Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Fair Deal

The user Fair Deal has accused me of sockpuppetry when I have already been cleared of that charge. He has also reverted my edits on the list of Gothic Metal bands even though I provided multiple legitimate resources including Doom-Metal.com and allmusic.com. Here is a link to his edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_gothic_metal_bands Fred138

User:WackadooXanadu

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac. The text on "her" userpage says:

I am a huge fan of Wrestling. I have never edited on Wikipedia before, but due to some confusion, I have been called up by my friends to continue some great work.

Theres no doubt by the same articles that this person is editing, same location or whereabouts as the others and obvious tips left by this user, that this is a sockpuppet of OzWrestlemaniac. OzWrestlemaniac was indefblocked for WP:HA against myself and Normy132. If someone could look into this, it would be most helpful. — Moe Epsilon 14:54 October 01 '06

I don't want to fight, but I am not that person. I have never met OzWrestlemaniac and never plan to. The IP Address is a multi-user address. Why do people like Moe assume everyone from that address is a sockpuppet? I'm sorry I added some previously deleted information but I honestly thought it was relevent. I thought i could edit anywhere I wanted on Wikipedia? Normy edits wrestling more than I do, would he not fall in the above catagories as an OzWrestlemaniac SockPuppet? If you look closely 90% of my edits have nothing to do with wrestling and what OzWrestlemaniac edited. Also, if anyone bothered to check, OzWrestlemaniac edited on IP Address 203.45.248.72, while I edit on IP Address 203.45.253.109. I'll add this paragraph to my userpage so anyone who decides to delete this and hide any defense can't. Thank-You for your time. User:WackadooXanadu

User:Mykungfu

I have blocked this user for a week. Neither blocking nor IP-spamming investigation are my fortes, but this user continued to disrupt the AfD at Alpha Kappa Nu after his last unblock. Additionally, there is some suggestion at his talk page that he persists in other disruption. I don't know enough to recommend an indef. block for sure, but I do know that admins should examine this case collectively before we consider unblocking the user again. Advice from wiser parties, please? Xoloz 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I should just add that the disruptions continue, and that the user in question left a racist message on my talk page aimed at another editor [1], and has threatened to continue removing properly cited content indefinitely [2]. I think the best move is to semi-protect the articles he's vandalizing, so that he can't continue to hide behind AOL IP addresses. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing my patience with this user. He has consistently and blatantly used sockpuppets to avoid his block. Just look at his userpage and he's editing it with IPs while he's blocked. I blocked him indefinitely once and unblocked him given evidence that he wants to change, but he hasn't admitted to his sockpuppets (which are painfully obvious by his spelling/grammatical habits and the times they were created compared to when Mykungfu was blocked), so I am looking to indefinitely block him again at the first sign of future trouble. Cowman109^Talk 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudeness

I am occasionally exposed to rudeness and I don't like it. For example:

• Fucking quit it. ... Rebecca 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That comment was taken up by other editors.

Another editor has just left the following comment on my talk page:

• Sorry, what? You'd rather do a half-assed job because it's quicker and easier than doing it properly, but if I want to spend my time trawling around after you tidying up your goofs you'd be happy to assist? How noble of you. Do you realise what a selfish ass you just sounded like? --DeLarge 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard procedure? Can I simply delete rude comments? bobblewik 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's your talk page. Unless you talk about a real warning,and unless you misrepresent an editor by taking things out of context, you can delete whatever you like. Some find this in dubious taste (including me), but others do it frequently. --Stephan Schulz 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can simply delete rude comments, they aren't vandalism warnings or anything. However, I agree with the second guy, if you're going to make mass changes like that, do them right. --Golbez 11:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is the official policy. Comments this incivil should not be tolerated. What you might do about it is outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, although if the editors making these comments make such comments habitually, Wikipedia:Requests for comment sounds like the right avenue. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could have really phrased her complaints better, that's for sure. However, it's a little difficult to blame someone for being short when you've been warned and blocked an inordinate amount of times for such things. Still, she could have been a bit more tactful. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am being threatened with rollback:

In future, expect your edits to be rolled back summarily - your dismissive attitude deserves to be reciprocated. --DeLarge 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment requires two users. Can anyone be my second? bobblewik 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved from The Village Pump (Policy) since there appears to be a dearth of actual policy questions or discussion taking place. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make it official policy somewhere that when stylistic disputes about 'mass edits' like this (whether from bots, AWB, scripts, or even manual editing) come up everyone needs to stop, whether editing or reverting, go to an appropriate talk page, and sort out the consensus view on the issue before continuing. We have run into this over and over again with 'BC' vs 'BCE', road name standards, date linking, spaces vs nbsp, et cetera. Any sort of change to numerous pages is going to serve as a 'multiplier' on disagreements and waste an inordinate amount of time on all sides... the difference between edit warring on one page and doing so on a hundred. When a bot is making mass disputed edits we block it on sight... the same ought to apply to humans doing so - which would include reversions of the edits where that too is disputed. A fifteen minute block with an edit summary indicating that it is just to stop the ongoing changes to allow discussion shouldn't carry any 'stigma' and would allow these to be sorted out before people start going into meltdown (as above). In this specific case, the date linking issue seems to have been discussed several times before... so this seems like either mass edits against consensus or mass edits with a known absence of consensus... either of which strikes me as extremely disruptive and worthy of a block if they don't stop. Again, I think past experience / common sense show that mass changes should only be made when they are widely agreed to. --CBD 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In all the discussions on WP:MOSNUM there has been general consensus that individual years standing alone (which have no bearing on date preferences, unlike the ones associated with a day-month) are overlinked, and no agreement on how much they are overlinked. Unlinking them all when all were linked seems marginally acceptable, though probably not the best way to deal with it. Then the appropriate action to be taken should be adding back those few which are really relevant, not reverting en masse. But it would be better for Bobblewik and those like him to leave the most clearly appropriate ones, and make clear in their edit summaries that they are only removing excess ones. Gene Nygaard 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik complains here, but his long insistence on acting just like a bot even when it would be obviously stupid to an editor with any writing sense is pretty much custom-designed to wear away the patience of any sane editor trying to clean up his Sorcerer's Apprentice brooms' work, and "Fucking quit it" is entirely justifiable IMO. As is the response of summary rollback. If the manual of style says this, for example, is in any way a sensible or useful edit, then it's just wrong. Following guidelines robotically is incredibly stupid. Guidelines are things to apply with actual thought. Particularly when one has been pissing people off with them for YEARS. What the hell. I suggest a commendation to Rebecca for her remarkable forbearance above and beyond the call of duty, and a cookie - David Gerard 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard again cements his place as my favorite editor. <3 --Golbez 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Those of you tut-tutting at Rebecca above may care, by the way, to read User talk:Rebecca#Re:_Date_links - Bobblewik has been messing with the MoS, going on a botlike rampage and then pointing to the MoS to justify his actions. That is, this is the disingenuous variety of complaint - David Gerard 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

