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

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket #  and VRTS ticket #  for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice^✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice^✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice^✉ 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice^✉ 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Thuranx, I don't read his statement that way. I read it as him being honest and non-delusional about his own innate motivation and world outlook and recognising that it will take a big and constant effort from him to adapt to our collaborative way of doing things.

But I do think that this is a dialogue that you (and possibly others) need to be having with Callmebc himself - which is why I would strongly plead again for his talk page to be unprotected right now. Alice^✉ 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A little late to the party (been away for Christmas) but I'd just like to add that I support an unblock and am willing to do it myself. I'm going to leave that action up to Haemo, of course, but I wanted it to be clear that there are admins willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's three admins who have clearly stated they are willing to unblock and I concur that unblocking is best left to Haemo who says that he is in constant contact, but what about the page protection? We need to be fair not just to Callmebc but to those who have reservations and wish some dialogue so that they can be reassured (or otherwise). Would one of you admins please unprotect the talk page right now as I can not see any objections being voiced to that unprotect after more than a week of discussing Callmebc's block and user talk page protection. Alice^✉ 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the torrent of abuse that he previously let loose on his Talk page, I'm not willing to unblock the page. He's in contact with Haemo so that's fine as far as communication. My own unblock offer does not require discussion, just a simple yes or no (which can be communicated by email). Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing productive that can come from this user on the Killian Documents issue. He should be unblocked only on condition he stay away from that topic, per Guy. Otherwise he'll go right back to insisting on including his original research in that article (and I'll be happy to return from my Wikibreak for the express purpose of stopping that from happening). - Merzbow (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I emailed him a little while ago to try and wrap up this whole thing. I will keep everyone posted! --Haemo (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alice^✉ 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and I know that this section will shortly be archived (into oblivion?) so, would it be possible to drop me a line on my talk page (or by e-mail) when there are any developments, with this particular Callmebc theme since this whole page falls off my watchlist after 9 days? Happy New Year!Alice^✉ 05:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyric the All - harassment

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs).

Cyric the All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An obvious reincarnation of my impersonator; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#I'm being harassed by my old account. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyric the One - harassment

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Snowolf (talk · contribs).

Cyric the One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

yet another as above... --Jack Merridew 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyric the One and All - harassment

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs).

Cyric the One and All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the user page says blocked, but the block log does not... --Jack Merridew 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked 24 hours ago unless he created a new account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, use the proper link, like Cyric the One and All (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed my copy-paste mistake in the template above. --Jack Merridew 11:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jrdo kid

Currently has been uploading like crazy and all licensed them as "GFDL" despite the copyright able nature (mostly logos) of his images. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He has several notices about this on his talk page and they appear to have been deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Said user has a history of uploading copyvio images (see also upload log). Looks like at least 10 copyvio uploads are still live. MER-C 12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is also the majority editor of Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps this is a conflict of interest of some sort. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user, let's hope it was just lack of understanding about copyright policy. — Coren ^(talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy actions. Hope this will be resolved soon. Note that several uploaders actually use the {{GFDL}} tag to circumvent policy and to avoid their user talk pages from overflowing with copyright violation notices. --Howard the Duck 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship of Andranikpasha by VartanM

• Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)
• VartanM (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

The full analysis of the edit history of Andranikpasha and VartanM involvement in that article is available here. Penwhale placed VartanM on A-A 2's restriction which he later explained as "this".

According to EconomicsGuy per this archived discussion the mentor of Andranikpasha is VartanM. This seems to be acknowledged here by VartanM. According to Andranikpasha's block log he was blocked indefinitely but this was later reversed to give mentorship a chance.

Normally when one is in dispute with a user under mentorship, one is supposed to consult the mentor. In this case I had problems with the mentor removing reliable and verifiable sources from an article. Now I have problems with the person he is supposed to be mentoring committing similar edits as the mentor. I think there is a serious conflict of interest here.

I am posting this here rather than at the Arbitration enforcement page because that page seems to be nothing more than a flame war after another. Nothing much seems to be done as a result (no offense to the people working there as it is not their fault).

