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

COI editing on Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

The main editors to these pages are admitted employees/devotees of Maharishi, who is the originator and marketer of Transcendental Meditation. Recently, two RfCs have been lodged requesting additional non-TM editors evaluate the pages for NPOV and COI concerns. The TM editors are closely allied in their edits, and are most vocal in refusing any large changes to the article (some edit-warring on this took place yesterday - so TM is now protected). They also are insistent that their conflicts-of-interest should not dis-qualify them from being the main editors to the page, and seem to mis-understand consensus and neutral-point-of-view. One editor in particular, User:TimidGuy, has said that anyone who thinks he shouldn't edit the page should lodge a complaint with ArbCom. ArbCom shouldn't really be bothered by this, but the talk page posts approach flaming levels, so could someone please take a look at these editors and decide what is indicated?

The relevant accounts are User:TimidGuy, User:Littleolive oil, and User:Spairag, although the last hasn't been very active recently. Based on their edit histories, I would put all three right on the edge of being single-purpose accounts Michaelbusch (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about this topic but I did take a quick look at this. There's more to the story. There's an obvious edit war going on or User:Ryan Postlethwaite would not have just fully page protected it two days ago. It's also obvious that editors on the other side of the coin are User:Naturezak and User:Dseer, who just got a civility warning from Jossi, which Dseer deleted as "spam", see [1]. I don't know what's going on here, but I do know a more thorough investigation is warranted. For now, I say keep the full page protection, have the editors peaceably settle it on the talk page-hopefully, and neutral admins and editors take a deeper look. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that peaceful settlement is unlikely - the COI editing is a long running problem going back at least a year. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable dis-content with the current article, outside of the TM editing block - that much may be stated with certainty. Dseer apparently has a great dislike of Jossi (see my talk page), which perhaps explains that particular problem. My reading of the situation is that the fire of the current objections will eventually die down, but unless some remedy is applied, the COI editing will continue indefinitely. I have several times asked the TM editors to stand down from the articles and allow comprehensive rewrites, but they refuse - and do not seem to appreciate the nature of the problem. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue been before mediation and also COI twice already in the last year and a subject of repeated edit warring with no resolution or enforcement for NPOV, article ownership or compliance with COI Noticeboard determination that TMers have COI. Any issues with my edit should not derail the train. It is not cool heads that are required anymore, it is someone to take control and if need be enforce all policies evenly, or if you can't do this, it needs to go to Arbcom. Jossi has strong opinions on NRM/Cults and supporters and critics, and selectively enforced his opinion on civility without also acknowledging the context, and that the Civility policy itself says that NPOV comes first, then civility. I have asked Jossi to seriously consider defering to Admins who have no interest either way in cults (he considers that trolling), and I'd prefer one who can recognize fringe claims, POV, COI. article ownership and information suppression for what it is, civil or not. --Dseer (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this thread gets archived, could someone please review the matter? I'd rather not have to repeat this when the protection on the page expires. Michaelbusch 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Recurrent IP editing on Missouri road articles

An anonymous editor (most recently 12.74.143.212, others presumably within the same IP range) has repeatedly made edits to the articles on Interstates in Missouri (see history of I-70 in Missouri [2] for an example), generally editing against the Manual of Style and the exit list style guide by changing directions in the articles' exit list to all caps. The IP also usually signs the end of the article. Numerous attempts to reach the IP editor through talk pages and inline HTML comments, like on Missouri Route 370, have failed. This led to the interstate articles being semi-protected, but the editor has branched out to unprotected state route articles [3] and even non-road articles [4][5]. Calling it 'vandalism' doesn't seem quite right, but at this point it seems that they're willfully editing against policy - would like others' opinions on what should be done. —Scott5114↗ 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of some of the IP addresses involved. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've soft blocked the range 12.74.128.0/19 for two weeks; hopefully this will be enough to get him to stop. --krimpet⟲ 02:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Circumvention of a block by User:The King of Clay

User:The King of Clay was recently blocked on 23 November, 2007 for one week. Today, a new account was created called User:The King of Clay V2.0. I suspect this is the same person attempting to circumvent the block, as also today, an attenpt was made to add User:The King of Clay as a new participant to The Cheshire WikiProject, although it was User:The King of Clay V2.0 who added it. I think this is an attempt to circumvent the block. Could someone look into it?

I also wonder what should be done about the added name to the Cheshire WikiProject. My initial thoughts are that, regardless of the first matter, it should be removed, as the addition is not the i.d. of the editor who added it. Whether trhis would then result in some action against User:The King of Clay V2.0 would also seem to be independent of the first matter, although of course it may be superceded by what is done about the first matter. I would welcome thoughts about this and action of a friendly administrator if required.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note User:The King of Clay was actually blocked on the 23rd.—Random832 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok update: After a quick chat with someone, I removed the attempt to add The king of Clay to the Cheshire WikiProject stating that it was not that user who made the edit. I still the other issue needs some attention, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:The King of Clay V2.0 indefinitely. Leaving it to someone else to evaluate whether User:The King of Clay's block should be extended, since this could hypothetically be someone else trying to make him look bad (the 5-day gap seems strange) and I haven't looked at the contributions in depth.—Random832 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some overlap of contribution areas, needs an admin to review style issues. Preferrably one who knows something about British independent bands ... which definitely is not me. GRBerry 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A CU would remove doubt if the two underlying ip's were sufficiently different, as would a clear positive if they are the same. A maybe leaves us back to here. My doubts would be in the matter that a soon to be expired block risks being extended for a) no real purpose, and b) via a fairly obvious alternate username... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty apparent that it's a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. As long as the account is indefblocked, I don't see any real reason to extend the original block - blocks aren't punitive, they're around to prevent damage. Nevertheless, it would be a plan to watch the original user's contributions when he gets unblocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cobain conspiracy theory

I have been warning Jason2520 (talk · contribs) about his edits to Courtney Love. He is stating that there is legitimate debate over the cause of Kurt Cobain's death and whether or not the suicide note read by Love was real. As per WP:NPOV, I believe it is inappropriate to give such emphasis to a conspiracy theory held by an extreme minority of people and I have warned the user to please find a reliable source if he insists on continuing to change the wording. If he continues, I will have to block the user. Does anyone disagree with my interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V? Note that the user has noted that there may be WP:BLP issues, though I think if so, they are on his side. --Yamla (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion of this very issue several days ago, I think, either here or on BLP. Does anyone have a link for context? They are public figures and the dispute is real, even if not legitimate. Probably worth covering as a conspiracy theory but not for the truth value of the assertions, and not on Courtney Love's page. I think that's more of a BLP issue (on his side, yes) than an NPOV issue, but the weight is a problem too. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was at BLP; I remember seeing it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that an account that lay inactive for 15 months arrives on the heels of User:Cobaincase's (since blocked, along with a vandal account) attempts to insert similar allegations into the Love article. Tarc 17:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And there he goes, folks;

• You people are absolute fucking morons
• are you people brain damaged?
• vandalizing chickpeaface's page
• blanking a page that that user created
• profane response on his own talk page

Tarc 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive suggestions

I'm aware that flaming, vituperation, and WP:POINT are the order of the day after the Durova mess. But it's hard to see how the next to last paragraph of this[6] is helpful to anyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, that is largely a copy of a post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Everyone else, that was somewhat endorsed by at least one Arbitrator (same page, prior section). I recommend a higher thought/keystroke ratio. GRBerry 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, we're now endorsing the public re-posting of private Wikipedia related correspondence? Just trying to get this straight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RA, I think posting to a blog site, so it can be "legally" quoted here is clearly against the spirit of the policy. However, perhaps, rather than condemning the page (or Giano's methods) the committee members should consider the motivation driving that page (and Giano's actions).

What hole in the dam are people trying to plug? To me, it appears to be a sincere effort (however misguided the current wording) to fix something that is at least perceived as being broken.

Some people have claimed that Durova would have gone to arbitration regardless of Giano... yet others firmly believe that DurovaGate would have been swept away and hushed.

Regardless of which would have happened (since we'll never know), perception is reality. Confidence in the system has been shattered, or at least soundly shaken. Whether or not Durova had permission to communicate to the committee, she claims that (at least some) members received her email. A good start toward repairing that faith would be for those members to come forward and said "oops". This would be some small step in the right direction to restore confidence in the leadership that is supposed to be overseeing the sailing of this ship.

There may not be a cabal, but as long as the perception exists so does the cabal. Lsi john (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But only so long as it isn't done on Wikipedia, because somehow it is better to do it elsewhere than on Wikipedia. I believe in transparency, but I can't see why it is better to air our dirty laundry on the neighbor's lawn than our own. It is being gradually edited out. More thought, fewer keystrokes, especially in dramastorms. GRBerry 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly stuff. Are we endorsing it? Well, if we're locked into silly false dichotomies, sure. If we're not locked into binaries, then we're endorsing whistle blowing and the demystification of an attempted block without transparency, and we encourage people to keep e-mail private, while recognizing that retreating to e-mail is no way to conduct Wikipedia business without responsibility. How's that? Geogre (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible, I'd say. How do we "encourage people to keep e-mail private" by saying it's OK to post private correspondence on your own web page, or to splatter it across public forums? There's got to be a sensible middle ground between keeping everything top-secret and saying anything goes (except, ironically, posting Wikipedia-related email on Wikipedia itself). I note that the proposed guideline is in a state of flux and may yet come to a sensible conclusion. All concerned should keep in mind the principle that hard cases make bad law. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And horror vacui. (see above, arbcom has unfinished business). Lsi john (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we say, "Keep e-mail private. Keep identities secret." However, we also acknowledge that e-mail is no justification for any action on Wikipedia unless that e-mail is part of Wikipedia record. There: I never wanted to try to specify anything, but that would do. You want to e-mail me to tell me I'm a dork? Ok. You want to e-mail me to tell me you're going to block me? Well, then that, if you haven't rationalized it on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia, and you should expect me to make it public in the absence of your having done so. If you block me and say, "per my secret e-mail to super respected people and Jimbo," then you'd best expect someone to post it, if you don't provide an accurate and complete summary. Don't use e-mail to justify on-wiki actions, and then no one should reveal any of your e-mail. Don't use irc to justify or perform Wikipedia actions, and no one will post a log. Try to rationalize, motivate, or hide Wikipedia actions in these ways, and you abrogate the expectation of privacy. Geogre (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting concept indeed. "If the author mentions the e-mail in any way which is used to justify an on-wiki action, it will be construed to be waiving any right of privacy to said email (or IRC log) and as such anyone may post it in full. Lsi john (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd endorse this specific simplification of the issue, but I agree that as a general principle it should not be permissible to say both 1) "you may not question my evidence" and 2) "you may not see my evidence". So far as policy goes, it ought to reflect that saying 1 forecloses your right to insist on 2, even (perhaps, especially) if you come up with an interpretation of policy that says this is not so. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's one of the silliest ideas I've seen in a long time. Not only is it an open invitaiton to gaming, you could drive a coach and horses through it. Even if we applied a need-to-know basis, Giano's edit fail, because the arbitrators already had the email. This guideline was written to enable people to satisfy prurient interests, not to protect the project. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, a free speech zone. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. A balance needs to be struck that all can agree on. Carcharoth 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Right. And the balance here is that you can mail it to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• There really ought to be some guidelines somewhere for non-insiders on how to appropriately make use of information from private correspondence. Saying here, "just email it to Arbcom" doesn't solve the problem. Also, the actual text of a message may not be its primary import. If, for example, someone writes you to say that they are not the same person as someone making a particular IP edit and the long headers or other software for tracking IP addresses used in email correspondence shows that your correspondent is using that very IP, the long headers or other ancillary IP indicators are the substanive part of the communication. --Pleasantville 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  My gut feeling on that situation would be "email it to any checkuser" - they're the ones in the position to decide whether it is appropriate to publicly reveal the connection between an IP address and a username.—Random832 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  But again, easily available guidelines are called for. --Pleasantville 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (Also, I don't think your check-user analysis is correct, as even IP editors can tag an IP as a suspected sock puppet.) --Pleasantville 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