usernameblocking without notice

I notice that people no longer bother to warn people before giving them usernameblocks, this means that someone creates JoeSmith382752836, and 20 seconds later they're looking an autoblock square in the face that says something like "Usernameblock, less numbers plz" and they're left blocked from actually creating a new username for at least 24 hours. If they're genuine new users they don't even know what an autoblock is, and don't know to wait around for it to expire. For harmless usernameblocks like the hypothetical one above, shouldn't people be given a warning before being blocked? Come to think of it, why block at all? If someone creates bobsmith358239552325 why not just ask them to pick a new username, and wait for them to reply? The current policy just scares away new users at random. Heck, even the email thing, the reason for not using your email as your username is to protect the user from spammers, yet people are giving punitive usernameblocks to people who list their emails--152.163.100.65 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not any more because the mediawiki software doesn't allow the @ sign in usernames since it causes software issues. Accounts with no edits have never been warned before a username block, and doing so would be a giant unfeasible waste of time sinc emost of them are vandals anyway. pschemp | talk 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but it seems to me that there's a big difference between how an admin should issue a username block to a blatantly offensive or vandalistic (e.g., offensive, racist, "Wheels" etc.) username, and a good-faith username that happens to contravene a rule created for admin convenience (e.g., "not too many numbers" or "no special characters". In the case of the latter greeting a newbie with an indef username block is almost guaranteed to create a WP:BITE issue if care isn't taken. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If every account was used, that would make sense. However, blocking, and leaving a {{usernameblocked}} message expalaining how to change the username is perfectly acceptable since most accounts with no edits rarely get used. It has never been the practice to warn first as doing that to 500,000 unused accounts is a waste of time. Additionally, the username block summary contains a link to that template which explains everything. Its not a bite issue at all. Btw, the username rules were not created for "admin convenience" and stating so shows a bit of paranoia. Username rules were created to help the community function easily. That includes all editors. pschemp | talk 00:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike "admin convenience" from my comment and substitute "other editors' convenience." I meant convenience for the administration of the site collectively, not any individual administrator. Given that this issue has never affected me personally and I was just offering a viewpoint, accusing me of "a bit of paranoia" strikes me as inappropriate. I was concerned about the autoblock issue raised by the original poster as well, but I will drop the matter. (edit conflict: I can agree more with Doc's comment below, however) Newyorkbrad 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. The abbreviation admin is ambiguous though, and since you used it to mean "wikipedia administrator" in the first instance, there is nothing for me to do but assume you meant it like that again given that I can't read your mind. I'm sorry but the way you worded it, the meaning would be a manifestation of the general paranoia going around that admins are out to rule wikipedia by abuse or whatever. I'm relieved to see this isn't the case. pschemp | talk 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, if we're going to insist that a user changes his username, it seems that the kindest time to do it is immediately on creation of the account, before they have edited. That ways it isn't so much that they find their established account blocked, or an admin asking them to jump though a hoop - as it appears like their initiall attempt to log in with that name is met with 'please try again', and are not prevented from doing so. --Doc 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with both the initial concern and Doc's suggestion. Definitely a WP:BITE issue if left as is. JackyR | Talk 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uninvited Company deleting articles

User:UninvitedCompany deleted the article Flavor Flav (the rapper from Public Enemy and star of Flavor of Love), saying that it "had no sources." Last I checked, that wasn't a reason to unilaterally delete an article, especially on a subject who is clearly notable. I restored the article, and figured you all needed to know. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• he's also deleted a few other articles under similar circumstances, apparently: [3], someone will need to look into those too. Speedy deleting articles for lack of sources is clearly not supported by policy, or common sense. At most articles should be deleted through PROD/AfD if someone suspects they're hoaxes. --W.marsh 03:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just restored Maria Ford, another clearly verifiable, NPOV, and notable subject deleted recently by UninvitedCompany. The sole reason provided was that it was unsourced. Andrew Levine 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not something I'd expect a bureaucrat to do, even under WP:BLP. Just stubify it if needed. – Chacor 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of these had received WP:OTRS complaints. WP:LIVING encourages all editors to remove unsourced material from articles and to delete articles where there are no sources in the article history and the article would be substantially empty after the unsourced material is removed. We are presently trying to clear a large backlog of OTRS complaints which exists in part due to Kelly Martin's departure from the project and also due to several other OTRS regulars scaling back their participation due to school. So I try to work quickly. I have no problem with someone recreating these articles as stubs or for that matter making expanded articles, if proper attention can be paid to sourcing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles can always be restored. It's better to have no article on notable persons than articles filled with libel, puff or gross inaccuracies. I can also verify that the OTRS queue is incredibly large...Kelly Martin was a very hearty correspondent, and her absense is being felt in the amount of work necessary. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a place for OTRS folks to request other editors to give some attention to certain articles? I bet people would be willing to do some of the editing required in clearing the backlog. I understand that confidentiality is a concern, but surely some of the legwork could be done by people who aren't reading the actual email communications. Friday (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that. People are always saying OTRS is backed up, but then only people who are friends with whoever runs OTRS can actually help out. I'd probably help with the backlog, but no one's ever asked. --W.marsh 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A "call-to-arms" for OTRS would be answered, I imagine, with gusto from Wikipedians. And if it isn't limited to admins only, I'd help out in any way I could. Daniel.Bryant 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We sometimes ask on IRC. If you're interested you can start at American Hunters and Shooters Association, which needs more serious NPOV work than I'm able to provide. I will opine that nearly all of the articles on schools, radio announcers, and 2nd-string TV and movie actors need TLC and are only getting OTRS involvement as their subjects discover them. That said, we could think about using a category tag just as we do with other article problems. There are pros and cons and it would have to be thought through with care. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And Judith_A._Reisman which needs particular attention to sourcing due to the nature of the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in helping out without actually answering emails is welcome to join wikimedia-otrs and hang out. We've always got things to do! Bastiq▼e ^demandez 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was Maria Ford deleted twice again? Ryūlóng 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<unindent>I had nothing to do with it the second and subsequent time around, though I had stubbed the article after it was restored. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a list of articles that need attention at Wikipedia:OTRS (Or some other, more prominent place)? --Conti|✉ 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, should've read a section ahead. --Conti|✉ 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OTRS call to arms

Per request (above) here are some items of interest to the OTRS team where any interested editors would be more than welcome to help out.

