite being blocked. Furthermore, his edits were not "uncivil", since they were not "personally targeted behavior", though they were rancorous and foul (though perhaps understandable so). --Iamunknown 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: Viridae undeleted an article I deleted as an unambiguous WP:CSD#G5 by request of the banned user at Wikipedia Review, unblocked Veesicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after this [80], unblocked Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after discussion only at Wikipedia review, and chose to post about it on my talk page which, right now, contains only comments about my father's death and I would quite like it to stay that way at least for a short while. Yes, this looks like harassment to me. But for some reason Neil thinks it's me doing the harassing. Put simply: Viridae is baiting me, and appears to be pursuing a personal agenda based on comments made at WR to the effect that Viridae wants me gone as an admin. I really do not think that trolling other admins at times of immense personal stress is a helpful way to resolve disputes, especially when those disputes are on another website and have not even been raised on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really am trying to be delicate here - if you're under such stress (I know what it's like), perhaps you might consider stepping away from Wikipedia for a day or two? Neıl ☎ 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:JzG#Kindness. I am doing a few edits here and there, not least while making links to my page on Dad at my personal wiki, which has links back here. I am not doing much at all, and I have no wish to do so. There was no hurry, no need to intrude. The user had not asked to be unblocked, there was no discussion at ANI, the only discussion was at Wikipedia Review, and even there no unblock request was made that I can see. Why troll people at times of stress? I did not seek out this confrontation, Viridae did. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can at least agree "fuck off" isn't appropriate no matter what the events, and you don't speak to anyone like that again on-Wiki, then it's a reasonable outcome. Neıl ☎ 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not, any more than trolling me at this time is appropriate. I hate it when people provoke me to anger. I would point out: on Jan 20, Dad was being treated in hospital but with a prognosis that did not include death; we were waiting to find out if he'd had another stroke. He was weak but conscious and alert. On Jan 21, at around 9pm, he was dead. See how many edits or other actions I've made since Jan 21. Anyway, this is pointless, I'm off to potter round the house. Thanks for listening, I'm going to walk away from this I think. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be best. I'm going shopping. Neıl ☎ 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to do something about this editor. How do we deal with this? This started on Jan 19th.[81] Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not beating dead horses. — Save_Us † 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As did I. See below... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

See block comment and Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block on the user because Sannleikur was clearly being disruptive with his editing. Despite that though, you were overly anxious with assuming there was a sockpuppet without any evidence being provided. Then on top of that you were grossly incivil about it and decided to wheel war the block once it was removed. [82] The wheel warring and incivil comments is something you could have done without. — Save_Us † 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As is trolling me while I'm arranging my father's funeral, of course. But that's an aside. Even the most cursory inspection shows that this account stinks of week-old socks, and unblocking is inexplicable given that the user had not even requested unblock - the only comment I can find was made at Wikipedia Review by someone other than the user. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your father. It must be very stressful for you at the moment. Take my advice. Have a break from this place for a bit. It can get nuts here and you need your whits about you. Personally I never read wikipedia review, bunch of nutcases. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As Theresa says - if you're arranging your father's funeral and are under a great deal of stress, maybe Wikipedia's not the best place for a day or two. Neıl ☎ 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have done nothing if the orange bar hadn't lit up when I saved Queen Mary trailer. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Profound apologies to Krimpet, it was user:Amarkov who posted on WR, I can't think why I put Krimpet. Shockingly bad form. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Do nothing. Seriously. Return to status quo. I think the extended block is probably excessive, and should be returned to its old state, and that everyone should go back to what they were doing. Guy has been unblocked, and is aware that people don't find his rude edit summaries helpful. That this discussion has happened has put everyone on notice, and any further discussion here would only generate more heat, and little light. No further admin action needs to be taken; while I have no prejudice to use of RFC or mediation at this point, there doesn't appear to be anything gained by argueing about this here anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, a suggestion to JzG: Don't read WR when you're under stress -- it won't help to relieve the stress. (I don't know if you were actually reading WR or not, but now's not the time to be reading it.) (Also, I should take my own advice. I read stressful sites when I'm under stress, so maybe I should stop.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. Wikipedia should probably be categorised under a "stressful sites" (I know I find it stressful sometimes :-(). Zomg! WP:STRESSFULSITES!  ;-) --Iamunknown 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I only checked it on a hunch after finding virtually no inbound links to the blocked user's page and no {{unblock}}. Viridae has taken actions previously based on requests at WR, so I had a quick look, it took about ten seconds to find the post and it was right before the unblock. I do not habitually read WR, largely to avoid becoming prejudiced against people due to the crap that gets posted there, but of course sometimes one has to visit the sewer to see who begat a particular piece of effluent. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really intend to make any request, and I'm sorry it was interpreted that way. If I want something done, I say so on Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue raised here