← To be clear here, I was referring to this version. As written now it is a statement of existing policy as underscored by ArbCom rulings, so I have no problem with it. Encouraging people to publish private data anywhere is an extraordinarily bad idea for which we have no obvious need - there is no evidence that ArbCom has failed to act on credible evidence supplied by email, and inviting people to publish widely if a claim is dismissed as baseless is not really a very good idea. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at a set of Israeli/Palestinian articles; admins please review my action

Due to edit warring on List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and its new fork List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, I have protected both pages for a week, each undoubtedly on the m:wrong version. Discussion seems to primarily have been at Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, as that is the older article. Can other admins from outside this conflict area review and decide if there is a better way to handle this, perhaps by awarding blocks to some of the editors? Thanks. GRBerry 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, they are both fork/splits of List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada, last discussed at AFD in September. Somewhere along the line that got moved to List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada. Israeli looks older because that is where the original article has been moved; but both are forks. GRBerry 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When I arrived at the discussion, in early Nov, the title was List of massacres during the Second Intifada; it was tightly titled to include every suicide bombing during the period, The title construction was such that it only covered one side of the bloodshed. What ever ‘it’ was, it was fact and commonly understood from normal media sources. It had survived two AfDs; it was also quite easily ‘listable’. The ensuing title changes resulted from discussion to remove the emotive word ‘massacre’ and an attempt to cover death on both sides. That was, from what I saw, a positive evolution, except the Palestinian deaths are not in an easily listable format, because there are many methods of death and it is a very, very long list that is ’’’not’’’ commonly understood from normal media sources. Your admin action cut this process off at the knees. Fact: Palestinian deaths are nearly five times greater than Israeli deaths, and there is no article that deals with that except here, buried in the top right info block and argued throughout the ‘Casualties’ section. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that this article has been split in two, the resulting articles have just become pissing contests over death tolls. You're never going to have settlement here; the previous article survived AfD because at least it presented attacks on/by both sides; I'd suggest sending both articles back to AfD. If the incidents are notable enough they have got their own articles already. ELIMINATORJR 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you are right there; it started as soon as the consensus started to populate the companion list. The development of consensus took a month. But a new AfD isn’t the way to go, because they will both survive, trust me. They will argue the same points; my point has been that the common denomator is body count and the wikiperfect article should take that view. With the state of the Wiki-world as it is, that wiki-perfect article can't presently be written, so the POV fork was chosen and now there are two. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see how an AfD is a solution. Ideally, the list would have been one, not two, but since some people keep deleting Palestinian civilian deaths from the list using the argument that they are somehow not on the same level as Israeli deaths, the separation seemed necessary. I have found compiling the list useful in determining where new articles are needed. For example, I just created Iyman Hams by researching for the list article. What's wrong with making a list of casualties? Wikipedia is not paper. Tiamut 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is more whether having these lists is worth the effort of the resulting edit-wars which can be seen in their histories. ELIMINATORJR 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that seeking an answer to that question when the two article compromise proposed by the AfD on the one list has barely been in effect for a day is a little premature. Why not give it a little time to see if the separation allows for things to simmer down? The new article List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was a little less active (as regards to edit-warrining, that is) than the other. People still need time to digest the split and new naming scheme. Tiamut 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely premature. My very brief experience suggests that the proper action at this point is to lock out the filibusterer and his attached camera crew, not shut down progress. Time is required to build something honest and robust (i.e. NPOV); WP:AGF isn’t there. It only took God seven days to create the universe; mere mortals need at least a month to honestly build and defend an NPOV description of what has happened in the Holy Land. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that some the delete voters from the last afd (there's actually been two afds) are outraged that it was kept, and have been disrupting the article ever since. The only options they appear to be able to accept is to either redefine it as a completely different list (deletion by other means) or create POV forks. Ironically, this was the objection to it at the afd because of a lack of massacres by the Israel Defense Forces on the list. They fervently believe that the IDF has committed massacres, however, they're having trouble finding RS support that the IDF actually targeted the civilians. Unlike the list that this one appears to have been modeled on, List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the restricted to incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately "bar" has been dropped to allow terrorist attacks by Israelis such as this. Apparently that still isn't good enough, so now we have this clear violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Posts like Armon's above are not a description of the problem, but a primary cause of it.--G-Dett 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what other people did or didn’t do; I don’t give a fork, but suggest that a fork is, in fact, necessary at this juncture. I dont think ‘they‘ were outraged, severely miffed maybe, because the original article was such an un-Wiki path to start with; the article was not deleted because it was, in fact, true and defensible; but it also absolutely required a companion article, which was immediately warred upon. I accept that the effect of what appears to have happened can honestly be considered a ‘deletion by other means’, but note that if the originial article hadn’t been engineered and defended specifically to include only one side, it wouldn’t have been such a problem. This is the fault of its creators, not its complainers (which constitute the consensus). Concerning ‘their’ belief that the IDF has committed massacres, I can reasonably say that they have the RSs, that in fact, dispute what you fervently hope and apparently believe. To put it in a more specific topical light, I believe the term ‘zealous’ might be better. Concerning a similar 1948 list upon which this article is somehow supposed to have been based, I will note that 1948 is sufficient time to allow reasonableness; but 2000 to 2006 is insufficient time to allow this to happen. Simply put, 1948 is history; 2000 to 2006 is current events. Also, there is no way to simply and equitably compare ‘listable’ big blasts with an un-listable endless stream of single bullets that have created a much higher total body count. I honestly believe and hope that the WP:Point to be considered by Wiki-Admin is the total body count, not the side that is sufficiently and regularly covered by normal media sources. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Tiamut that the conflict should given time to sort itself out, since the split is very recent. I also concur with the protection by GRBerry, always wise. If the discussion cannot sort itself out of the talk pages after a few days, we can proceed from there. I'll look over the history, to see if blocks are warranted, but I'd suggest a little laxness, since the split was initially bound to cause some upset; I don't believe this necessarily reflects the probability of long-term success. At least the discussion has moved forward to trying this new approach -- that's progress. Xoloz (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments come from your previous involvement. I appreciate that. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know if I want to be here, but there are mis-understandings and mis-statements above this line that should be corrected or maybe be re-examined. Not knowing better, I have made specific comments above where they can be best understood. I have been in the discussion for a month. You don’t know me from Adam, I’m a newbie; so, read my posts, it might be helpful and I believe that my views generally represent the consensus. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me wipe some of the spittle from my monitor and unclench my little fists long enough to type an explanation for my "outrage". The list was variously as a list of massacres, mass murders, attacks, or attacks on civilians, but it was always constructed as a list of Israeli casualties only. According to Armon, Tewfik, and one or two others, this is merely an incidental result of the fact that Palestinians target civilians, while the IDF doesn't. Or something like that - because the goalposts kept changing. First it was about massacres, until it was acknowledged that "massacre" is a term of moral outrage with no firm definition. Then it was about attacks on civilians, until it was shown that reliable sources describe plenty of Israeli actions as collective punishment of civilians, attacks on civilian infrastructure, failure to distinguish between civilians and militants, enforcement of curfews and closures with machine-gun fire first and questions never, conducting a major offensive "as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians", "confirming the kill" of a thirteen-year-old girl with an M-16 at point-blank range, and in at least one case, the deliberate demolition of a busy apartment block with a thousand-kilo bomb. Then the new standard, apparently, became attacks on civilians clearly intended to kill as many civilians as possible with no other target, purpose, or rationale. The distinction, then, became one of intent, a nebulous and inherently unverifiable concept. And of course, no citations were ever provided to show that Palestinian atrocities were intended solely as random killings with no other rationale; it was always assumed that Palestinian actions were intended thus, and it was always assumed that IDF actions were security measures with unfortunate unintended consequences. In other words, the declared standard was a smokescreen; the actual standard was purely partisan-nationalist.

The second AfD was closed with the finding that the selection criteria were problematic but the information itself was valid, and a recommendation to fork the list into Israeli and Palestinian casualties. The question of whether such a fork was admissible was considered; it was determined that a dispassionate listing of events, divided "for reasons of economy" by national affiliation was OK. This solution was not implemented, and some time later edit-war began over the inclusion of Palestinian "massacres". I requested page protection (strange way to get it deleted...) and suggested we "simply move the page to List of attacks against Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada and drop the pretenses", a suggestion which won support from all but one party to the edit war. Tewfik and Armon started by mis-representing the closing admin's decision, describing move proposals as equivalent to deletion, and trying an Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid-style slight-of-hand based on an entirely different article listing atrocities in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. So here we are.

Not since, well, the last Israeli/Palestinian WikiWar have I participated in such an inane, hostile discussion. Armon and Tewfik simply ignored everything we said ("we" being both the alleged "delete faction" and a variety of editors not involved in the AfD, including people who disagree with the "delete faction" on a number of substantive points), complained about "incivility" (ie, calling them on their bullshit), and endlessly trolled. Repeatedly, they insisted that a list with the exact same information was a "completely different list" (see above) if it didn't take their preferred didactic, soapboxing approach. At one point, Tewfik tried a "gotcha" with a point that G-Dett and I had explicitly acknowledged several times before, indicating that he hadn't even read the discussion he was involved in. And as usual, Jaakobou was incomprehensible.

Now, I don't know what Tewfik, Armon, and Jaakobou contribute to the Wikipedia overall, but every time I see them they're tag-teaming to blank information that's unflattering to Israel, or disrupting discussions with tendentious soapboxing about the moral and political nature of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. It's not my place to draw the line between a good-faith dispute and unacceptable disruption, but somebody needs to draw that line eventually. <eleland/talkedits> 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For a thorough, pithy, and precise summary of the situation Eleland's post can't be improved on. I would only add the minor caveat that this isn't the usual Israel-Palestine wikiwar with partisan camps editing in lockstep. Notwithstanding a wide range of opinion and ideological orientation among the dozen-some involved editors, the goal of all but two has been common: to find a way to maximize the organizational benefits of a list while minimizing the stimulus for pissing contests and edit wars. This means clear definitional criteria about which RSs are in unison. There is no definitional criteria more divisive among RSs writing on the I-P conflict than that of what constitutes an "attack on civilians." Suicide bombings are a no-brainer, obviously, but there are heated divisions among RSs about Israeli attacks. This RS-debate is far-ranging and complicated. For some writers, an "attack on civilians" by definition means deliberate targeting of civilians qua civilians; for others this is not the case at all. Most of us are trying to propose solutions that avoid this fault-line among the RSs; the proposals have included (i) a single list with the less contested formulation "attacks involving civilians," (ii) separate lists with subtly different titles reflecting the RS-consensus on one side of the ledger and the RS divisions on the other, that is, "attacks on Israeli civilians" vs. "attacks involving Palestinian civilians," and (iii) a single list with different sections and/or disclaimers about the RS-disputes over criteria. With such proposals on the table and a shared goal of maximizing usefulness and minimizing controversy, we've made progress toward consensus, progress both concrete and rhetorical. This progress has been squarely opposed by Armon and Tewfik, who want exactly the opposite result; that is to say, they want the list's criteria built directly on the RS-fault-line referred to above. In this way they hope to use Wikipedia to foreclose a debate which is wide open among reliable sources, a debate centered on questions like these: Do Israel's military operations in crowded residential areas of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including missile attacks by helicopter gunships, bombing by F16s, and heavy shelling and demolition by armored tanks and bulldozers, constitute attacks on civilians? Or are attacks on civilians by definition only those attacks that have no strategic military objective? At what level of indiscriminateness in the use of lethal force, at what kill ratio of civilians-to-militants, does "collateral damage" cease to be collateral? Is Israel's attitude toward Palestinian civilian casualties influenced by its belief in the legitimacy of collective punishment? Can "intent" be determined definitively, and is it an appropriate way of adjudicating responsibility for civilian deaths? Armon and Tewfik want Wikipedia to agree – in its official encyclopedic voice – with those RSs whose answers to the five questions above are no, yes, never, no, and yes; who say the IDF never "attacks civilians," no matter how many it kills and no matter excessive and indiscriminate the use of lethal force, because those killings may be wanton but aren't "deliberate." Any RS describing IDF attacks as "attacks on civilians" is instantly set upon by a kind of Orwellian octopus of wikilawyering, inventing ambiguities where none exist. They are both currently arguing, for instance, that a Human Rights Watch report about "Armed Attacks on Civilians" can't be used because it isn't clear that Human Rights Watch regards the contents of its report on "Armed Attacks on Civilians" as constituting attacks on civilians. No, I'm not kidding. The reason they're twisting themselves into this logical and semantic pretzel, instead of merely citing one of the many sources who contest HRW's definition of "attacks on civilians," is that Armon and Tewfik can't admit that there is any RS-debate at all about this question. Why not? Because to do so would mean throwing into question the editorial wisdom of building list-criteria along a fault-line of heated RS-division in the first place. They have to pretend that the debate doesn't exist, in other words, precisely so that they can use Wikipedia to settle it in their favor.