• QVC - Unsourced except for an FCC enforcement reference. Triva section a particular concern.
• American Falcon - POV, sourcing
• Sufi Muslim Council - POV, sourcing

Referenced several things, some proper tagging on the article. If its the group, it may be just be an issue with the fact that there is an external link to a website and a section on a person who's criticised the group, but left an NPOV tag on the article. --Kevin_b_er 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Will Jordan - sourcing, formatting

Cleaned up and ref'd...still looking for one though. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (maybe if this comes up a lot there should be a sub-page somewhere?)

• Enfield Poltergeist - prose, relationship of general sources to assertions

Reworded, currently in a state of requiring sources for certain statements or else they will be removed ({{fact}}). Daniel.Bryant 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I Know You See It - producer reportedly inaccurate

Found a reliable source which confirms the producer is correct. Added reference to article. Daniel.Bryant 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Orascom Telecom Holding - out of date and unsourced. See [4] for possible updates. Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit coverage here.

Some MOS fixes. That link basically confirmed all the stats were correct. Sources are provided to a reasonable degree, however in-line would be preferential. No comment on notability. Daniel.Bryant 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cracked - Was distribution erratic? Are the sales figures correct? See history for two competing versions.

I added some refs to some of the sales and personal related statements. I'll go back and clean up some of the longer sections, but the 2 points above are ref'd now. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Psycho (1960 film) - Was there an uncredited producer? Is the "myths" section sufficiently sourced?
• John Esposito being conflated with John Esposito (screenwriter/producer). Extent of problem unclear but see in particular the Masters of Horror page.

Fixed - changed links of those not concerned with the Islamic writer to John Esposito (screenwriter/producer). All were pretty clear-cut, with the exception of Eric Person, which I haven't fixed. Daniel.Bryant 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gang Tian POV problem with possibly undue weight being given to a "controversy" section.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

As per Rx StrangeLove's suggestion, could there be a subpage where OTRS people list stuff they can't be bothered doing/don't have expertise to do/don't have the time to do, and people could fufill these requests? Comments are welcomed. Daniel.Bryant 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Three posibilities:

• A project page, maybe Wikipedia:OTRS-requested cleanup
• A category, maybe Category:Articles requiring OTRS cleanup
• A template; {{otrs}} is free.

Personally, I'd prefer a cleanup template containing a category, with a parameter to say what's needed; for instance, we could have

(based on {{cleanup-afd}}). If there's enough approval for this idea, I'll create it. --ais523 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. A template and a category would suffice. Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template {{OTRS}} (redirect {{otrs}}) and Category:Wikipedia articles requiring OTRS cleanup have been created. --ais523 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This tag solution is terrible. I have removed all the OTRS templates from article pages. If OTRS receives email indicating that the subject of an article considers it libelous or defamatory, we need to take much more drastic action than a dispute tag. In other cases, this kind of criticism should go ONLY on the talk page. Dispute tags that allow for arbitrary user comments are, plain and simple, divisive. And it adds a whole new dimension when the source of the criticism is an email Wikipedia gets: the source of the criticism isn't around to make suggestions or clarify the situation -- so, it really carries no weight. Suggestions for improvement of an article belong on the TALK page, not on the article page: dispute tags are an exception: they exist so that edit wars can be averted. By including a note like "the neutrality of this article is disputed" it is made clear that the current version of the article is not completely acceptable to all editors, which means that those who don't find it acceptable can at least feel that they've made some progress towards having their objections understood. Templates like {{POV-because}} have been deleted for this kind of reason at WP:TFD, and this case is even worse, because it brings objections onto the article page from people who aren't even Wikipedia editors. Mangojuice^talk 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mango, I would like to point out that the OTRS staff screen the complaints. The majority of article complaints sent to OTRS aren't acted upon. The complaints about vandalism and attack pages we generally can resolve very quickly. The problem is that there are a certain number of legitimate complaints regarding articles which are, on the whole, undersourced, inaccurate, and badly written. This is the area where the OTRS staff are particularly much in need of help, because it can take hours to fix one of these unless the fix is to stub or delete the article. I don't want to be hasty, but on the surface of it I see nothing inherently wrong with us maintaining some sort of list or category for articles for which we need help from the community to fix. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I agree: see my response to Ais.Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking through POV-because's TfD, and many of the deletion comments were because it was used for trolling, or because POV-pushing extended to the tag reason itself, which wouldn't seem to happen here. However, there are legitimate concerns raised; I would imagine that not all OTRS cases would be at all appropriate for a publicly-viewable tag. Still, in the section above there is a list of OTRS cases; do you (Mangojuice) object to the tag but not the list, or would you rather the list was removed from AN/I as well? Would you allow a Wikipedia: subpage for such lists? Just wondering, I don't have any experience with OTRS myself, I just create templates from suggestions on AN/I (among other things), but there seems to be a debate brewing here. (I hope I haven't started an edit war by creating the template!) It may be worth TfDing the template to get wider opinion on its usefulness. --ais523 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, there would be nothing wrong with having a category, or a Wikipedia namespace page, or even a talk page template for documenting these email comments. I vehemently object ONLY to the idea of putting it on the article page. If tags would be used on the article page, they should be the standard dispute or cleanup tags, and explained in detail on the talk page. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OTRS ? (The WP:AN pages seem to get a lot of attention) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that is all that is needed, a page with links and room for discussion...nothing very complex. Most of the entries would be articles that have drawn some criticism and needs more immediate attention then your typical "cleanup" page. Not much more than the section above with a list of articles OTRS would like some attention paid to. That's a good idea. Rx StrangeLove 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with User:Raymond arritt

User:Raymond arritt is harrasing me, he has reverted most of my edits as they happen, and after viewing his contribs I noticed that he has been telling some other users that I am a sockpuppet.. someone deal with this please :)--KFA UK 12:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help.--MONGO 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice help. ;) Danny Lilithborne 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch blanking Deborah Frisch, using it to attack others