I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if my comment is appropriate, but when reading Guy's reply above, this passage stood out: "...The user had not asked to be unblocked, there was no discussion at ANI, the only discussion was at Wikipedia Review, and even there no unblock request was made that I can see..." I've been wondering when I was going to start seeing manifestations of this sort of activity, where WR is seen to serve admins as a back channel in talkspace, like IRC is in realtime. The tradition, as I understand it, has been to discuss blocks and unblocks in transparent wikipedia space, as opposed to personal talkspace or IRC, unless something very dramatic and/or compelling occurs which forces creative admins to break all rules to solve. Is Guy's account correct? I join other editors in urging him to consider signing out for a day or two, or at least avoid reading WR and admin spaces. I think we can all agree that firing off F-bombs early in the day will draw any editor's attention. I feel awful even to have to admonish user in the least; there have been some particularly unhelpful threaded comments aimed at him above which might have been saved for a more worthy opportunity, and the colorful language was not his finest moment today, but even in his anger and grief, user does tend to cut through the crap and point out a lack of transparency of process which needs to be addressed. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns, as well, but the essence of the consensus here is this:

• Viridae should not unblock users without discussion (either with the blocking admin or with the general community at ANI).
• Guy should not tell other users to “fuck off” (in edit summaries or otherwise).

Further discussion is unlikely to get us any more than that. — Satori Son 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know we're confirming WP:BLOCK and WP:CIVIL. --Kbdank71 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. — Satori Son 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe now everyone will follow them. Hahahaha. I think this can be marked "resolved" and whisked under the carpet. Neıl ☎ 17:54, 25 January 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.

vandal TaskBOT

Resolved

 – blocked

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

A sock/vandal, not a bot; it is User:Runningman01 removing sock notices. Block, please. --Jack Merridew 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. BLACKKITE 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jack Merridew 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD for article on Main Page?