The most important thing for fair-minded outsiders to realize is this: no matter how vexatious, heated, and toxic this RS-fault-line about responsibility and intent in the killing of civilians is, it needn't stymie us in the least, because we don't needn't straddle it – or even go anywhere near it – to make helpful and effective lists on the subject at hand. The last thing a list should be doing is trying to settle thorny issues of intent. Indeed, it doesn't improve things for the reader one jot to do so: the reader will benefit from having major attacks grouped together in overview, for quick reference, not by having the moral status of those attacks evaluated and determined for him by Wikipedians. Armon and Tewfik want to do this because they have an argument to make, about comparative infamy in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they want to use WP to make it. But for those of us for whom the reader's interest in having well-organized information at his fingertips is more important than the editor 's 'right' to make ethical conclusions and shape content accordingly, there are any number of satisfactory ways to resolve this impasse.--G-Dett 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia issues on South Park articles

Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III are getting out of hand. Each episode features many references to characters, so massive lists are on the articles. Anytime they get removed, they are re-added for no good reason. A poll is on the talk page: which is a joke, and basically full of editors that don't know policies on trivia and cluttered lists. Can anyone help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections on "allusions" are valid, even if the content will need to be trimmed. The charcters lists should not be included and I have removed them. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the "allusions" sections and leave an HTML comment about sourcing, though I expect to be reverted by cruft-pushin fanatics... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections on allusions aren't valid. What sources are they citing? Someone sitting down, watching the episode and drawing his or her own logical conclusions is original research. Articles need to site secondary sources. A Train^talk 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As predicted: they were re-added back. However, it was only on Imaginationland so far. What else can we do about this? I requested page protection the other day, but it was declined. These fanatics simply wont stop, unlesss something harsh is done in my view. RobJ1981 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the proactive step of removing the allusions section to the article Discussion page, with a caveat that once reliably and notably sourced, they can be re-added. Anyone can revert additions of uncited allusions and refer the contributor to the discussion page, where such debate really belongs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As an update: the page is protected now. Hopefully this can be resolved. But I can imagine people will use the same old "the talk page consensus" as an excuse for listing all that cluttered fancruft trivia. RobJ1981 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous but heated (wheel) war at Wikipedia:Classification of administrators by name

This was protected following serious wars, but, as one can see, this has not abated. I think a lengthy discussion is now needed. It really is ridiculous: a war over whether a "category" is insulting. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewards are being flagged down right now. east.718 at 08:38, November 30, 2007

Please don't. And if a steward has been contacted and sees my message, please have the sense to not desysop anyone. Everyone involved with that page just needs to cool down; a desysopping would be counterproductive, as it would ignite even more conflict. --Iamunknown 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is possibly the lamest edit war I have seen on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 08:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only echo that. This is completely ridiculous - admins should definitely know better than to engage in utterly silly conflicts like this. henrik•talk 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous - Alison ^❤ 08:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an image of a large scottish man in my head screaming "ARE YE DAFT MAN!!!!". ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear God. I second Swatjester's comments. Save us. Pedro :  Chat  09:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a google images search for a "big hairy scottish man" to photoshop and it yielded gay porn :( Viridae^Talk 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it looks like Jc37 (talk · contribs) and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) have been reverting each other over some section headings? Abtract (talk · contribs) moved the page to "Classification of users by name," saying "it should be open to all;" the move was reverted by Jc37, who justified this by saying that only admins should be adding themselves. As far as I can tell, Jc37 protected to their own preferred version on two fronts, and then they and Mikkalai continued reverting back and forth on the protected page (both being admins). Why on earth is this such a big deal to everybody that they're wasting admin tools like this? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anyone de-sysopped here, but fully protecting something that only admins were interested in at the time is pointless in itself any way. Lame? Beyond Lame. Also, there was no category to put myself in, so I feel very put out :) Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You could put yourself in the "Boring" category, so long as you're not insulted by it... Gracenotes^T § 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! see my ec'd comment below! Yes - boring I must be! Is there a kill joy category? Pedro :  Chat  09:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a bloody "Neopian" category...sad, since otherplaces my moniker is the Neopian Doppelganger (hence the Kacheek emote in my sig). -Jéské ^{(Blah v-_-v)} 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a pointless page (and not even funny), it begat an even worse wheel war. This is the shit WP:LAME thrives on. Really. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was as a result of highlighting this page to admins that respected editor in good standing User:Jreferee ended up with a 15 minute block, that also proved contentious (see here). Much as I love WP:COMMUNITY if this is going to cause so much grief, wheel warring and "mis-use" of admin tools it may be better to take it to WP:MFD, sadly. It's just a bit of fun but we can't have this. Shame. Pedro :  Chat  09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD? It came from userspace, so why not just put it back there? Carcharoth (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow guys edit warring on a humourous, and protected page?... Seriously if you're not even able to abide with the policies you are enforcing, it might be a good time to reconsider your involvement... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note. I've advised Jc37 (talk · contribs) and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) of this thread, as no-one seems to have let them know yet. Pedro :  Chat  09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I was unaware of it.

I did some counting earlier, and I don't think either of us went past 3RR, since it involved different sections. (and I'll freely admit to sleeping in between some edits.)

That said, I attempted to discuss this with the user (as did others) here, at their talk page (now archived), noting that as the admins in question are adding themselves (one such admin reverted the user's removal), they should be allowed the capacity to decide what they feel is "insulting" to themselves. I also dropped a note on Radiant!'s talk page (since, at the time, it was a subpage of his userpage).

Slim Virgin may have crossed the line slightly [7], and though I honestly think she did so with humour (and was supported by at least one person), I did comment about it at her talk page as well.

And in hindsight it dawned on me that I could resolve the user's issues if we just protected the page so that admins could be the only ones to edit. That way her concerns of potential "vandalism" would be unwarranted. That's been/being discussed on that page's talk page.

And finally, I don't have a "preferred version", except to let the admins decide for themselves : )

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by involved party which is Mikkalai, classified by SlimVirgin as "Boring": I was strongly opposed the admin categories "Boring" and "Total Nonsense" on the grounds that there are jokes and there are sick jokes and in a multicultural community it is very easy to cross the line, and if someone tells you "back off, this is offensive", you better back off. In response SlimVirgin classified me as "Boring" in this page. Even my replacing "Notal Nonsense" by "Unfathomable" was duly reverted several times. A while ago a long-time active but kinda pain in the ass user was blocked indefinitely because he called someone Muntenian, which was classified as "unquestionably racist" attack by the blocking admin referrred to a "consensus" of an unknown discussion and quorum, and who firmly stood his ground despite numerous protests.

Further, in an outrageous gesture of self-isolation from the rest of the community the page was protected from edits by non-admins. And you are saying "There is no cabal". It appears there is, a self-loving and self-righteous one, with its own subculture of growing intolerance.

Wikipedia is for creating encyclopedia. I see a growing number of people turning it in a playground. If it is too boring for you to write interesting articles, and it even became boring for you to chase vandals, to delete stubs about presidents multibillion companies saying the "notability not proven" (feels good, try sometime), and block colleagues for months for minor infractions, get some real life. `'Míkka>t 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, Mikka, which I posted because you were reverting the boring category. My apologies if it offended you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

After reading the comments above I just want to repeat what I said on the Mikkalai's talk page: You're taking this all waaay too seriously, and in my opinion, severely over-reacting. Whatever stress is causing this, makes me wonder if maybe you wouldn't do better with a Wiki-Break.

I don't intend to revert the sections (again), but "someone" probably should, considering that they (the admins in question) wanted their names under those headers. (Whatever happened to trusting to our fellow admins' discernment?)

And finally...

. o O (I'm a member of the CABAL? - When did that happen? And are there jackets?) - jc37 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a cabalist? So where the heck is my access to the L'Admin Rouge club? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, for real, get a sense of humor. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what if this all is my sense of humor? `'Míkka>t 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

By "this all is", do you mean edit war drama? Well, in any case, I sincerely admire your excellent work for articles. It's great that you're able to develop content the way you do, whereas I'm mostly skilled in the technical maintenance of Wikipedia. Some people, though, find it useful to develop a community (see WP:COMMUNITY) to create a healthy social environment in which they can collaborate efficiently and discuss things openly with each other, rather than police around and, regardless of community opinion, enforce their will (a behavior for which you've expressed disdain, at least previously). There are problems with this community approach, as it often fails, especially when openness is only partial. I see that you dislike it. But, MediaWiki is social software, and Wikipedians are humans, and nothing can change that. Jimbo's question was: "Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia?" The answer: "Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki." Fine, you don't want to be classified. At this point, I don't think anyone's seriously considering adding you. Situation resolved. Gracenotes^T § 08:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that we should waive 3RR and no-wheel-warring for this page and let people take out their repressed desires to edit-war and reverse other admins and flame either other here, rather than someplace more important. For lameness, however, nothing will ever top last Christmas Eve's lengthy discussion on whether to block Santa Claus. Newyorkbrad 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This category shouldn't even exist, it serves no point whatsoever. I believe it is also a sub user page of Radiant!'s, which I do not object to, but as a category, I do. And yes, this should be added to the lamest edit wars list. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's idea would be great, except I think part of the issue is whether or not people could be added, by others, to "insulting" categories. So, I propose creating a new page, WP:FIGHTCLUB (with additional redirects WP:CAGEMATCH and WP:THUNDERDOME), where rules about 3RR, CIVIL, NPA, wheel warring, etc are all waived. There's only one rule: you are not allowed to mention another human being that has not already entered the cage. (well, there are two rules, and that's the second one; the first rule is "no talking about WP:FIGHTCLUB"). --barneca 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone tried to block Santa? : ( - jc37 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be more cathartic. ;) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment 7 of the 8 names covered in this diff are self-added: Alvestrand, Alex Bakharev, Akradecki, Jehochman, ais523, Xoloz, TSO1D. Since this is a humour page, I think we can agree that anyone who doesn't want his/her name anywhere on the page, or in a particular section, needn't see it appear there. However, the fact that these names were self-added (indeed, the category titles were created by two of the users listed above) should ameliorate concerns about their potential to give offense. Please let's end this unproductive thread. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Notso fast. I'm in the middle of preparing an extensive series of diffs for a community ban of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and 6 of the 7 Dwarves. --Haemo 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the Easter Bunny! Have you no shame... Shell ^babelfish 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone thrown this on WP:LAME yet? ♠PMC♠ 06:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG looks deeply concerned The Borg have assimilated all the other aliens, how long till my time is up?--Alf ^melmac 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I still see some free Grundo o... oh, never mind, they appear to be under Combine control. D: Are there any free races still in existence? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive contact details in BLP article