Warriordumot (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who admitted she is Deborah Frisch on the failed AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deborah_Frisch), is taking a chainsaw to her own article, turning it into a hagiography about herself, and using it to attack her enemies in a rather bizarre fashion (see diff). Given her track record off Wikipedia (just read the article about her for details on that), I think it's safe to say that she needs to get some full-blown level 3 or 4 warnings from admins right now, and her actions need to be watched. --Aaron 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You will need to review and follow WP:BLP. Thanks. JBKramer 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting that an administrator look into the editing actions of Warriordumot, not asking that an editor attempt to lecture me that WP:BLP means that the subject of an article is allowed to blank all negative information about herself and replace them with comments such as "Frisch gained internet and blogosphere notoriety when she resigned her adjunct position at the University of Arizona after hundreds of rightwing nutcases emailed her boss at the University of Arizona whining about something she wrote on the internet." Thank you. --Aaron 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that the adminstrator who looks into this will say "two wrongs don't make a right, stop violating WP:BLP." JBKramer 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warriordumot just blanked Deborah Frisch entirely. --Aaron 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And you, yet again, violated WP:BLP, inserting negative claims about a person without "a verifiable secondary source." In this case, you used only a court record, which is a violation of WP:BLP on it's face. I must insist you read and follow WP:BLP. JBKramer 18:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So now WP:BLP means whatever you wish for it to mean? Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable. --Aaron 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop while you are only midly behind. "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." JBKramer 19:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Aaron was making a good faith attempt to revert vandalism and blanking. That should not be construed as maliciously reinserting BLP violations. - Crockspot 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Crockspot. Sadly, the damage has been done. User:Warriordumot is still vandalizing the article, and too many admins are busy admonishing me to even block her. --Aaron 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just issued her? a warning and one more instance of vandalism and I'll block the account--MONGO 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, the current version you created is most fitting version according to WP:BLP [5] --NuclearUmpf 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be time to try another AfD. Danny Lilithborne 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to come up with some sources in that article or I'll make it become history. Follow WP:BLP to the letter.--MONGO 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Linked articles Protein Wisdom and Jeff Goldstein contained similar poorly-sourced allegations which I've also removed. Demiurge 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't hang around blogs or the blogsphere, but this particular article and a few related to it seem very non notable to me. What is, in fact, Deborah Frisch claim to fame? That she is/was a professor and made some comments on someone else's blog? I wonder how many persons would fit this level of notability? Me thinks the bar of notability is way to low much of the time.--MONGO 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sources, vandalism, blanking, BLP, or whatnot, I fail to see how this article avoids CSD A7. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone close the new AfD please? I opened it prematurely 'cuz I'm a goof. :) Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp

The Arbitration Committee has found User:Tonycdp conducting personal attacks against User:Asterion in Spanish (can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Personal_attack_by_Tonycdp). He is being found disruptive by the ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Tonycdp_is_disruptive. I will now quote the decision of the ArbCom that was approved by the ArbCom on 14 September 2006: For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits. Tonycdp is a party in the Arbitration over the Kosovo article. He has made articles called Southern North Kosovo and West Kosovo and according this diff violated disrupted the Wikipedia. I will now quote User:Consumed_Crustacean from User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT: ..you may be placed on a ban from Kosovo and related articles while the arbitration case is underway. Consider that ban now active, thanks to these edits of yours. It will be lifted once the case is over, and whatever decision they make will take its place. If you create or edit any articles related to Kosovo, you will be blocked (by myself or another administrator) from editing the Wikipedia for some period of time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) He was thus banned from Kosovo-related articles on 29 September 2006 and the Arbitration on Kosovo still lasts. However, he violated the ban, editing Kosovo in 09:44, 3 October 2006. Then he edited Dardania (Europe) in 10:17, 3 October 2006 (which as a part of the History of Kosovo series). And then he edited Priština (capital city of Kosovo) in 10:20, 3 October 2006. I do not know if this can be applied to talk pages, but he has edited Talk:Kosovo on [], [], [] and []. According to the instructions of the administrator who banned him (User:Consumed_Crustacean) - he is to be blocked if he violates the ban, which he did. --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are more looknig for Arbcom Enforcement --NuclearUmpf 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You can probably blame me for giving him the wrong page. Tony is on a 3rr ban right now, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No rush then. I'll look at it tonight. Thatcher131 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I extended the ban with an extra 24 hours, simply because this user was warned repeatedly to cut with the distruptions. He continued though, on Kosovo and Albania pages (all politically motivated and POV-introducing, which is the focus of the ArbCom). He also acknowledged previously that he read the Kosovo ban I placed on him, saying that "it's about time". Pop it back down if you want, but I figured it was justified. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thatcher131 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Linnwood removing donkey punch article talk comments unilaterally

In short: 1) I asked Linnwood if he were a child and if that was what interested him in the donkey punch 2) He came back with a trolling accusation when I was asking a very serious question. Conversing about sex with minors via the internet is not a good idea, to say the least, and I want nothing to do with it. 3) I concluded there's a good chance he's under 18 because anyone would have confirmed adulthood, especially young adults, who usually don't want to be mistaken for kids. 4) I put a warning on Talk:Donkey punch to warn others he may be a minor and to be careful until proof of age is established. 5) Linnwood removed it, calling it trolling. It's not called "trolling," it's called "keeping others safe from the cops." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Blythe (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

This user was blocked already once for "considerable personal attacks, incivility over a considerable period of time." See here. This user is continuing this activity by adding these comments to my talk page and the talk page of the above mentioned article. — Linnwood 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see here & here. — Linnwood 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Blythe is indef-blocked, this can be archived. Guy 15:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Heh! Jimbo has pwn3d Donkey punch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :-) Guy 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:US House Page

US House Page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just wondering if this might be a poor choice of username. He's edited on Congressional topics. Seems like that could be a problem, but I don't know the applicable rules. Derex 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um yeah, not the best choice in names to be editing the Mark Foley article. Also, he uploaded a photo of a random page without permissions (hello, legal issues of picture of minor) and has added unsourced opinions and trivia. I'm blocking the username and requesting a name change. pschemp | talk 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic4gl

Could an admin take care of all the crap going on here, the formats are messed up, there are a bunch of extraneous comments by new and anonymous users, some being apparent single purpose accounts. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I also question why Madcowpoo (talk · contribs) is allowed to edit, he obviously shows no grasp of proper grammar and spelling. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we can't have people here who have no spelling skills whatsoever. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see a problem with the AFD except that the layout is messy (feel free to fix if it bothers you) and it has two or three socks. As to your other question, we used to have an encyclopedia with strict standards so that only experts could edit it; it was called Nupedia and didn't really work out. Since basically any minimum level for editing is going to be arbitrary, that means we don't set a minimum level and also allow e.g. foreigners with poor English skills, or children with lack of grammar, to participate. Well, as long as they d0n#t wri3t in l33t, anyway. >Radiant< 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is one of our biggest problems here, but I digress. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP violation Predatorgate

Grazon, without discussion, moved Mark Foley scandal to Predatorgate. He also dislinked the Talk page. I seem unable to move it back, it seems he might have also protected the talk page. Obviously, Predatorgate is highly POV and a neologism. Worse, it labels Foley a "predator", which is a clear violation of WP:BLP, considering an investigation is only starting.