-- Cat ^chi? 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Andranikpasha on the A-A 2 revert parole - not so much due to this as due to other incidents of edit-warring, usually with Vartan there reverting in tandem. I ran out of time to get this done yesterday but it's been coming for a while - Andranikpasha's disruption of this volatile area of the encyclopaedia needs to stop. See here and here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you act neutral and place White Cat on revert limitation. He edit warred as much as Andranik. VartanM (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Relatively pointless now that I'm hoping the edit-war will end now, though I will if White Cat continues to edit-war here or on any other Armenia-Azeri-related articles. Andranikpasha has a history of edit-warring at enwiki and disruptive editing across multiple projects, and the revert parole was more for other business than for the edit-war on this particular article. I completely agree that White Cat's conduct was pretty poor, but revert limitation for one edit war is overly harsh. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug? so you give him a green light to push his propaganda sites? Thats good way of mediating, keep up the great work and I might give you a barnstar. VartanM (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

More shrug. You'll notice I got him to remove one propaganda site - the Turkish government website is not a lot better but these specific facts are not in dispute, so at least it's giving correct information. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that any future mentorships are logged together with any further restrictions? Also, I do not appreciate being referred to as a meatpuppet by VartanM. As an unrestricted editor in continuously good standing since I started editing here I'm allowed to voice my concern over the fact that half the AE page is about this dispute. I haven't edited any mainspace pages related to this, I became curious after an informal chat with White Cat and was appalled when I saw the level of debate going on there. The concerns over the mentorship were completely justified and VartanM could not be allowed to brush that off as a simple content dispute. I have the deepest respect for Moreschi's no nonsense approach to these disputes but surely it must be possible at any given time to tell who the mentor is when someone is unblocked on condition of mentorship. VartanM wanted community input - when he didn't like it he refers to me as a meatpuppet. Wikipedia isn't a game, it's an encyclopedia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff where I called you a meatpuppet? Don't even try, it doesn't exist. As far as I can tell you have knowledge about the region, history, or the users editing the articles. And you yourself confess that White Cat asked you to come and give your opinion. Feel free to learn the history of the Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey and then I'll be more then happy to discuss content with you in the talkpage of the articles not some offwiki chatroom. Good night and good luck studying the History of Armenia, its quite old. VartanM (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Be honest, White Cat asked you to come here didn't he? That's the very definition of a meatpuppet. Can you refute that you did not inform White Cat that you were the mentor? Can you refute that you edit warred side by side with the person you should be mentoring? I hardly think so. As for the rest of your reply you still haven't showed that this was a content issue. You tried to brush it off as such eventhough you had threatened White Cat on the article talk page with a thread here on ANI if he reverted again. Like I said this isn't a game and if that's hard to understand then enough time has been wasted on this and the parties who are already subject to a long list of restrictions should be shown the door. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Several people are continuing to campaign to remove governmental sources over personal reasons. The are not even disputing the validity of the content on the articles. Some of these people are admins which is why this is more worrisome. -- Cat ^chi? 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By governmental he means Turkish government. VartanM (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why yes. Turkish government is not censored out now is it? I think your very statement demonstrates the problem. -- Cat ^chi? 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

I was asked to take the issue to ANI instead of commenting on 3RR, so this is what I'm doing. Today there was a 3RR report against User:Jaakobou by User:Bless sins. In the discussion that ensued, an impartial administrator stated that two users were edit-warring (Jaakobou and Eleland), and action must be taken against either or both, because neither is completely innocent (or guilty).

There was also a small discussion which I consider fairly irrelevant, but whoever is reading this will probably want to read it as well. In any case, even though the 3RR case was disputed and wasn't a clear violation, an administrator (User:Tariqabjotu) decided to block the accused party (Jaakobou) for 84 hours (a very long block, although understandable because it's not his first). He also didn't say anything against Eleland, who was involved in the edit war, not even issuing a warning on his talk page, or anything of the sort.

The obvious initial problem is that an admin acted against only one user in an edit war, whose 3RR was disputed, and against the wishes of another admin. Normally, I wouldn't say anything, because who am I (a non-admin) to question this decision? However, the problem here is the User:Tariqabjotu is highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians, and clearly is not an impartial admin. At the very least, he could have left a comment and asked another admin to do the block.