Should this edit be deleted from the history of the article? Jeffpw (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that the article states "The ordinance prohibits any harassment that utilizes an electronic medium, including the internet, text messaging services, pagers, and similar devices" yet happily repeats the name of a woman who has faced no charges over the case, using solely blogs as sources for her name, basically alleging (within the article) she was responsible for Meier's suicide. Note the sources from real media sources (such as [8] or [9]) do not give the name, but Wikipedia does. The entire article is a reeking BLP violation at the moment. Neil ☎ 11:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Neil, the name of the woman was only posted in the article after a reputable newspaper reported it in an article. The article itself (a link to it) is in the bio and on the talk page. But the adress never should have gotten in the article. I contacted the concerned editor, but think it should be taken out of the history, if possible. Jeffpw (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The three references (currently numbers 2, 3 and 4) given to state the woman is "responsible for the death". Not one of them state that or anything like that, merely the fact the Drews have been the victims of harrassment (Wikipedia editors who should know better have subsequently synthesized 1+1 and made 5). There's not one reliable source for giving the Drews' names in conjunction with this case. Neil ☎ 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just reread the article after reading your concerns, Neil, and don't see what you are seeing. This reference names the woman, and the article basically paraphrases what the newspaper says. I see no BLP infraction. I did not make the edit, but I do not feel it needs to be changed. My concern, however, is that the woman's address has been put into the article, and even though it has been removed, it remains in the history. Does an admin feel that the address needs to be removed from the history? That is the only question which needs answering on ANI. The rest can go onto the talk page or the BLP noticeboard. Jeffpw (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeffpw. WP:RFO states "Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. ". So if the information is not publicy available then request oversight at that board (you e-mail an oversighter and they'll make a decision). If (and only if) the information is publically available then I can't see any issue leaving it in the revision history. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro. I'll e-mail oversight with the edit. The address was found and posted on blogs, and the person has had their house vandalised as a result. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Jeffpw (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then Wikipedia certainly should not be party to publishing the address in any way. As you say, err on the side of caution. Pedro :  Chat  13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that caution should be exercised in cases like this (people's property being vandalised), even though it is available (and more accessible) elsewhere. The address was added in this edit so all revisions between will need to be removed. Might be helpful to include that in the email unless you've already sent it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing large chunks of edit history (I didn't even look, but you said "all revisions between") is a problem for the GFDL, though I hope that the oversights know this and can take appropriate measures like pasting the history entries [not the content of course] to the talk page.—Random832 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight gives more information on this. It is acknowledge that there may be no simple solution at time when subsequent edits have occured in proper attribution (GFDL I'm not sure about). Pedro :  Chat  14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's 26 edits to be removed but I'm sure the Oversights will figure something out. There were only 3 different editors to change the page in that time, 2 of which have edited it much more, so they are credited in the history elsewhere. The other editor was just adding a wikilink. Still, there's probably a procedure established for this. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed the diffs to Oversight, and have added a message on the article talk page in bold, saying that the info may not be returned to the article, with links to policy supporting that. Jeffpw 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, they could just kill all revisions from the time the information was introduced to the present. That'd be drastic, but would solve the attribution problem.—Random832 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (redux)

Resolved

Community ban imposed. — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Recently Giovanni Giove has taken to removing talk page posts he doesn't like on the grounds that they are "personal attacks". The problem is that (a) the comments he removes are not personal attacks, (b) he edit wars over it, and (c) Giovanni himself makes comments that are much worse than the comments he removes. Examples of supposed "personal attacks" removed: [10] (edit warring over it: [11] [12] [13]), [14], [15] (edit warring over it: [16]), [17]. Examples of peronal attacks Giovanni has himself been making: "poor, poor idiots", "shameful lies of shameful users", "you (...) are a shame for your own country". (These are not exhaustive lists)
Giovanni Giove is on an ArbCom revert parole (one rever per page per week). Whether this applies to talk pages seems to be a grey area (though one ArbCom clerk I spoke to said it probably would) but the underlying issue here - the total inability to work with other editors - needs to be addressed regardless. I am more than aware that few users in the Dalmatia dispute are saints, but one user is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of edit warring, POV pushing and generally creating conflict. I indefblocked Giovanni Giove a fortnight ago for this reason, though Thatcher131 reduced this to two days on the grounds that there were extenuating circumstances (I hold no grudge against him for that). Giovanni Giove unfortunately has not changed at all since then, has continued with his typical POV warrioring and indeed has become significantly more hostile towards everyone. I think it's time that we realise that he is unlikely to become a productive user anytime soon given his deep-seated POV and substantial history of disruption (see block log). Therefore, I ask the community to ban this user. – Steel 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the terms of parole, this is a clear WP:3RR violation (that isn't limited to articles). I am blocking for one week; let's hope that's sufficient for him to cool down. — Coren ^(talk)

(Added note) I don't think it's clear that the revert parole would apply to talk pages either, hence I'm not considering this a parole violation— but I'm not going to raise a fuss if someone disagrees and extends/indefs the block. — Coren ^(talk) 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate the action. I still think it's worth keeping this thread open to gather opinions on whether a full community ban is warranted. Seven previous blocks have failed to solve the problem. – Steel 16:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not marking this resolved yet. — Coren ^(talk) 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully prepared to indef this. Edits like [18] demonstrate that, in addition to edit warring and incivility, there is also a blatant failure of even trying to reach something like neutrality. This is the hallmark of an inveterate tendentious editor and POV-pusher. We ought to be banning such people far quicker and with far less prior fuss. Failure to strive for NPOV is the true bannable offense here and the true cause of all the disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. – Steel 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not support blocking someone because of how they treat their own talk page, no matter as a regular 3RR complaint or as a 1RR parole violation. 3RR/1RR certainly applies if the editor is editing someone else's user talk page, and it clearly applies to all other namespaces -- but not the user's own talk page. Regarding the rest of the allegations of poor behavior, I will have to look at them later. Note, however, that there are at least 5 edit warring editors on Dalmatia issues, they appear to work in groups, and only two of them are currently under Arbcom sanction. Thatcher131 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution is to ban the others too, not to let this one loose again. Arbcom sanctions or no Arbcom sanctions. If G.G.'s behaviour, as far as I've seen it, is in some way representative of "normal" standards of behaviour in that domain, then the domain needs a good thorough purge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does Giovanni's own user talk page factor into this? No-one has even mentioned it. – Steel 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The 3RR violation was on Talk:Birth Place of Marco Polo, right? Some of the other incivil edit summaries were on his own talkk; the edit warring there isn't really the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's (Talk:Birth Place of Marco Polo) is why I blocked him. The duration, however, was increased to one week rather than the more typical day because of the general incivility and the previous 3RR blocks. — Coren ^(talk) 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, yes you're right. Removing posts from his own talk page is fine, but incivility there is not. – Steel 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And the inappropriate edit cited by Fut.Perf. was on the Jakov Mikalja article, not their own user talk page. — Satori Son 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I missed that he was reverting article talk pages. Comes of responding to messages in the middle of an experiment. Article talk pages are definitely covered by the 1RR parole (as would be policy pages, images, etc.) Thatcher131 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, if there are no other objections, I'm going ahead and extending the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

May I request for review ban against Giovanni Giove? Because I think so: he is valid collaborator. Regards. LEO, 1 December 2007

There comes a point, LEO, when the net benefit of an editor's contribution is no longer believed to compensate for the disruption caused by their behavior. Giovanni Giove has pretty much passed this point by now, and does not appear to be willing to amend his behavior.

A ban, however, is not a permanent or irreversible matter— Giovanni might be able to return under some parole terms, for instance, if he discusses those with an administrator who then agrees to unblock him under those conditions. Alternately, he may request that the arbitration committee look at the ban, possibly also including parole terms. In all cases, it is very likely that such a return would be conditional to a topic ban. — Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Roadcrusher Socks

Resolved

 – Socks and puppetmaster indefinitely blocked (see CheckUser request). Kelvinc 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms two new socks of Roadcrusher, who often uploads copyvios. Since Roadcrusher had previously been blocked for socks, I advise blocking socks User talk:Bothtones7 and User talk:Soondesk6 and requesting that Roadcrusher go back to using his original account.

Because there was a notable break in time between the last block of a suspected Roadcrusher sock and the addition of these socks (which can be considered a time out, I suppose), and that Soondesk6 has shown to be less rampant with the copyvios than previous socks, I am not opposed to lighter measures than blanket blocking, but I leave final decision to admins' discretion. Kelvinc 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

This discussion is now closed. The issue with the bot editing incorrectly is not an issue anymore, which was the reason for my block. The bot is unblocked, and beta is attempting to identify and resolve the issue. There was never an issue with the bot's edits when it runs properly, and I'm big enough to take my part in this on the chin. Before this drags out any further I think we should just move on to more productive areas. Hiding T 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Add a stop button to the bots' page, as per other such bots. That will help stopping the bot when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Here. She appears to be Sasha Grey. This does not appear to be her first threat. I would warn her but I think since this involves a BLP, I will let an admin handle it as I am not sure how WP:DOLT figures into all this yet. spryde | talk 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From July when the user was new, AFAICT, so I'm not going to block. I've blanked it instead and left a nice-but-firm message to say that help is available if asked for, but that restating the threat will lead to a blocking. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wound up there playing Connections starting with Recent Deaths that had Emily Sander and through a whole bunch of Porn and voila. Sometimes I have no clue how I end up on parts of Wikipedia. spryde | talk 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block her, or even threaten her, the Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats essay is quite right here. It's not proven, but she very likely is Sasha Grey, and she wrote that on her user page specifically after she was in a rather heated conflict with someone about posting very personal information on her article, back in July. That statement was actually a disclaimer, that she wasn't going to be making any more legal threats, after coming a lot closer to them. By the way, the article personal information thing was settled; she still has some issues with some mediocre photos of her on Commons, but that seems to be much less of a heated issue. By the way, putting a potential double-entendre about showing puppies on the talk page of a lady in her profession may not have been the best idea... 8-0 --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing the statement on her talk page to be a bit less threatening. Hope that's all right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I specifically said that I wouldn't block her. I specifically mentioned that the "threat" was old. And I specifically offered her help but told her not to make legalese statements in future because it didn't help. Please don't wave WP:DOLT at me because that essay itself, used in this way, has a chilling effect on free editing. As to her profession (whatever it is, I haven't looked) vs my signature, well, if she - or you - are that touchy (and are reading something into my signature that isn't there) then I have two words that don't break the spirit of WP:NLT but certainly do break the wording of WP:CIV. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(added after ec)No, it certainly is not. Revert it. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've reverted it and am not best pleased with you, AnonEMouse. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can guess you haven't read her article. Please do. While I won't redo my edits of your comment, I would like you to consider the fact that she may be rather touchy, and would encourage she be granted a bit more leeway than you would grand another editor in this specific matter only. For us, editing the article is no big deal, it's one of two million. For her, this is her life, and it's not the easiest life. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<---- Well, I hate to try yet again to get this through to you but I specifically said that I wouldn't block her. I specifically mentioned that the "threat" was old. And I specifically offered her help but told her not to make legalese statements in future because it didn't help. Policy would have allowed me to block her there and then. Common sense allowed me to not do so, remove the threat and offer to help her whilst warning her of the dangers of threatening to sue contributors. DOLT would seem to be requiring me to fall over backwards offering to help someone who is making legal threats. That's a blackmailer's charter and the chilling effect - I mention it again because it is very important - of legal threats and now of the (over)reaction to DOLT is making this place suddenly very cold. There would appear to be no right place to stand on this, so instead of acting on concerns about legal threats, I will now let them stay and do nothing. I'm sure that helps someone. Perhaps in Trenton, New Jersey? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had reported this months ago, but the admins decided to ignore it then, so you can't blame her for not removing it. Jackaranga 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note I said nothing about letting the actual lawyer comment on her user page stay and do nothing; I didn't restore it. I just hoped you would not write to her how otherwise you would be considering blocking her for it; she hasn't mentioned a thing about lawyers in 4 months. But we're veering now, the threat is gone, which is the important part, that we chastize her about it is a shame, but not fatal. I'll let it drop. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WHOA! Timeout guys/gals! Redvers made a simple statement about her userpage and nothing about the previous incident. Look at the history of the user page for confirmation. I mentioned the previous incident as I did not see it handled at that time (and if it was handled at that time, she would have been blocked straightaway). I think doing a quick note about WP:NLT and then waiting for a response is a perfectly valid way of handling it. And for the record, I interpreted her use of the lawyer statement after she reverted her page as an extension of the previous threat. spryde | talk 02:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really advanced new user (day 8)

Third edit, six days ago, was to post "This is my user page, I am just going to be a helpful editor making changes when required!" and the next day posted "Dear administrator.... help!!! I need to know how to be able to add the edit option to my pages". So - brand new editor, right, usual newbie question.