My understanding was that you could move a page back if the redir hadn't been edited. Apparently not, or I'm messing something up. Derex 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1) google Mark Foley scandal and then do the same with Predatorgate and see which one is being used more. 2) POV? the guy is a child Predator! 3) I don't even know how to dislinked the Talk page.

grazon 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• It was a copy-and-paste move; I've deleted it. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• That entire article has serious problems, starting with the infamous "alleged" and then re-stating as fact that which has not been admitted or sworn in testimony. I would suggest we should leave this to Wikinews, make a short section in Mark Foley and link to the Wikinews coverage. They are far better placed to deal with breaking news than we are. Guy 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

More JarlaxleArtemis socks to ban

These JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) socks want banning:

• BomberMan 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Asdgger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Asdger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They've all been recently used for vandalism. —Psychonaut 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, but there's more coming out of the drawer. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Averette re. Conch Republic again

(PREVIOUSLY ARCHIVED)

We have a content dispute on the Conch Republic page which has escalated into vandalism and nonsense misuse of sources. Averette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FairHair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began disputing whether the Conch Republic is a valid micronation some time ago and have been arguing with Centauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and recently myself Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the subject.

There are three abuse issues I want to present:

One, Averette and FairHair are behaving like a sockpuppet pair, and have 4 or 5RR'ed he article a couple of times [6]. I'd like uninvolved admins to take a look and see if a CU is called for.

Two, Averette is now persistently using http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-fl-cr.html as a source for his claim that the Conch Republic is a former rather than current entity [7] [8]. This is the website for a company which produces specialty flags. That website includes an out of context past-tense citation from the main Conch Republic primary source http://www.conchrepublic.com/, most specifically http://www.conchrepublic.com/republic_position.htm. The Conch Republic website uses past tense for its secession and present tense for its existence. This appears to constitute persistent nonsense edits, as the source's validity has been disproven and pointed out to him.

Three, Averette just made the nonsense claim that a road (Card Sound Road) which is more than 120 miles away from Key West, Florida constitutes a valid second route out of the city, beyond U.S. Route 1.

In fair disclosure, I have 4RRed the article in the past 24 hrs, with my last edit [9] being to revert Averette's reposting the misused source info after I warned him it was nonsense to add bad material and misuse sources. I believe this was a vandalism revert, however, at this point I am going to stay hands-off on the article until others can review the situation. I have not reverted the third, road-related nonsense vandalism.

I am generally loath to bring a content dispute to AN/I, however I believe that Averette is now violating WP policy in multiple manners. User:Lar had been looking at the situation (including warnings to Gene Poole, who has been rude at times in the dispute) but is too busy at the moment and recommended ANI. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I warned them again, maybe it will do some good. I'm not unwilling to block teh lot of them for a bit to get it to stop, or protect the article, as they really do seem to be going at it quite vigorously. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Users are claiming things are sorted so am back to watching to see if that's so. Not blocking is vastly preferrable to blocking, after all. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this back from the archives, as User:Averette has decided that now it warrants a mention in "areas affected" of Hurricane Wilma. I've reverted him, but I hope someone is keeping an eye on this. – Chacor 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been trying to talk to him through edit summaries at Parrot Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he has violated 3RR in turning a redirect into a slightly altered version of Parrot Jungle Island, after seeing this thread. I'm not sure if Conch Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) counts as 3RR either in this situation. Ryūlóng 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Conch republic with several exhortations on the talk page there. Not sure I'm getting very far. Ryulong, full marks for trying, but I'd like to suggest that "talking through edit summaries" may not be the best approach. Take it to the right talk page(s) instead. If this continues to escalate there are a number of things that we can do. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:leyasu has returned

Leyasu (talk · contribs), currently blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, is editing under a new user name: Fred138 (talk · contribs). The users edit history is identical to the blocked user. Fair Deal 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its also important to note, that Fred138 has twice been returned as a user that isnt myself by RFC. It is also important to note the multiple warnings that Fair Deal has deleted from their talk page for accusing users of being myself simply to violate revert rules. Leyasu 04:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on RNA interference and related articles

User:Mussaali, also appearing as User:70.183.113.24, User:209.16.74.251, and User:129.81.15.58, seems to be the real-life Mussa Ali, a former member of Craig Mello's laboratory during the discovery of RNA interference. Back in July this user repeatedly spammed the page with a link to his personal website (now defunct), where he documented his side of a personal dispute with Mello, including legal disputes on related patents. He also removed references to Fire and Mello as co-discoverers of the phenomenon.

Recently the matter same up again with new spam linking to a document apparently detailing recalled conversations with Mello, personal attacks against Mello and repeated demands for my personal information, culminating in repeated vandalism of my user page and a threat to start spamming RNAi-, Mello-, and University of Massachusetts-related pages with his favorite link. Today he inserted the link into the RNAi page again and also vandalized the University of Massachusetts Medical School article.

Mello and collaborator Andrew Fire were recently awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of RNAi in animals, so these are high-visibility pages at the moment, and there's only a few of us who regularly keep watch. The user account and the IPs have collectively made one edit not related to using Wikipedia as a platform for promoting one side of an ongoing dispute. Some external intervention may be necessary to keep these pages intact. Opabinia regalis 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that this guy is not at all familiar with how to use a wiki and that not all of his inappropriate user- or article-space edits are intentional vandalism; they're just inability to find the talk page. Opabinia regalis 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this is a real problem. This user has an axe to grind re: Craig Mello and appears to be involved in a law suit against this individual. He is currently using wikipedia as a platform for his agenda against this individual. Given how prominent recent Nobel prize winners are, we are talking about a serious threat of libel against wikipedia if comments from this user remain intact. Not to mention the civility issues that this user has. i.e. demanding that user Opabinia regalis is identified. This can only escalate as this user has shown very little interest in trying to understand the role of wikipedia or the role of the community. David D. (Talk) 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behaviour and indeed has been going on for a long time. I have blocked the usernames involved, and temp blocked the IPs to stop the spamming as the status of this as a current event will only make it worse. Wikipedia is not the place to post original research and legal complaints. Let me know if our spammer shows up at other IPs. pschemp | talk 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I need help with a disruptive vandal