Resolved

 – Keeper saved the day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to Speedy Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Italian political crisis since I thought there was a guideline against nominating an article currently on the Main Page for deletion (ever since the ill fated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cynna_Kydd), but then looked at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and couldn't find it. Did it go away? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. Either way, I would speedy close it. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If required, ignore all rules on this one - it's not going to be deleted per the current consenus, and I very much doubt it will get merged. Given a lot of people will be clicking on it, it's not going to do our reputation any good having a high profile article on the main page up for deletion. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76 did it. Thanks, Keeper! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I just closed it as Keep per WP:SNOW and referenced this discussion. Keeper | 76 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure I will be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I just would like to point out that not every story that is notable as a news story is necessarily notable as an encyclopedic topic... There are plenty of extremely notable stories that were imporant in their day, but which, in retrospect, deserve only a brief or passing mention in an encyclopedic article, if at all... Look here, there's a good reason why Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and Wikinews is not Wikipedia... 131.111.8.103 (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it's for another day (like when it isn't linked on the mainpage. For the good of the project, I agreed with Ryan's advice. I would recommend getting a username 131.111.8.103 if you don't already. Once a registered user, you can "watchlist" certain articles. I would have no problem with a deletion review of that article, or once it's off the main page, a second AfD nomination to let the full 5 days of discussion work themselves out. Cheers, thanks for your contribs, Keeper | 76 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note -- I am not arguing about your close, the WP:SNOW was pretty obvious in this case. It's just some general vague thoughts -- many editors apparently think that when something satisfies our sourcing requirements, i.e. coverage in multiple, independent, reliable third-party sources (see e.g. WP:RS, WP:V etc.) then this automatically guarantees an entry in the encyclopedia. I would rather disagree; I think those requirements are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for inclusion. Editors should, rather, exercise their own judgement as to what is worthy of a separate article, and what should be mentioned in passing in some more general article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.103 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably agree with you more than I disagree with you 131. If you spend a lot of time in the AfD debates, you'll see "recent events" are usually nominated, usually argued for days, and it seems to go about 50/50 towards delete and keep, even with the exact same arguments in the debates. Just depends on who closes sometimes it seems. If you do not have a registered username that you can use to nominate an article for deletion, let me know on my talkpage and I will assist you in nominating this or any other article (within reason of course). Another benefit of registering-you can create articles, which is required to nominate an article for deletion because you need to create the deletion discuss page. Cheers, Keeper | 76 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious debates over Harry Potter

Resolved

 – Ip blocked

This anonymous user has received repeated blocks for continuously re-inserting this unsourced opinion piece into the above article without discussion, despite repeated requests for NPOV and verification. Although currently on a one-month suspension, the user has, for the second time, recommenced his/her edit war using this alternate account. Request that alternate account also be blocked, and that said user's block be extended. Serendi^podous 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, sockpuppetry indicated by edits. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats - User:Bircham

Resolved

WP:NLT advises that the fact of legal threats should be reported here. User:Bircham, much disgruntled that a diploma mill is being called out for what it is, is making such threats, in the first and the final paragraph of this diff. Would it be too much to ask for the user to be blocked from editing indefinitely, as per the policy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user to WP:AIAV, but it was removed by Waggers, who said we need to discuss it here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user using {{uw-legal}} - note WP:NLT says "may be blocked" not "will be blocked". If User:Bircham continues making legal threats, they are very likely to be blocked. I haven't blocked them yet because per Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats I want to check the history and facts before being wading in with a banhammer. Waggers (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history, it's clear this is a WP:SPA. It looks like they've tried to make contact via the helpdesk (which of course states clearly that it's there to help people use Wikipedia, not to deal with content disputes) before making the legal threat above. It seems likely that the threat is genuine, so a block is the safest option. User blocked accordingly. Waggers (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Barry

User:Domer48 and User:RepublicanJacobite have serially removed changes I made and a POV tag I added to the Kevin Barry page. User:RepublicanJacobite refuses to explain why he reverted my changes, refused to respond to my message on his talk page, called me a "serial vandal" and threatened to have me blocked. I have perpetrated no vandalism and it is evident from User:RepublicanJacobite's userpage that he/she is incapable of being objective on this matter given his/her biases evident from the userboxes displayed and his/her own behaviour. 70.18.18.193 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of banned editor User:Rms125a@hotmail.com by the IP and editing interests, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. In fact I am using a rental computer in my neighborhood ($5 an hour), so I don't know who else may have used it, but I reject and deny the claims by User talk:One Night In Hackney. 70.18.18.193 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP range is the same, the edits show the same pattern. I hear distant quacking. BLACKKITE 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the instant posting to ANI when edits are reverted, see for example Accuracy in Reporting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quack. *blocked* SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

70.18.18.193, it would help your situation if you became a 'registered user'. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay, No it wouldn't, RMS is rather easy to spot, and he's run through many many accounts already. SirFozzie (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if he was a sockpuppet or not, sorry folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No harm, no foul, GoodDay :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Housekeeping

Resolved

Can an admin delete Talk:Fedora and move Talk:Fedora (hat) to Talk:Fedora? Thanks. miranda 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 10:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)