Except (the same day) asked about using templates for stubs, started creating redirects, participated in RfD, and started doing CSD postings, including using subst on templates to notify editors.

And now is using Twinkle (JavaScript) to revert BetacommandBot edits. Day 8. For an editor who appeared so clueless on day 3, very, very unusual. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I learned the basics as an anon and even after I registered I still made some boneheaded mistakes. I would watch and see if anything really nefarious happens. spryde | talk 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith for now, and pretend he ported himself from another Wiki, or is an old "good" user who decided to vanish. No harm remebering this rapid learning though, if any problems arise in the future. Someguy1221 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AGF. I told him how to rv using Twinkle on IRC. Will ^(talk) 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you think that his labeling of Betacommandbot's edits as vandalism is correct? And that reverting valid fair use tags is also correct? Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, my fault. When you need to revert 750 edits, rollback->comment is too slow. (and any malfunction is technically vandalism, either by tag abuse or vandalbots) Will ^(talk) 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does he/she need to revert 750 valid tags? Corvus cornix_talk 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're out of the loop, Corvus. Between 20:13 and 20:19, bcb went on an orphan tagging spree on many used images. About 750 images in total. Will ^(talk) 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They may have been orphans, but they were still invalid FU's, at least the last one that Thehelpfulone reverted didn't have a fair use rationale. Corvus cornix_talk 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the FUR tag back on then. Will ^(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK update needed

Looks like the DYK update is about four hours overdue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is this an incident every time it's overdue? Someguy1221 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't have enough people doing it. I would do it, but I need a basic tutorial first.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannot edit

Resolved

 – Nothing else needs to be done here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Help? Every time I try to add an edit to Talk:List of Space Marine Chapters I get the following:

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ().

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page. The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://s4.[break]invisionfree.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

Return to Talk:List of Space Marine Chapters.

I don't understand what it's asking me to do - I'm not adding any links (external OR wiki), just text asking for a citation. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A link was added to the talk page one and a half years ago that has since been blacklisted. I have just removed it; you can edit the page now. Cheers. Someguy1221 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I looked for the link and couldn't find it, hence my confusion.

Please mark as resolved. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:W.marsh speedily closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander

Resolved

 – AfD relisted. Tijuana Brass 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was speedily closed only 11 minutes after it was posted. This action seems premature and heavy handed. What is the harm in letting the AfD take its normal course, and allowing WP contributors to comment? There are clearly some editors who believe this person to be non-notable, and they are entitled to have their voices heard. User:W.marsh had earlier contributed to this article, so he may not have come to this decision from an entirely neutral perspective. WWGB 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have closed it as a clear speedy keep at that point too, so it's not that controversial a close. If she become just another statistic (ie, her 15 minutes of posthumous fame is up quite quickly), then an AfD would be appropriate in a month or so. I'd bet on that happening and the article being deleted. Just not at the moment whilst it's news.

And W.marsh's last meaningful contribution to this busy article was about 23 hours ago and even then was just tidying up, so I don't see much of a conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, you can (a) take your concerns to the article's talk page [good] or (b) take the AfD result to deletion review for further consideration [worst] or (c) take your concerns up with W.march on their talk page [best]. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with W.marsh's closure of it, and you have about as unneutral point of view bringing the issue up here as he did closing it since you started the AFD. It's clearly a notable topic right now and I don't think your point of view about it was very convincing honestly. Two speedy keeps on the AFD from one good-faith contributer and one administrator should tell you that your wrong. — Save_Us_229 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see why this can't wait a week or two until talking about the long-term importance isn't just pure speculation. I thought an AFD now would be drama with a predictable result (a keep after 5 days of sound and fury). So I ignored all rules and avoided a process that would just get people riled up with no useful result. If admins really think an AFD is needed this very minute, I don't object to being overturned. --W.marsh 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the close, easily the most high-profile murder case in months right now, if nothing else happens, relist in AFD in the future. This is a Secret ^account 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I spoke too soon... I've been overturned. Drama here we come. --W.marsh 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disrespective attitude to colleagues both in AfD and here are duly noted. `'Míkka>t 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your being just as disrespective Mikkalai, you can stop hammering him anytime you like now. — Save_Us_229 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Premature closure reverted as abusive action of POV pushing. Belengs to the sister project Wikinews. Shall we pump each and every newspaper story into wikipedia? This is encyclopedia, not newspaper aggregator. `'Míkka>t 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing? You have no idea what my POV is on the non-policy issues. Please don't make personal attacks. --W.marsh 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your closure without any solid reason is pushing your POV, without hearing the community on the issue. IMO you are demonstrating a misunderstanding your position. `'Míkka>t 23:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"demonstrating a misunderstanding your position" doesn't even make any sense. I can't respond to this. --W.marsh 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's continue teh drama for 5 days, maybe 7 if were lucky! — Save_Us_229 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, please drop the confrontationalism, the aggressive tone and the accusations. They aren't helping anyone. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Teach your buddy manners first. There would no drama in the first place if he admitted his mistake without irony. (see the state of the AfD now. Hardly a snowball keep.) `'Míkka>t 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So I'm... whatever slurs you've made about me so far... for wanting to speedy keep without enough discussion, yet you argue to speedy delete on the same amount of discussion? Isn't that the exact same argument you blast me for? --W.marsh 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you think quietly what the difference is between your actions and mine. If you don't see any, then you should not be allowed to be an admin. `'Míkka>t 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool it everyone. I've absolutely no idea how anyone thought this was a speedy keeper, there's no basis for that. Bad call. But that aside - let's talk this out for 5 days. And let's debate the substance not each other.--Doc^g 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. W.marsh closed prematurely, it's been relisted, and that's all that needs to happen here. Please keep future comments in the proper location - at the AfD - and civil. Tijuana Brass 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've got a great idea, listen. All these problems we have with confusing notoriety for notability, and being unale to establish the long-term influence of someone briefly in the spotlight could be solved at a stroke if we had a site for news material, distinct form the encyclopaedia. We could call it something like Wikinews. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of a ban on Bobby Boulders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – banned. The Evil Spartan 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. For most of vandal fighters, we know who Bobby Boulders is. He uses MySpace [19] and other means of the internet [20] to encourage people to vandalize Wikipedia and advertise for the "ISV" (International Society of Vandals). He has around 40 sock puppets (1, 2), although some people vandalize with him. I would like to propose he be banned for the reasons I have stated. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted and blocked a number of this joker's accounts in my time. I assume that this formality isn't even necessary, since no reasonable administrator is remotely interested in letting his idiocy continue in any manner, especially by unblocking any blocked socks. For what it's worth, I fully support a site ban. — Scientizzle 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that, as socks or acolytes are discovered, they're blocked. So at least a de facto ban exists already. What more can reasonably be done? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is only "no admin is willing to unblock this user" and since actually no admin is willing to unblock this user, for obvious reasons, ergo he is community banned. Unless I'm missing something? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as banned, per this thread. — Save_Us_229 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban for his continuous, ideosyncratic behavior on-and-off wiki. This doesn't require discussion, really. He is indefblocked, and there is no administrator on the website who is willing to unblock. Except for one-time, consistent vandals, this is pretty much a de-facto ban. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Seicer

Every edit I make User:Seicer has to change it. He constantly keeps bothering and intimidating me. He acts like he is god. Seicer has constantly been in numerous disputes with other users. It must stop --Jdlddw 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears this dispute is over this I presume. I reviewed the contents of your talk page (which you happened to remove) and it appears he was not intimidating, bothering, or trying to act like a God as you claim. I would suggest talking to the editor in a civil manner about what his concerns are on the article and why he continues to make changes, and if you two aren't able to settle it then, then please come back here with diffs after making an attempt at trying to figure what the problem is and minus the uncivil and near personal attacks attitude of yours. — Save_Us_229 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is a the proper avenue for conflicts such as this. This noticeboard is not as well suited for mediation. — Satori Son 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Jdlddw's last edit to South Charleston, West Virginia, and he had changed "Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority" to Transit authority. Since the KRT website says Transportation I am drawn to wonder how accurate the rest of the edits were. A quick look at [21] suggests that personal opinion salted with links of non-obvious merit may well be the problem here. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jdlddw, you should leave a notice on my talk page if you open up an ANI case about me. I only found out because I keep this page watched. I don't revert all of your edits, only edits that are factually incorrect or where inappropriate page moves. And please don't delete other user's comments on people's talk pages. Regarding edits of yours that I _did_ revert, which were statistically few to the amount of edits you _do_ have,

* [22] Sorry, your page moves at Yeager Airport and Tri-State Airport were made without consensus were reverted because they are factually incorrect. You cited no source for your change and all the sources that are currently provided state otherwise.

* [23] This edit on South Charleston, West Virginia is more appropriate per WP:MOS, removes dead/duplicate links, removes personal opinion and original research and is structured correctly per WP:USCITY.

A warning is not intimidation, and you should use that as a method to edit correctly on Wikipedia. Gain consensus on controversial edits or page moves and be bold in editing but ensure that it is well within appropriate boundaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jajouka/Joujouka

1. 14:28, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BKLisenbee‎ (→sock blocks - added information on total disagreement and smearing tactics by user frankrynne & opiumjones_23)
2. 14:23, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Frankrynne‎ (→Lisenbee - This user has been told by administrator FayssalF not to use full names, even last names, only usernames.)
3. 14:22, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Frankrynne‎ (→Incidents reported to ANI - added comments from userr BKLisenbee)
4. 14:00, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Master Musicians of Jajouka‎ (→External links - POV link removed, the only controversy was stirred up by the user who put it there.) (top)

If this sites' own admin will not engage then I must state here formally ..................deleted but acting upon...................... This would really be as to this site rather than Kenneth Lisenbee. This is causing harm and damage....please regulate.

opiumjones 23 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. If you make legal threats, you will be blocked from editing. I hope you will retract the threat, or else admins have no choice but to block you. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I must state that admins are doing nothing for my legal rights and as there is a BLP issue it is in fact this sites obligation to protect me. this issue has been aired frequently and often so please seek advise before blocking. I have amended my comment to state that I will seek advice which I feel you can not deny to a wiki subject of article re BLP etc

opiumjones 23 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To be quite blunt, you have no rights on Wikipedia, only privileges, and I would amend the entire section about seeking legal anything otherwise I'll see to it that your blocked. — Save_Us_229 00:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

opiumjones, it's not clear to me what you're asking to be done here. I'm not even sure what it is specifically that you're upset about. Could you be more specific about what guideline of WP:BLP you feel has been broken and what course of action you've already tried to remedy the situation? Brevity would be appreciated. Tijuana Brass 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

mediation procees by User:FassalIF etc see User:FayssalF/JK plus much more archived on various pages for tyhe last two years .

opiumjones 23 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Why is it that a legal threat gets admins involved where an admin informing this page of legal issues gets igniored????? Have deleted the direct threat but am proceeding as indicated unless someone here on this admin board does more to sort

opiumjones 23 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have just received some advice and you are responsible for this site's content

opiumjones 23 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OOOk -- don't want to jump the gun here, but that last statement seems to be straying into legal territory again. Its not taken at all lightly and you will get blocked. You'll notice that someone has already tried to help you resolve the issue; try working with Tijuana Brass (or I would be happy to help) to resolve the problem instead of continuing this line of discussion which doesn't look like its going to end well. Shell ^babelfish 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Frankrynne, per his continued legal threats. Despite his claim above to have withdrawn the threat, User talk:BKLisenbee continues to read "Further defamations of either myself or others associated with me will result in legal proceedings.", which really couldnt' be clearer. With regard to unblocking: personally I will never unblock this user, as I consider legal threats to be an attempt to intimidate other Wikipedians; I appreciate that WP:LEGAL and the apparent consensus differ, so I defer to the community's collective judgement. I would suggest that User:FayssalF be involved in any decision to unblock, based on his experience of this matter. In the meantime I have referred Frankrynne to OTRS. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I have told Frankrynne about OTRS and suggested that, if still aggrieved (he is), he mail them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankrynne has been unblocked now stating that he rescinds all legal threats. If they continue, he has been warned that the block may be reinstated without a removal again. Regards, — Save_Us_229 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

December's WP:PT

Resolved

 – Tijuana Brass 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey; I think I managed to create December's protected titles page, but I'm not entirely certain I did it correctly. Could someone please double check me? — Coren ^(talk) 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Tijuana Brass 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cross-space link problem

The deletion (and salting) of Talia Madison (and related names) has been endorsed at DRV twice now, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 19 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 24. User:KingMorpheus is intent on adding a cross-space link from a draft in a userspace sandbox to a mainspace article see here and here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How about asking User:KingMorpheus to remove all the redirects from mainspace articles that point to User:ThisDude62/sandbox? If he declines, then ask the DRV closer, User:Carlossuarez46, to delete the draft. (The draft is only there to fix problems pointed out in the AfDs and DRVs). From his comments in the DRV, it sounds like KingMorpheus doesn't perceive any sourcing problems at all in the article. A number of people with wrestling expertise joined in the AfD and !voted for delete. EdJohnston 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects are a speeedy deletion criteria. It is transparently obvious that wikilinks in article space should not go to user space. If the user doesn't remove them himself, someone else should do so. GRBerry 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Help me, I'm being stalked

User:Prester John (talk · contribs) is following me from article to article, reverting content that I've added, or deleting others' content after I edit an article.