User:Mykungfu, blocked for vandalism, 3RR violations, and just generally violating WP:POINT, has been running amok by editing via AOL IPs. His primary targets are Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and now Sigma Pi Phi, the latter of which he has reverted six times today across various IPs. He also removes sockpuppet notices from the IP pages and from his own userpage [10] with bogus edit summaries like "harrassment" or "dangerous threats." He removed a warning from one of the IP talk pages [11] related to deleting another editor's comments from an article talk page [12], and he put a racist message to another editor on my talk page [13]. He's now trying to use the protection system to lock his vandalism in place [14] and to stop all editing to those articles until he gets his way. I've gotten a little help here and there from some great admins, but I need a more comprehensive solution. I can't stop this vandal myself, especially when he avoids violating 3RR because his IP address keeps changing. I've suggested semi-protection on all articles, which would at least allow serious editors to work on the articles, but even so I'm not sure that will stop the bigger problem of Mykungfu's behavior. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can look below for such an edit. Ryūlóng 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This is getting ridiculous. I propose an indefinite block of Mykungfu/Ninjanubian and semi-protection of the affected articles. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just copy-pasted the old malformed nonsense over to WP:RFI with a new IP range. Ryūlóng 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys. His latest edits (that I can't revert because I'm at 3) are removing another sock notice [15] and continuing to delete content from Sigma Pi Phi [16] (one of the few pages he can still vandalize; my request for semi-protection is still in the queue). I think there's a racist subtext here as well, unfortunately. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics in hockey players' article titles

Over the summer, I had the misfortune of getting into a move revert spree concerning Masterhatch (talk · contribs) and the use of diacritics in hockey player's names. He was blocked for a short period of time after he went and mass moved back while I was in the middle of it. This all culminated with a requested move at Teemu Selänne which did not occur, and there has been no such guideline concerning the use of diacritics in a person's proper name, either at naming conventions nor the hockey WikiProject (there was a proposal, but it was not accepted). There should be something to do with this user and his repeated page moves when there is no real guideline or consensus either way. Ryūlóng 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus either way, but why should people be able to move an article from its original spelling to one of diacritics but when i try to move it back to its original spelling, i get called a vandal? When there is no consensus or a dispute, leave as is. I am not a vandal and the vast majority of my page moves are to their original spelling, not to my pov. Now Ryulong has enforced his pov and undid my attempts and restoring to the original spelling. If i try to fix it, i will get called a vandal. Masterhatch 06:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Outsider comment: If it's the proper spelling, why would you not want it as the article's title? And I don't see how that's POV. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There just needs to be some sort of greater consensus to all of this, and I have brought it here for that reason. There has to be an administrator who knows some hidden guideline about this. Ryūlóng 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I say leave articles at the oringal spelling until a consensus is reached. If the original article spelling used diacritics, then leave it that way. if the original spelling didn't, then don't. Diacritic spelling is not wrong and neither is non-diacrtic spelling. I am just a firm believer in "most common spelling in English for wikipedia articles". Masterhatch 06:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that argument from the RM. There is no "most common spelling in English" for these hockey players' names. Just because diacritics are omitted in, say, the newspaper doesn't mean they should be omitted on Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The commonness of a misspelling doesn't make it permissable. This isn't really a controversial thing in my book, so I don't see what the real problem is, and just because it's the original spelling doesn't make it the "best" one. I assume you wouldn't object to moving a mistyped article name to the correct sentence case, so I don't see how this is that much different. It doesn't appear to hurt anything, and is being done in the interest of correctness. You don't seem to be arguing in favor of correcting a misspelling, though, and I also don't see this as being something we need consensus for. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, that is what got me on this in the first place. the English spelling is not a "misspelling". English does not spelling English wrong. In the vast majority of cases (especially with hockey players), diacritics are dropped. and i am not just talking about the internet. i rely on reference books, atlases (for city names), other incyclopeadias, etc for my arguments. If a reputable reference book about hockey ommits diacritics, then are they "misspelling" it? i think not. they are just spelling it English. It is Ryulong's pov that all the articles should include diacritics. it is my pov that all articles should go to their original spellings until a consensus is reached. I request that Ryulong moves back all the articles to their original spelling until a consensus is reached, in good faith. And i repeat, English spelling is not wrong, just different. it is a blind pov statement to call spellings without diacritics wrong. Masterhatch 06:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But they're not the "original" spellings. They're not transliterations, they are, indeed, misspellings in the name of ease. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is your pov that the english spelling is a misspelling. some words, such as Pokémon are most commonly spelt in English with the diacritic and therefore, Pokémon, not Pokemon, is the correct title for that article. My argument is simple, the most common spelling in English is the spelling to be used for article titles. But that is not what i mean by original. When i said original earlier, i was referring to the original author's spelling of the artilce title. if the original author spelt it with diacritics, then until this dispute is finished, it should keep the diacritics. and vice versa, if the original author didn't use diacritics in the article's title, then diacritics should be left off until this dispute is resolved. That is what i was trying to do. Why was i tryiung to do that? because a few users mass moved most of the articles to include diacritics without any form of consensus while discussions were in progress. my "attempts" to set things "straight" have been thwarted by ryulong. There were about 3 users i can think of off hand who went on that moving spree without consensus. in the summer i tried to straighten things out back to the way they were and i got blocked. i am still trying to return things to back before the move dispute. Masterhatch 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what #REDIRECT [[Insert non-formatted text here]] is for. Since there is no answer to the issue, settle on one spelling and redirect the others. It's probably not worth dying over Fiddle Faddle 07:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have told him of that already, but he believes that the diacritic names should be made as redirects (which is really utterly pointless). And there has been no consensus as to where these articles should be. It was (I believe) decided that Teemu Selänne not be moved to its diacritic-less title, and there is no policy, guideline, or consensus to state anything otherwise. Just one editor moving with as much consensus as anyone else. Ryūlóng 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Teemu

you keep proudly mentioning mr. selanne as an example of a failed move attempt (which was over 50% in favour of a move btw) and you keep forgetting about Marian Gaborik, Jaromir Jagr, Jaroslav Spacek, and Quebec Nordiques. Those four articles were successfully moved while one article (again, over 50% in favour of a move) failed. My belief is simple: the mosst common spellig in English should be the one used for article titles and the policies and guidelines seem to follow me on that. Masterhatch 07:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But these names aren't originally in English. Those articles should probably be moved back to the spellings from their original language, instead of the English variants. Ryūlóng 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

haven't you been reading anything i have been typing? I dont' care about "originally in English". less than half of all english words are actually "from English". languages change over time. currently, most "foreign" words in english drop diacritics, and not just on the 'net either. the most common spelling in english from reliable sources should be used as the article's title. simple as that. Masterhatch 07:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But these are proper names that have been transcribed into English. Not names translated or even transliterated. Ryūlóng 07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, i don't see what difference that makes. We on wikipedia are still after the most common name and the name most recognisable by the layman. Basically, we are after the name that is most commonly found in reputable publications from various different sources, not just other encyclopaedias, but reference books, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, biographies, and other such publishers too. Masterhatch 07:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the proper spelling would eliminate the need to debate what the most widely accepted spelling is. I'm just going to end my tenure here with that, if that's okay. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and has no place on Wikipedia. Please see the notes at the top. — Werdna talk criticism 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume you meant on it has no place on this noticeboard, not Wikipedia, right? If so, then yes, this seems more like a content dispute. Please use dispute resolution. --physicq210 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple disruption on article Derek Acorah

After viewing this article i noticed in places it was :

1: Poorly written.