I am therefore appealing the decision and hope it is fairly reviewed by other administrators. I also invite uninvolved users to comment on what seems to me like a conflict of interest.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey omitted the fact that, as I said when I responded to the 3RR report, Jaakobou has been edit-warring on several articles over the past several days (such as House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know). After blocking Jaakobou, I took a look at Eleland's edit history and saw no such pattern of edit warring. One must note that the discussion on WP:AN3 only surrounded the edits of Jaakobou and Eleland on one article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm okay with objections to the block (although I firmly believe the block is justified), but accusations of conflict of interest are misplaced. Ynhockey's latest comment on WP:AN3 shows what obviously is him jumping to conclusions about how certain admins react in response to touchy subjects. Contrary, apparently, to what Ynhockey believes, I don't pigeonhole people as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" and make decisions based on those assumptions. So, I would prefer Ynhockey not do the same to me. Ynhockey does not know what I believe about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and as well, because my beliefs, especially on that subject, have no bearing on how I act within this project. His assertion that I am "highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians" is an exaggeration and, more importantly, I am not involved in any conflict with Jaakobou (on any of the aforementioned articles or elsewhere). Decry the block if you must, but this idea that anyone touching Israel-related or Palestinian-related subjects is editing and acting from a biased standpoint is harmful to the welfare of our articles related to these subjects. It's no wonder many of our Middle Eastern articles have repeatedly been the subject of fierce edit wars. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I did not imply that you were either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, sorry if it came across this way - indeed the other two users I mentioned were clearly pro-Israeli and another clearly pro-Palestinian, that does not include you. I was merely commenting on the fact that you are highly involved in articles related to Israel and Arab countries (and by extension, Islam), and if 7 of your 15 top-edited articles are on these subjects, and you helped bring 2 to FA status, does not mean you are highly involved, then I don't know what does. I just thought that an involved admin, even if not in the specific article being disputed, should not pass judgement over articles they're close to. I probably would've disputed your decision even if you protected the page, for example, which would've been my suggestion/decision if I was an admin.

Secondly, it is wrong to say that Eleland does not have a history of edit-warring. Clear examples which come to mind are Saeb Erekat (for which he was reported for 3RR) and Battle of Jenin, although I'm sure I could dig up a dozen more if I actually went over his contributions.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong interest in the Middle East, but that still does not equal being highly involved in every Middle Eastern subject. Involvement in (for example, as you mention in your latest comment) Islam-related articles is still quite a leap away from being involved in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, there is far more to Israel and Jerusalem than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinians. Although those subjects are certainly related to the articles, you will see I stay away from articles more central to the conflict (such as, for example, Israeli-Palestinian conflict). As far as I am concerned, a conflict of interest is only of concern for a block or protection when there is a conflict with a specific editor or article. Neither is the case here. You have provided evidence that I edit articles related, in varying to degrees, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you have provided no evidence that this has impeded my judgment, or made me biased, in blocking Jaakobou based on entirely different articles. If anything, the fact that I have been able to contribute substantially to Israel and Jerusalem and bring them to featured status is a testament to my ability to keep relatively neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, take out the conflict of interest claim and you leave what I believe should be the real purpose of the discussion – whether the block was fair, my interest in the Middle East notwithstanding.

Eleland's edit-warring on Saeb Erekat and Battle of Jenin dates back to (as recent as) December 4 and September 30, respectively. Jaakobou's edit-warring on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know dates back to (as recent as) December 29, December 29, and December 29, respectively. I have no doubt that Eleland has edit warred on several articles during his time on Wikipedia, but the proximity of Jaakobou's edit-warring across multiple articles is the real issue. Jaakobou's response below further reinforces my point that there is an problem; he does not appear to understand that his edit-warring is unproductive, and claims he hasn't been edit-warring at all. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like both users were edit-warring and since both have a history of making contentious edits on these sort of articles, both deserve similar treatment. However, I think jaakobou was acting in good faith, and not trying to push his POV and when I just looked over some of Eleland's latest contributions I saw at least one case of obvious POV-pushing that cannot be reasonably considered as good faith and loads of personal attacks. It seems that when we have 3 editors on one side of an issue and only 1 editor on the other side watching an article, the numbers "win" and the one gets blocked when really both deserve to be handled similarly, as just because someone didn't revert more than three times (and didn't violate the letter of 3RR), it doesn't justify his edit warring. Yonatan ^talk 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post this on behalf of Jaakobou. Nick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [1] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[2] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [3]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [4] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [5] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [6], incivility [7], pov accusations [8][9][10], and pov violations [11].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [12], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jaakobou's description of the facts is simply not accurate. The reference he added to his edits at Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian did not address the concerns I raised regarding his rather polemical insertions of material there. I have sinced retained the reference he added but removed the unsourced additions, while adding a source for an item he tagged as lacking in sources and doing a general copy edit of one of the sections in question. He has also been edit-warring at October 2000 events, changing a sentence sourced to two references to read as he pleases, despite my attempts to reason with him on the talk page. Tiamut 14:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that tariqabjotu made an error of judgment in his reason to block Jaakobou, but not Eleland. I don't believe there should have been any block for either since both have made exactly 3 reverts on this issue within the article and have started discussion on the talk page. I'd also like to suggest that many good editors go 3 reverts (not 4) on the Israeli-Palestinian articles without expecting to be blocked and it would be an interesting development if suddenly we are going to change the way blocks have been implemented thus far. Please, if there is a policy change on this, let us all know about it beforehand. That is my opinion anyhow, from reading and following these articles he was involved in of late. Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record Jaakobou made 4 reverts not 3. Eleland made less than 4 reverts (else I'd have reported him/her too).Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must not be making myself clear: Once again, I blocked Jaakobou for the sum of his edit warring, not for the edit warring on just House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please get the facts straight. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC

It is my perception of the WP:3RR intention is that reverting an editor on different issues does not add up into a single issue, meaning that, each count as separate issues (imagine 5 editors arguing over a 5 issues). Therefore believe it was only 3 reverts and not 4. Also, Jaakobou explained the true nature of the "sum of his edit warring" and I honestly believe you have made a judgment error here blocking only one of the two, incorrectly declaring him as a rotten egg, while missing Eleland's activity on articles such as Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also now where he helps User:Bless_sins avoid 3RR by reverting for him with the same dubious justification at the Islam movie article. Seeing that discussion were already on their way on talk, I think you should have only protected the article. The block will certainly not resolve the content dispute and everyone must wait 84 hours in anticipation. Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

YnHockey, I can understand when you say User:Tariqabjotu has edited, in the past, Israel/Arab related articles. You also agree, with tariq (and myself), that he/she is a completely neutral editor, neither 'pro-Palestinian' nor 'pro-Israeli'. In that case I don't see any conflict of interest. The fact that tariq is involved means he/she is very familiar with types edit warring that takes place in such articles, and how admins usually handle this. In that case tariqabjotu is a suitable admin for the job.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the use of 3rr as a weapon in a content/POV push dispute. It certainly seems like some members of the community are keeping it as a weapon to beat their opponents with... Rather than blocking editors, who seem to be disengaging from the edit war, shouldn't the blocking admin have protected the pages in this case since discussion on talk pages had been occuring? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages are generally protected when there are several different members in each of the edit-warring parties. In this case it appears to be a case of Jaakobou alone against 3 editors. Also, insisting that a user follow wikipedia rules is not a 'weapon to beat opponents with'. You are forgetting that the 'opponents' wouldn't be in this situation if they observed wikipedia policies like WP:3rr.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What Happened

A number of users (Timeshifter, Tiamut, Eternalsleeper, and MathKnight) sought to add new content to the article Second Intifada which a number of the editors (Michael Safyan, Armon, Jaakobou, and Tewfik) deemed objectionable and in violation of WP:NPOV. Many of the editors sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Jaakobou made considerable efforts to resolve the editing conflict in this manner. However, some of the less scrupulous editors sought to push the new and biased content. Jaakobou followed proper protocol by reverting these controversial edits while the issue was being discussed on the talk page.

If anyone ought to be blocked, I think it should be those editors who ignored the ongoing discussion on the talk page and who sought to push their objectionable new content. Although those who support blocking Jaakobou attribute the block to a prior edit regarding wikilinks to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Second Intifada article, this conflict took place a long time ago and is not the actual motivation for the block.

In conclusion, I object to the blocking of Jaakobou on the grounds that:

1. Jaakobou followed proper protocol in reverting controversial edits and sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page.
2. Those seeking to block Jaakobou are equally, if not more, guilty of edit warring given that they disregarded ongoing discussion and instead sought to make their controversial edits.
3. The alleged reason for blocking Jaakobou (wikilinks to House demolitions) is quite different than the actual reasons for the block.
4. The alleged reason for blocking transpired a long time ago which, by any reasonable statute of limitations, ought to be disregarded.