This has all been happening in the past hour or so:

02:25, 1 December 2007 1981 Springbok Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Reverted my edits. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.

02:23, 1 December 2007 Malcolm Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Removed content I had added about 'Springbok aircraft'. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.

02:16, 1 December 2007 Mike Carlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Removed others' content after I edited the page. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.

01:50, 1 December 2007 Parliamentary prayer group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Reverted content I'd added. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.

23:57, 30 November 2007 Joe de Bruyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Prester is edit waring, and reverting my content. Prester not been to this page before I went there a week ago.

23:55, 30 November 2007 John Stone (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Undoing all my content. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.

23:42, 30 November 2007 John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Reverting my content

23:40, 30 November 2007 John Brumby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff
Description: Removing all my content. Prester John has never previously been to this page.

Please help, as he's going back though the list and deleting everything I've added to Wikipedia. Thanks, Lester 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I got to him. If he does that one more time, I will have no choice but to report him. Let me know if he bothers you again. Best, -Goodshoped 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaning out the garbage. Lester is a serial pest on wikipedia and it is not uncommon for most of his POV edits to be reverted. articles he creates will inevitably end up at the AFD. Try to debate the edit content, not the editor. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, guy. Do you want me to bring the mediation commitee here? Apparently you two keeps edit warring. One more revert on the same page in 24 hours and I'll report both of you to 3RR. -Goodshoped 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee wouldn't intervene here. Furthermore, I find your threats against other established Wikipedians to be unproductive - please stop. Daniel 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is User:Prester John's user page borderline soapboaxing/attacking the middle-east? --WebHamster 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I as well sensed some discrimination when reading his userpage. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, report to AIV or get him blocked right now. Apparently, he ignored my warnings. -Goodshoped 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that his reverts to his user page constitute vandalism, and a report to AIV. The reason why this noticeboard was set up is so that administrators can have some say in a certain incident. This is the correct noticeboard, AIV probably isn't (I'm getting tired of people using AIV as a "report so called vandals to get them blocked" noticeboard). Spebi 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

<-- Then what are we to do? He ain't gonna stop. He's just going to keep going and going and going and going... So? And sorry about the bunny. -Goodshoped 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How about both of you take your differences to the talk pages of the respective articles instead of blindly reverting each other? android79 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blindly reverting. I include reasons in edit summaries. Since admins are looking can someone revert Lesters page move at his recent atrocity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard where he tries to transfer his synthesis to another page? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not used for discussion -- talk pages are. Also, if you weren't attacking the other editor in question, people might be more inclined to believe this wasn't some odd campaign you're on. You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your accusations. I suggest you stop the rapid reverting of this one editors contributions unless you can make a case for those reverts. Shell ^babelfish 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Shell. You are toeing very close to the line on Wikistalking. android79 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lester, using Twinkle to revert Prester John's edits is not cool, and neither is referencing "per ANI" in your edit summaries. That doesn't make any sense. android79 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of chores to do on Wikipedia. If you let this user go, somebody else will deal with any real problems. To both parties, when presenting a case to the community, it is most helpful if you use diffs to substantiate what you are saying. See the help articles links I've placed to the right. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Android79, yes, in the above listed articles, where Prester removed my contributions, I reverted them. I though I was in my rights to restore them, and I will stop if that's considered the wrong thing to do. Since then, Prester John has gone back and deleted my content yet again, after an admin warning was sent to his talkpage. I have this guy following my deleting my contributions, and the evidence is clear about who is following who. This is happening on articles that Prester John has never been to before the past hour or two. It's horrible. It's bullying. No Wikipedian deserves this. Nobody. It is continuing, and I ask again for Admin assistance.Lester 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it appears to have stopped. Time for you both to use the article's talk pages to hash this out, and bring others into the discussion if needed. android79 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andriod. It's temporarily quietened because I've stopped adding content, and Prester has been successful in removing the content that I previously added, without discussing. I point out that in the previous ANi incident involving Prester John, it ended with Prester promising he would use the talk pages instead of just reverting without discussing. As soon as the Admins stop watching, the reversions continue. When I again add new content to Wikipedia, I'll have Prester John deleting it again. It just keeps going.Lester 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is thataway. I might suggest an RFC. android79 05:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester does nothing but revert, abuse, and disrupt. His contributions page is a good example of that. So is his award on his page, given by a sockpuppet. Timeshift 07:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say this is either edit waring or a content dispute requiring comment. What this is is pure bullying and harassment, of a type aimed at stopping me from editing Wikipedia. All editors should be afforded protection from this kind of thing. There is no reason any editor should have to endure this. Lester 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Help on reporting to Checkuser

61.5.0.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked by vandalizing Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and several articles about characters from Digimon. East718 (talk · contribs) suggested a checkuser for him because it seems to be a rangehopper, because I've also noticed similar vandal edits on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and other articles from the following: 61.5.68.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 61.5.0.16 (talk · contribs · 61.5.0.16 WHOIS), Template:Uipser, 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). How can I properly report to checkuser in this case because from I have gathered, one false move and I may be blocked (I said "may be" because I am not sure). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary. They're all dynamic IP addresses from the same range; it's pretty clearly the same person making the edits from the behavior pattern you've explained. Checkuser compares the IP addresses of users in order to establish if they are the same person — this is already obvious, from the situtation here, and a checkuser would not help you. However, I would point out that blocking won't help much in this situation because of the dynamic IP problem. --Haemo 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The affected article has been protected. When an article is "under assault" from a hoard of different IPs, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Someguy1221 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Meleniumshane90 asking for unblock

I wasn't going to post this here, but this user has severely irked me. He has resorted to legal threats on several occasions (including, "if you change the format of this page, your account will be restricted"). I tried to post a note on his page, but he characteristically just removed it. I ask someone to please handle this unblock (you may wish to see my previous comment: [24] as well). The Evil Spartan 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock. It was posted without a reasoning anyway. I don't see "your account will be restricted" as a legal threat, though. - Philippe | Talk 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Further modifications to the format of this page will result in an immediate contact with Wikipedia officials. This is the final warning, harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I have already requested for assistance from the service department. Seems pretty clear cut to me. The Evil Spartan 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like "I'm going to tell on you!" than a legal threat to me. — Coren ^(talk) 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I read it too. Kind of "third-grade" fingerpointing. Now, had it said "modify this and I sue you!" then I'd think differently. - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a legal threat. Such would assume an attempt to coerce action through a government judicial system. But the block log says he was trying to harass other users so the block was based on that not a legal threat. I would assume there's more to it that the one statement quoted above, right? - JodyB _talk 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After delving a little deeper into this user's contributions, it seems the core problem is an understanding of the WP:EL policy. He's not a brand new user but he has been around enough to know better. Another issue is that some are reverting his talk page where he has removed previous comments and warnings. Such removal of warnings is specifically within guidelines. I'm wondering if there would be an objection to some additional interaction with this user with a view toward lifting the indef block? I will post at the blocking admins page. - JodyB _talk 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other user who has been the ire of Meleniumshane90's anger of late. I was not aware that one could remove warnings from their own user page unless either they were archived, or they were vandalism themselves. For that, I apologize. As for the "edit warring" regarding the external links, I tried to talk to him. He insisted I was "spamming" and restored the links. I am certain he does not have an understanding of the guidelines regarding external links. I feel he may be willing to listen to reason. I have indicated that I am more than willing to converse with him in that regard. I realize I'm heavy-handed. I am endeavoring to be more understanding. --Mhking 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up: I have spoken to the blocking admin and we agree that he can be unblocked if he agrees to certain rules which I have outlined at his talk page. I am waiting for his reply. - JodyB _talk 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Unsourced Original Research to Jim Kelly article

T-rex is currently reverting any attempts to removed the unsourced statement "Kelly is considered one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL." He has reverted it 3 times [25][26][27] after it was removed on the basis that it violates WP:BLP, and refuses to add citations when requested by another editor on his talk page. He instead defends his actions by accusing the other editor of "having a problem with Kelly" [28]. I've not gotten involved in this debate yet as it is beginning to border on incivility, however I'm disturbed at T-rex's loose interpretations of Wikpedia's Biographies of living persons policy, and the fact that he is resorting to edit warring to include this material without attempting to reach a consensus. I believe that administrator involvement might be necessary.--Quartet 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call it a BLP violation, unless its untruth would make it derrogatory towards Jim Kelly. In any event, a subjective superlative claim is inherently POV and requires a source. Someguy1221 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think fans of Steve Young would disagree with that assertion.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. As per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". --Quartet 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious edits by User:Maneisis

I've just finished cleaning up dozens of links that User:Maneisis has added to his freewebs website TMM (Music & Movies) (also CSD A7 deleted) and started digging a bit deeper into his other edits. And I'm suspicious that there is some dubious spamming going on here regarding Martin Hernandez. Now, Hernandez is a Mexican actor who appeared in The Devil's Backbone and a couple of short flicks according to IMDb ([29]). I can't find any reliable reference anywhere on the net as to him having a musical career, but see Martin Hernandez (with it's MySpace link to a totally different Martin), Martin (album), Faithful (Martin Hernandez Song) (with it's apparently completely fictional claims of top 10 charting in Mexico and New Zealand), crudely photoshopped album covers Image:Martin album Cover.PNG, Image:U.K single Faithful.GIF..