2: Unacceptly POV and Unbalanced.

3: Contained weasel words and thinly veiled attack material.

4: Links to viral videos, spam and unrelated websites.

5: Contained an entry from a dubious source (In this case, "Badpsychics.com" which has been caught editing their percieved "evidence" in an attempt to further the website's own agenda) and is hardly a source for intelligent, neutral and factual information in an online encylopedia.

NOTE : These pointers have also been brought up by past editors and users.

This was latest state of the afermentioned article BEFORE i cleaned it up...

[Acorah] Revision as of 21:56, 2 October 2006

So i decided to tidy up and neutralize this article to mirror only fact and relevant information to this individual's biography and nothing more and NOT to cheapen it and desperately attempt to attack or defamate the article's subject, nor imbed POV or pointless speculation.

Here is a snapshot of MY edit..

[Acorah] Revision as of 11:45, 3 October 2006

I later notice to see that two "editors" USER:Stevepaget & USER:Paulmoloney with similar goals to each other (seemingly to disrupt wikipedia and garner attention by polarizing articles to befit their own POV) have persistantly continued to revert my (and others) legitimate edits back to the previous states.

After i served the relevant cautions and FINALLY warnings to these culprits i discover the following bizzare and unfortunate personal attacks posted on USER:Paulmoloney user page (beneath the warnings)

• "Topov, I'm rather disappointed you were reduced to adding spurious warning to my talk page because I've been correcting your wholesale deletions of material criticising Derek Acorah. It would be far better for you to engage with other editors on the talk page there rather than degrade yourself like this."

Followed by..

• "Cowardly"

Posted on the Derek Acorah talk page.

Indeed as you can see these two editors have a problem, including understanding edit summaries and adhering to the guidelines and policies of wikipedia.

Including Disruption, Vandalism, Excessive reverts, Personal Attacks, and NPOV.

Perhaps a permanent block would suffice.

Thanks! :)

Topov 07:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deal with this on the talk page of the article (something you have been asked to do, and have not been doing), and stop removing sourced and proportionate criticism of Acorah. --ajn (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Topov seems very familiar with Wikipedia jargon for someone whose first edit was yesterday. In their first edit [17] they're reverting with proper edit summaries, "rv" abbreviation and all, eighteen minutes later they're adding (properly subst'ed) warning templates to user talk pages [18]. We're clearly dealing with some kind of prodigy here... Demiurge 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, the user can see how the page is layed out and the fact that it asks for an edit summary, and has checked the appropriate page on the subject of how to issue a warning template. I know I did when I first issued one. --Crimsone 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Street Scholar

OK, this is fairly extreme. It's not so much against any particular instance of personal attacks, but rather, the users entire attitude and refusal to accept that his views are not aligned with consensus on issues pertaining to gender/sex and insistant derogatory/offensive comments to these ends. As such, I'm proposing that this user is acting and will continue to act in a disruptive manner above and beyond that which WP:PAIN can really deal with.

Please will somebody take a look at my talk (or the talk history if he sees this and removes his comments) for details under the (somewhat provocative and offensive) section heading "Are you a Feminist?". Thanks --Crimsone 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that [19] is a bit too much. I left a warning on his talk page [20]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Lets hope it does the trick :) --Crimsone 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? I mean its odd to tell someone that they have to go against a highly publicized facet of their religion to edit this encyclopedia. While I do agree with the idea that everyone should be equal, I think we should also to some degree respect others religions and simply ask he not voice his religious views or attempt to put them on others, not that he ignore them or dismiss them so as to edit here. --NuclearUmpf 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This being the Administrator's noticeboard, I'd leave this up to the admins and direct your questions to the Village Pump. --InShaneee 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed NuclearUmpf - and that is all I would ask (and a cessation of needless hostilities perhaps). However, refraining from pushing religious views and religion on other editors doesn't constitute "going against your religion". It surely constitutes going against wiki policy and ranting offensively about it when a legitimate warning is given?Crimsone 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Utter nonsense" comment re: article about Jennipher Adkins's inventions

After taking the time to create a new article that relates to my several invention and the licensing agreement with national companies that are using the innovations, an administrator (lucky 6.9) called my entry: "Utter Nonsense." Twelve pending US patents, some with licensing agreements, and two granted pantents currently on the market (for the past 15 years!).... is utter nonsense???

When I searched my name, "Jennipher" the results were that of Jennipher Frost, a model search contestant who was upset about cutting her waist length hair.

Pardon me for trying to contribute "Utter Nonsense" to your "encyclopedia".

"Jennipher Adkins"

As you have given no information (such as an article page or a diff) to look at, I know very little about this. I suspect though that the issue may be one relating too WP:V, rather than having some kind of personal intent behind it --Crimsone 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Found and userfied: User:Jennycapp/Jennipher adkins. Thatcher131 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that she's berating us about inclusion of one of America's next top models because we won't include mention of her scrunchie. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it amusing that if I didn't know what a "scrunchie" was, from its context in your post I'd be tempted to assume it was part of her body. (Now excuse me while I go scrub up my my mind. :-) -- llywrch 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yolanda82

I have blocked this user, based on his/her edit history as being a sockpuppet of indefblocked User:Wiki brah. See Special:Contributions/Yolanda82 for further information. It's likely that Wiki brah took the desysoping of the blocking admin as an indication that it was now acceptable to edit again. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Defamation in Colegio San José

In Colegio San José, new user Elturey defamed someone in this revision: [21]. Could someone delete this revision? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Vision Thing

With thewolfstar gone and Hogeye out the door after him, Vision Thing appears to have decided it's now his job to wreck the Anarchism page with POV updates, refuse to properly discuss issues or do anything else (see here: [22]]). This is ridiculous. Donnacha 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Arisch

I just received the following email, apparently from User:Arisch. Here is the email, verbatim. If anyone needs to see headers, I can provide them. Please feel free contact me on my user talk page if you need my attention. (The "*?*" would have been added by my filter, which identified this as possible spam.)