Looking over User talk:Maneisis reveals a long history of other articles being deleted as hoaxes, as well as many non-free image deletions. Frankly, I'm inclined to just undo every edit he's ever made, but thought I should run this by WP:AN first. --Stormie 07:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another: see deleted history of Image:Hola Magazine.PNG for another poorly photoshopped fake image that was placed on the article on ¡Hola! magazine. --Stormie 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, see edits from 24.205.190.77, appears to be the same editor logged out. Also adding very suspicious claims on Martin Hernandez related topics: [30] - claims an award nomination at the 2007 ALMA Awards, no mention whatsoever on that organization's nominees list ([31]); claims a Best Supporting Actor award at the Ariel Award in 2005, not true according to that organization's winners list ([32], Spanish, can translate via Google). --Stormie 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Still more: Everytime (film) - Martin Hernandez's directing debut, "will be released in 2008". "Official site" is a blank page at freewebs.com. Poster Image:Everytime Poster.JPG is another terrible photoshopping with the same font as the other fakes. Claims to be copyright Fox Atomic, of course their site makes no mention of any such film. --Stormie 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

one of his first edits, to One True Thing, claims Ebert gave the film 4 stars and called it "a movie of intense fascination", searching rogerebert.com finds that he gave it three stars and said no such thing [33]. --Stormie 08:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Violanchelo appears to be a real film, but not starring Martin Hernandez. Image:Violanchelo scene.JPG another terrible fake. The claimed source [34] is an article about the production of Violanchelo but no mention of Hernandez and no sign of the "poster". --Stormie 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• reading between the lines it looks like IMDb may also have been subject to the same hoaxes. As it happens the majority of the Martin Hernandez article seems to be a copyvio from his, apparently only, fan. I've tagged it for a speedy. Putting WP:AGF to one side temporarily this appears to be the product of a young Walter Mitty using WP, IMDb and YouTube to promulgate a hoax. --WebHamster 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did wonder that. I'm not really familiar with how the IMDb handles contributions but I don't believe they'd be too rigorous about fact-checking someone's "helpful" addition of information. --Stormie 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I deleted Martin Hernandez (CSD G12/A7/G4) What to do with the rest? — Edokter • Talk • 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to leave them overnight and then go on a massive cleanup in the morning. ;-) --Stormie 13:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put the album, single and film up for AfD. I've removed the mentions of Hernandez from the various articles mentioned above. --WebHamster 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the album and the song as violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have deleted them as patent nonsense. Anyway, I deleted the supposed album covers. — Edokter • Talk • 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK further deletions from me:

• Image:Stages special edition.JPG
• Image:Stages.JPG
• Image:Stages poster.JPG
• Stages: Three Days in Mexico
• Cinanima Awards
• Image:Sincronizaso Soundtrack.JPG
• Image:Violanchelo scene.JPG
• Image:Nado.JPG
• 2005 Cinanima Awards
• Taira Court
• Nado sincronizado
• No me toques
• Template:Martin Hernandez
• Wanted (2009 film)
• Ugly Nights

Some of these may be real (e.g. I think Stages: Three Days in Mexico was a real documentary), but everything in them was unsourced content added by User:Maneisis, so frankly, I think it's best if they're deleted, someone can recreate them with proper sources.

By the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez (second nomination), these hoaxes may go back even further than I thought. Currently investigating the contributions of User:Written92, who appears to be the same person, hoax edits going waaay back on the same obsessions: e.g. [35], created previous version of Martin Hernandez.

Also User:Director and writter, User:Homie 01, User:Oops05, User:Actor34.. --Stormie 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

IP POV-pushing

Can another admin deal with this guy [36], I've reverted twice and refuse to edit war with him. POV pushing on related articles as well, ignored my talk page warnings. ~Eliz81^(C) 09:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, blocked 24hrs for 3RR by User:Stormie (thanks!!) ~Eliz81^(C) 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his belligerent attitude and five reverts across two articles made it pretty clear that he needed a cooling-off period. The content he was removing was well sourced, the only POV complaint you could even attempt to raise would be on the grounds of Undue weight, which I would trivially reject on the basis that Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) dedicates far more space to praise for the soldiers commemorated there than to the resentment of those of the wartime generation. --Stormie 09:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The BetacommandBot Crisis.....turned up something interesting...

I've noticed that alot of the people crying to User talk:Betacommand have problems with their images that many don't see right away. Many have no rationale tags (Image:Shaw Communications logo.png, Image:Yoshi2-title.png, Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg, etc.) And thats the first several images I checked when I started from recent-back. How would it be best to alert these folks about this mistake in a proper way (and not cause Betacommand anymore grief)? --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint about some of these images. Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg appears to be properly tagged and the user appeared to be warned about it. What's the problem? — Save_Us_229 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought Betacommandbot was designed specifically to do what you're asking about using community-designed template warnings. Seems the people (okay, person) noting their concerns on Betacommand's talk page are simply upset at him about the fact that his bot did exactly what it's supposed to do. Not sure it's something I would term a "crisis" :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd be right about Image:CatsRugbyClubLogo.png, an image I uploaded long long ago that BetaCommandBot mistakenly took as orphaned fair use. It wasn't orphaned, but it was missing a proper Fair Use rationale (since such things weren't really thought of three and a half years ago when I uploaded it). I have added one now. --Stormie 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was incorrectly tagging used images as orphans. I have no objections to the bot adding the FUR needed tag on the next sweep. Will ^(talk) 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

• Resolved

   – Vandal indef-blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has posted a threat to kill two people on his userpage, see diff: [37], removed today by another editor. There are no constructive contributions from this account. Used today to create an attack page. Accurizer 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like a little ring of vandals who make little or no contribution to the encyclopedia. The threat is conditional and probably not meant to be taken seriously, but still unacceptable. Block the lot of them. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia talk pages to prove a point.

The following user, Angelriver is using the following wikipedia talk pages to prove a point Talk:Kim Bauer, Talk:Kate Warner, Talk:Michelle Dessler, Talk:Sherry Palmer, Talk:Audrey Raines, Talk:Tony Almeida and Talk:Curtis Manning. This is by posting identical information on each page which is not suited for an article talk page and should either be not posted at all, whith the sentiment posted on the correct user talk page or posted on just the user talk page.--Lucy-marie 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments from all the talk pages and also removed the merger tags which appear to have no community support. That way everyone is happy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

John Dandola

Biographical article blanked by JohnDandola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary "Removed by subject due to vandalism & harassment. Do not repost without written permission verified thru subject's web site. Wikipedia notified." See diff: [38] Accurizer 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Even original article lacks assertion of notability with possible breaches WP:COI. PROD'd. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User blanking talk page content.

Resolved

 – 48 hour block

User:Ankithreya is blankingtalk page sections. despite two warnigns, with instructions about how to create new sections, [39] and [40], the editor continues to blank talk pages sections, as seen here, and here. the user has been made aware of what they are doing, but continue to do wrong. I suggest a short block to prevent further page disruptions. I will revert out the b lanking done in the last two examples. ThuranX 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block. Clearly warned and continued blankings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Freyabigg is making legal threats on Naruto kages

Resolved

Freyabigg created the Naruto kages article. This article has been tagged for speedy deletion by Whitstable. After the tagging, Freyabigg added a line at the bottom of the article. It reads: Quote:

If you want to delete it then it's your loss and I WILL sue. :P:@

The user then went ahead and deleted the SD tag.

User Doe _☻T ^☼C 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They have also added on the talkpage (with a {{hangon}} already in place for those who are CSD-tagging)

...IF YOU DELETE IT I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND SUE YOU!!

Please block post-haste THEN delete the article; there's no place for this nonsense in Wikipedia. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll leave handing the pages in question to another admin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, if he does take back the legal threat, then he gets unblocked, right? Just wondering. -Goodshoped 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what WP:LEGAL (stupidly, in my opinion) says. Clearly we care much more for mollycoddling vandals and aggressive bullies than we do for protecting ordinary Wikipedians going about their normal cleanup duties. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Making legal threats and vandalism are two different things, though. Any user who makes any legal threat on the website, no matter how solid their contributions are, is blocked until they withdraw the threat. The whole purpose of forbidding legal threats is to prevent the chilling effect they can cause, which is theoretically accomplished by the user rescinding their threat. Someone who is blocked for vandalism who has also made a legal threat doesn't have to be unblocked if they withdraw the threat. They were blocked for vandalism, so the block for vandalism can stay. Natalie 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved; user blocked by Finlay McWalter; I have deleted the page and its talk page. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Resolved

The MiszaBot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leranedo used to work but now it does not. Looking for solutions. Thanks.Leranedo 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting our time? There is no reference to MiszaBot on your talk page that I can see. Hu 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu, check the edit pane, there is a template there. Thanks, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo means that the archiving function on his talk page by MiszaBot has stopped. Spebi 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Leranedo, I did not see anything wrong with the template. Ask User talk:Misza13 for help, that is the bot operator. Misza has always been helpful to me in the past. Regards, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Firstwind

Following a checkuser request that turned out positive at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Firstwind we now know that User:Firstwind is the recepient of 15 warnings, the last one on Nov 23rd either for vandlism or spamming. Would an admin review the whole case and see if a temp block or a ban is warranted? On a side note, the vandal keeps a "RC Patrol" userbox on his page but has never done any RC patrolling, I doubt that anything is possible to prevent this, however if you know a way... Thanks. Mthibault 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of User Boxes on my page for things I don't currently have time to do. Perhaps a request that if he doesn't intend to do it, the box should go until he does? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really secondary. The main issues are the checkuser and the warnings. This RC patrol thing is just one of his/her provocations because he/she bullied several people User:Ground_Zero, User:Schcambo and myself by putting fake vandalism warnings on their talk page after receiving one. But this is really not an important issue. Would an admin please review the case and make a decision? Thanks. Mthibault 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:T-rex at Jim Kelly

There is an above thread on this, but I wanted to bring more attention to the matter. T-rex (talk · contribs) apparently beleives that calling Jim Kelly "one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL" [41] doesn't require any citation. The reason I'm coming here and not dispute resolution is that I consider this a trivial addition of unsourced personal opinion, which if T-rex weren't a longstanding contributor, I'd mass revert and report to AIV. I was hoping if maybe more people tried to get it through him that opinionated claims such as these always require a citation, we could avoid an unecessary revert-war. I tried myself, but upon seeing his response, I'm not sure I can try again and maintain my sanity. Someguy1221 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of assuming good faith, first? Maxim_(talk) 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. I'm not sure what I said that might indicate otherwise. Assuming he's acting in good faith and assuming he's acting in accordance with policy are utterly different matters. Someguy1221 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The Elite Hills

Resolved

 – Articles and images deleted. Sockpuppet blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 is a rather prolific sockpuppeteer with a fanatical devotion to Anaheim Hills. After being banned by the ArbCom, he continued to return every few weeks to insert his original research. Back in July, he created an article called The Elite Hills full of the same original research that has been deleted twice, if I'm not mistaken. Well he's back with another new sock Edward1212 who he seems to be using in conjunction with an IP address of 75.47.171.152. I've tagged his article of The Elite Hills (Orange County) as a speedy candidate (as well as some images he uploaded), and another editor has reverted most of his additions to cities in the OC. Could someone block the latest sock and delete the articles? AniMate 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also now added to WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. AniMate 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia licensing changing?

What does this mean for my contributions? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL includes a section which states that any version of the GFDL can be used if no version is specified. Basically, the WMF wants the FSF (who created the GFDL) to publish a new version of the GFDL that would be compatible with one of the Creative Commons licenses. --- RockMFR 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62

Sum up: In Catalan Countries there was an edit warring between Casaforra (talk · contribs) and Maurice27 (talk · contribs). Maurice27 broke 3RR. Casaforra didn't. Maurice27 has been blocked several times, for all possible reasons, including because of 3RR (06:29, 10 April 2007). Casaforra had never been blocked nor even warned of any uncivil action. Physchim62 (talk · contribs) shares POV with Maurice27. Result: Maurice27 hasn't been blocked (reason: he didn't make any contribution during the last 20 hours before reporting 3RR break. Remark: During this 20 hours the article was with Maurice27's version, so he had of course no reason to continue with the war). Casaforra has been blocked for one week.

Request:

• Unblock Casaforra: first time of breaking 3RR block is just for 24 hours. 1 week is complitely disproportionate for a user with not even one warning in his expedient.
• If Casaforra is not unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked for at least the same time as Casaforra. If Casaforra is unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked at least the same time as Casaforra has been blocked.

Explanation: I consider a great miuse of administrative powers this biased way to block users by Physchim62. Why now Maurice27 is not blocked and Casaforra is? they did the same, just with two differences: Maurice27 did break 3RR, and Casaforra didn't (I know you can be blocked even without breaking it strictly, but he was even not warned). And the second difference: as I explained here, people who wanted to remove Maurice27's template, respected him when he added it and we discussed in Talk page. After 17 days (10-27 November) without any answer from Maurice27 (even if he made several contributions during those days in other articles), the template was removed. Then he decided to continue the discussion but he didn't respect the status quo as we did, but he started an edit warring, and Casaforra just asked him to reach the consensus he didn't search during this 17 days. I don't say Casaforra is innocent, but I see at least Maurice27 as guilty as Casaforra; one is blocked but not the other.

I wonder: if Casaforra can not revert Maurice27, should we always wait 17 days to remove the template and then Maurice27 gives us the grace to (after reverting) discuss?

Let's remark Physchim62 was already accused of miuse of administrative powers in the request for arbitration that he opened precisely against Casaforra and other people against his POV, and the result was complitely opposite as he expected: Maurice27 (as I said, a user sharing his POV) was banned during one month.

I know this is not the place to take any decision against Physchim62. Right now I am just interested in solving the injustice between Maurice27 and Casaforra. However, I would like to know which is the appropiate place to make an official complaint against Physchim62 in case I decide to do it. Thank you very much, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Xtv's complaint. When the 3RR violation was reviewed by administrators, they blocked Maurice27 for a very short period of time but did not take any action against Casaforra. Physchim62 decided to jump in by blocking him without giving him a warning -as required, even after having said that he would not intervene in Catalonia related articles given his past involvements in those subjects. Please review [42], [43], [44], [45], to review Physchim62's protection of Maurice27, his spurious accusation against users who have not violated any rules but happen to disagree with his particular POV, as well as the decision of the arbitrators (to block Maurice27). Please also note that this is issue is relevant, since after after his failure to obtain his desired result in Arbitration, now Physchim62 presented is candidature as an arbitrator himself. [46].

--the Dúnadan 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't see any items in Casaforra's block log. Should the IP block show up there? spryde | talk 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot see anybody's block logs (whatsoever user). Is there a glitch in the system? (Casaforra was blocked according to: this.) --the Dúnadan 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP block will not appear in an affected editor's block log, which is why there's a separate unblock request for autoblocks. However, it is odd that Casaforra's block log is empty. I checked some users I blocked yesterday, and there block logs have entries, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

That aside, this edit warring block does look appropriate. One week is indeed long for a first edit warring block (I believe it's general practice to start at 24 hours), and Physchim62 probably should have recused him/herself from making any blocks in that case, considering his/her involvement in the article in question. However, I think it would be best to wait for him/her to comment before taking any action. Natalie 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after having looked at Physchim62's log of blocks, I don't see a block of Casaforra. The block log appears to be functioning perfectly fine, so I have no idea what's going on here, or if Casaforra is even blocked. Natalie 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra told he is blocked, and in his talk page says so. As I told, I agree with Natalie, a block might (might not) be appropiate. My complaint is because it's far too long, because there is a discrimination respect to Maurice27 and because Physchim62 should have recused himself of this action. There are many other admins who can dare with it (and who, by the way, decided just to warn him, not to block him, since it was his first time, as you can see in 3RR page). I already asked Physchim62 an answer. So, let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Casaforra is, per the IPblocklog, blocked for a 1 week period with email disabled and account creation disabled. Email disabled seems quite odd. Why it shows in Ipblocklog but not the regular one is beyond my comprehension. The timestamp as I view it is 17:21, 29 November 2007. Prior to this, User:LaraLove had blocked Maurice27 for 1 week, then unblocked 3 minutes later. There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed, with comments needed from both LaraLove and Psychim62. I'll go notify Lara, and confirm that Psychim has been notified. I will say off the hand that edit warring to prevent a maintenance tag from being on article is a worse sin than edit warring to put it on, at least in my eyes. The process is tag - then discuss - then fix - then remove tag. Edit warring to take a tag off is attempting to skip the discuss and fix steps. GRBerry 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also note that "Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned. It will be ignored unless evidence is presented or already known of by reviewers. GRBerry 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62. However, I guess it needs to be noted that Pshychim62 does have a particular POV regarding Catalan-related articles and has [mis]used his administrative tools to protect or punish users accordingly on previous occasions, and that is why I provided links above to be reviewed. Please read them, I know some of the pages related to Evidence are quite long, but they merit the attention of administrators. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought up. It hardly matters whether a user from my, their, our side gets unfairly sanctioned but the fact that he was unfairly sanctioned is what must be addressed. I guess if an impartial administrator had blocked a user for the first time, then the issue can be dealt directly with the administrator. But Physhcim62 has been historically involved in the discussions with a very particular POV, and that several users have complained about his inappropriate leniency towards Maurice27 (who has been blocked eight times) and his rapid blockage of users (like Benimerin), and therefore this issue needs to be brought up to the attention of other administrators.--the Dúnadan 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, GRBerry, we are here to assume good faith, and if someone posts something about administrator abuse, we need to take it seriously and look into it. Dunadan's claims so far, if correct, are a serious problem. The Evil Spartan 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Take a look at this. Not sure what he is up to, but if you go to the Image:Penisfrenulum.jpg page you will see that there are many pages linking to it that are not appropriate. The trouble is, since you can't actually see the image, and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box I'm not sure about how to find it. Can anyone help? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the list of articles a common denominator is they all appear to have the same template on them. I'm going to add it here as a test.

Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box"? Why not? Mine does, and it's (I hope) latest release. 2.0.0.11 on windowsXP. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Pretty sure it used to, then it stopped. I'm assuming it was when I upgraded.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK so I add it here, but this page doesn't get added to the list of pages linking to the penis pic, so i remove the {{recentism}} tag from one of the articles and it dissapears from the list. Plus I can't find any reference to the penis photo on the template page itself. What's going on? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image links need to be purged. I can't seem to be able to do it though. Woodym555 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what we need to do. The image was added to the template but has since been removed. We need to make a small noN edit to each of the articles that still link to it because of the recentism template. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

All done! I've seen this vandal before so please keep an eye out for this type of vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to indefinitely semi-protect these templates? I can't imagine they need to be edited all that often, and since they're widely used it seems like the risk of vandalism outweighs whatever edits really need to be made. Natalie 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably a sensible idea. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in question has been added to the "bad list" (appears now only on 2 pages). Recentism template has been semi-protected. Not enough history to warrant more at this time. SkierRMH (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image has now been added to MediaWiki:Bad image list as well, I got edit conflicted adding it to it!! Woodym555 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that list is there always seems to be plenty of images on commons that a potential vandal could use. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't prevent the interesting vandalism I saw on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, which redirected that page to a picture of a penis. Preventing vandalism on Wikipedia seems akin to attempting to prevent shoplifting from a retail store - the only reasonable expectation is to reduce the level, rather than prevent entirely. Natalie 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't prevent it. But we can revert it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

True, something about putting finger in hole in dam. ;) I also agree that we can't cover all images on the list. Incidentally, would a vandal be able to add a redirect to an image on the bad list, and would the software allow it? Woodym555 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have posted here earlier, but the phone rang... After I saw the post here about the vandalism, but before the suggestion was made about semi-protecting the templates involved ({{recentism}} and {{recent death}}) I had fully protected both for a week - just in case the vandal had created some other sleeper accounts today, as I saw Theresa Knott had blocked the user involved saying "returning sock". Quite where one draws the line about indef-semi-protecting such templates, I don't know: neither are currently used on more than 50 pages, which isn't many compared to other permanently protected templates. Having said that, any other admin is entirely welcome to rejig the protection levels/periods on these templates without further reference to me, using the not unreasonable assumption that other admins are much more likely to have a better idea of the nuances of protection policy than me! Bencherlite^Talk 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD close needs some cleaning up

Resolved

 – AfD closed

Would an administrator please swing over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-bashing and give it a proper close. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD reopened for the time being. —Kurykh 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked it over and closed it again, ironically with a similar outcome to that performed by the non-admin (who really shouldn't have closed it per WP:AFD). Of course, DRV is always available for anyone sufficiently unimpressed by the outcome. BLACKKITE 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed locking talk page for User:Meleniumshane90

This user has unrepentantly been spamming Celebration, Florida‎, has engaged in personal attacks and accused other users of doing exactly what he was doing, made unfounded threats on several occasions [47], has sockpuppeteered in order to fake an account unblock, has edit warred about being able to remove declined unblock messages from his talk page (he may not) [48] [49], and has refused to abide by any consensus given by administrators to him through excessive wikilawyering: [50]. I propose this user's talk page be locked up, at least for a few days, if he reverts again (he will did [51]), and he doesn't stand a snowballs's chance of being unblocked. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP on contraceptive pill article

The IP 71.123.17.215 was blocked for 24 hours starting 06:31, 1 December 2007 for a 3RR violation on the article combined oral contraceptive pill. The same content is now being added to the article by 132.236.120.83 (diff from 22:34, 1 December 2007). The type of additions made by these IPs, persistence of the addition, and refusal to engage on the talk page are very similar to a previous content dispute in that article: Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill/Archive 1#Percy Julian.

Is there any way to restrict this person from editing? Lyrl^Talk _C 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I am extremely annoyed to find that the User:CommonsDelinker has been used to change an image I placed on my personal user page IE:- Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster_banner.svg and draw me into an apparent edit war that is spilling over from the English Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons.

The image name change has been done, via Wikimedia Commons, under the claim that the 1st image is an exact duplicate of the 2nd image. This is incorrect as the 1st image has been uploaded since 28 November 2005, by User:Dbenbenn who is a Wiki Commons Bureaucrat, whilst the second has been created by a new user:- User:FalseXflag downloading the first image and re-uploading it, with a different name, two days ago on 28 November 2007, which technically makes the 2nd image the duplicated copy. It appears that the uploader is involved in an edit war over the name/purpose of the image for his own personal POV reasons on the English wikipedia.

To use User:CommonsDelinker to then change multiple user pages is a form of vandalism, as now many users with different political points of view around the world have been summarily forced to have this change of name forced on them.

To also claim that the delete tag should be removed from Image:Ulster_banner.svg on the grounds that the image was linked to hundreds of articles and templates, is also offensive, had the delinker not been used then the image would not exist on those articles/templates as claimed, having only existed under that name two days ago. It should also be noted that many articles/templates have not been able to be changed, as the 1st image is used in many other countries version of Wikipedia. They were listed on the 1st image page, though an edit by User:Siebrand removed the list from view, though it still visible in the edit history here:- Edit history Image:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.svg. An attempt has been made to take a back door approach to having the image name changed, when it was opposed by other editors on the English Wikipedia; See:- Talk Page - Flag of Northern Ireland and Image Talk page - Ulster banner.

As a Yorkshireman I consider myself to be neutral over the name or correct affiliation of the image, however I am aware that whilst living in Northern Ireland in the early 60s, and then working in the ambulance service there in the early 70s, the flag was flown on NI Government buildings. My usage of this particular image is to show the Flag that was in use at the time I worked there, I do not wish it to be seen as a link or an affiliation with any particular political party or group, of which I have none!

I am also concerned over the timing of the sudden appearance of the 'New User' User:FalseXflag, who re-uploaded the original image with the new name having only done 3 edit contributions then disappearing to be followed up by other anon editors; See:- Revision history of "Image:Ulster banner.svg" which brings to mind sock-puppet editing!

I have also noted that User:Fennessy has now edited my user page to undo my revert of the User:CommonsDelinker's change of image, in addition to changing many other articles and user pages, despite the fact no consensus to do so has been agreed. This again I consider to be vandalism of my user page, as may the other editors whose pages he has edited. Some may consider it to be a form of bullying to have another editors POV forced on them!

I placed a request on User:Fennessy's Talk page not to edit my user page and advised him I consider it to be vandalism to which I have received this offensive and uncalled for remark, that I consider to be in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  :-

Well you can "consider" it vandalism all you want, but it wasn't. I was doing you a favor by putting in the new location of an image thats about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Fennessy 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that the image is to be deleted is false information, no consensus has been made on Wikimedia Commons that such an action is to take place at this time. User:Padraig has used the system to have his second upload of the original image semi protected, whilst they go about deleting all links to the first. However they will probably find it impossible to delete the foreign language Wikipedia links. which will in all probability require the image to be retained.

I get the impression that User:Fennessy and User:padraig are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and request that their actions in this situation be looked at a little closer.

There is no actual need to rename the image. Over time flags and Icons come and go are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then wikipedia would grind to a halt. The actions of these two users is irrational and disrupting editors from getting on with good editing of this website, and falls within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Richard Harvey 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take this to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles Will ^(talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)