From:	  Arisch <inflames666_ @t hotmail d0t com>   
To:	 Jmabel <jmabel @t speakeasy d0t org>
Cc:	
Date:	 Wednesday, October 04, 2006 08:07 am
Subject:	 *?* You're such a typical Jew.

You criticize everything but when fact is thrown in your face you shut up quick. 
I would really like to know just exactly how my comments were, "racist"? Of course, 
I've already emailed you explaining to you that what I had pointed out was fact, 
and facts cannot be racist. It really disappoints me to learn that even on the net 
we don't have freedom of speech anymore. And it's all thanks to shill spewing kikes 
like you.

I looked at WP:PAIN and it appears to require that several warnings be given before taking action. I would presume that the preceding is egregious enough that warnings should not be necessary, so I've come here in hopes of short-circuiting that process. I can say without qualification that if this had been directed at someone else, I would block either for a year or indefinitely. I would hope someone else will do the same.

At first I honestly didn't have any idea what provoked this: I edit about 50-100 articles a day, so it could have been almost anything. But I looked through his (sparse) edits and found it. I had reverted this. In part it reads "members of the Ku Klux Klan who masked their identity and used "terror" to protect themselves from marauding African Americans who, angry and resentful about slavery, wished to exact revenge on their former owners by murdering them and raping their women." It goes on, similarly.

After reverting I wrote on his talk page "Normally, I make a lot of allowances for new users, and I try to welcome them, and so on. I don't usually 'bite the newbies', but your racist remarks added to White Terror as your sole edits to date put you in a category all your own. I imagine you intended this as a throwaway account; so be it. One more edit like that and you won't have a choice in the matter." In the circumstances, I think that was rather restrained. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the email addresses to prevent spam harvesting. Naconkantari 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I posted this hours ago, and no one has responded. Apparently I can't even get this discussed. Either no one (except Nacon, who I believe is not an administrator) is reading this page (unlikely), or no other adminstrator thinks this user's conduct is a serious problem (unlikely, I hope), or everybody is deciding it is someone else's problem. And, as the person attacked, I am the one administrator barred from blocking him.

I'll put this bluntly: I will make a note of this matter on my user page and user talk page so that it is clear to people why I am gone for an indefinite period. If this person's conduct is considered anything like acceptable, then, much to my surprise and regret, I have been mistaken this last few years about my belonging in the Wikipedia community. If someone wants to deal with this, fine, then, I will gladly come back: leave me a note. I'll at least check my user talk page daily for a while, or you can feel free to email me. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Balz WBF

User:Balz WBF has done nothing but cause trouble on this encylcopedia. The user has only used wikipedia as a social networking/chat site. The user's contributions, [23] have also only been to talk pages, where the user has simply made insults or chitchat and the like: [24] , [25]. The user has also been asked to stop several times (by me and others, see:User talk:Balz WBF) and has responded in such manner: [26] . The user also bears a startling similarity to User:JG55[27][28], who has been blocked before and has used wikipedia similarly [29] and writes in a similar style. --huntersquid <°)))>< ^{Calamari Cove} 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an pretty obvious sock, but i've made a 24hr blocked based on their incivil comments. Thanks/wangi 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps at it after the 24 hours is up, request a checkuser and get the socks taken care of. pschemp | talk 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Monitoring permabanned users who continue to make (bad) edits using socks or anons?

Hi, I am here in part to report a small incident of vandalism by a permabanned user editing as an anon, but mostly to make a suggestion relevant to the things you guys often have to discuss on this page.

My reading of various policy pages is that

1. permabanned users are not supposed to create socks and continue as before,
2. they are not supposed to edit anonymously, although this is harder to control (but see the cited page for evidence that this particular permabanned user is easy to spot even as an anon)
3. to further the mission of the encyclopedia, users in good standing are allowed to keep notes listing relevant links as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes
4. a permabanned user who is being tracked at such a page is certainly not supposed to vandalize them.

KraMuc has repeatedly violated all of the above, most recently at my page of notes User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc.

I propose that some place be found in Wikipedia space to keep notes like this under admin lock and key. My idea is that ordinary users can still create such notes as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes, but if admins agree the subject really is a problem user (probably a no-brainer in the case of permabanned user!), they can be moved (or copied) to the new location, protected, and thereafter maintained by admins. Perhaps a template could even be devised, probably following the model of that page more or less closely, to help standardize the layout.

The point is that this would avoid the kind of vandalism we see in the history of User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc. This would also shift the "moral responsibility" for a troubling activity (monitoring activities of other users) to the larger community (kind of like: in a civilized community, citizens shouldn't lay hands upon each other, but we make reluctant and carefully regulated exceptions for cops, firemen, and medical personnel).

(An aside about this particular page of notes: even before Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes came out, on the basis of common decency and common sense, I consistently made an effort to stick to the facts in these pages. I've actually noted in my partial reversions some of the points he wanted to make, but KraMuc has been ignoring the header of the page in question. However, now he's just repeating himself, and he certainly feels no compunction about violating WP:CIV by ignoring the header.)

Comments? ---CH 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arghoslent

Someone care to close this? I decided several days ago to participate in it instead of closing it. Grandmasterka 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it. Thanks/wangi 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism by 212.82.169.11, but NOT within the last 24 hours

212.82.169.11 keeps adding irrelevant information and personal, verbal abuse e.g. "Christian is Gay". He's been appropriately warned twice before, but after a break he continues as before. Obvious vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acid_rain&diff=prev&oldid=22902627 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223187 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223252 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave&diff=prev&oldid=24223494 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223566 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=30704097 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway&diff=prev&oldid=70934869 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuy_%28province%29&diff=prev&oldid=70939052 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466363 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466423 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466531 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466612 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466794

Possible "well meaning contributions", but most probably meant as vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24223816 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24223926 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24224014

This I don't understand...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=30704063

With best regards 84.209.218.120 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edit was on the 29th of September, only about 20 edits in total. If the user returns and vandalises then please add the appropriate tag to their talk page, leading eventually to WP:AIV if they persist, see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info. Thanks/wangi 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Durham

The creator of the article, User:Michael Woods, closed the Afd early and posed as User:Mailer Diablo when he closed it. Does this warrant any warning or block of some sort? T REX_speak 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari gave him his only warning. The nominator later withdrew his nomation, and I closed the AfD. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)