Please see the Revision history of Second Intifada, the objectionable edit, the Second Intifada Talk Page. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what are you calling the "alleged reason" versus the "actual reason" for the block. -- tariqabjotu 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By "alleged reason" I mean the stated reason which was used to justify the block to the administrative board. By "actual reason" I mean the reason why the block was sought in the first place -- that is, Jaakobou's reversion of the controversial edits. That the block was sought for this reason is evidenced by the fact that the stated reason involves a dispute which transpired a long time ago and by the fact that threats to block Jaakobou were first raised in the discussion of the controversial edits which Jaakobou reverted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the reason for blocking. I thought it was a 3RR violation of Second Intifada regarding wikilinks to the House demolitions article rather than a 3RR violation of the House demolitions article, itself. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with toy photos

User:Mathewignash has uploaded hundreds of photographs of toys (primarily Transformers), most of them listed under the GFDL. Unfortunately, the use of that license here is invalid. The Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works makes it clear that photographs of copyrighted toys are derivative. Since the toys and characters are currently under restrictive copyright, we can use photos like this only under a claim of fair use. Mathewignash has previously been blocked for copyright violation, but he was recently unblocked by an administrator who was apparently unaware of this particular aspect of copyright policy. I am sure he is acting in good faith (like the users who inaccurately label a screenshot as GFDL-self) but the photos will almost all have to be deleted. Also, he needs to be advised of this. *** Crotalus *** 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos 3D toys are indeed considered to be derivative works. This is often a point of confusion. 1 != 2 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much doubt of good faith, however, and indeed I think he has been previously advised otherwise (that promotional pictures are bad, but that self-taken pictures would be correct); he need to be set straight but not chided. — Coren ^(talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gently advised Matthew of the correct policy on his talk page. Someone is going to have to go through and clear the backlog; not being an administrator, I can't delete any of them. *** Crotalus *** 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because 90% of 2D images of 3D things are fair game. Not sure what we can do to prevent other users making this mistake (I have a horrible feeling I've made it recently...) without over-complicated wording on the upload pages. The best result is to make sure that all people involved - uploaders, people-that-notice, admins-who-don't-delete, admins-who-do - all keep up the smiley-happy-anyone-can-do-this-in-error thing. Slapping down of anyone, in either direction, is poor form. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I probably have: Image:Modern Stylophone.JPG. Advice on what to actually tag it with, deletion of it, or "other" all accepted. But if anyone wants to give me a template warning for uploading it or call for my head... well, game on. And we'll see who's sorry first. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that one's almost certainly okay. The case where a copyright or trademark would trip a self-made photo are "distinctive appearance" and "visual branding" cases; toys which are characters, works of visual art, etc. It is possible that the Stylophone is covered by such, but it's not very likely. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was advised - after having a photo of a toy deleted from Commons for a similar reason - that tagging {{tl|Non-free use rationale}}, plus {{tl|Non-free 3D art}} or {{tl|Non-free character}} (it was a doll) would be appropriate in that situation, on en.wp only, which seems to have been okay so far. (Of course, now I've drawn it to people's attention...)--Kateshortforbob 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(As the person who told Mathewignash that these were OK...) This has always been a grey area in policy, even I've known that. That said, images like, for example, Image:PlayStation 2.png contain copyrighted elements but happily sit with GFDL tags. I inferred from this that, although these toy images contain copyrighted works, a photo of them licenced as GFDL would be acceptable. If I have erred here, then I will accept that, though I'm not clear what the difference between the two cases is. After a conversation with someone who knows more on this than I, who confirmed that this is a contested issue, it seems these toy images could (apparently) be acceptable on en.wp (not commons) if tagged both with {{GFDL-self}} and {{trademark}}, and so long as they're used in a reasonable manner (say, Optimus Primal#Toys). The other suggestion was simply to make a claim of fair use on them. Either way, I defer judgement to others; I'm still trying to wikibreak and don't pretend to be an expert on this. – Steel 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem stems that, as sculptures and character art, toy figurines are afforded more protection tan an industrially designed device simply baring a trademark for instance; nobody here blames you for falling afoul of that grayish area of Copyright law which is byzantine at its best - It also has been stretch to strange forms by some corporations (Apple, for instance, has DMCA'ed sites bearing photographs of some of its devices claiming that the case design were creative works of art making the photographs derived works — something that is not entirely silly on its face). As a rule, however, consumer devices are okay if they do not include works of art or (protectable) character images. The case of a Mickey Mouse watch, for instance, would fall squarely in the gray area.

Copyright law is a monstrosity long past its prime, but we have to work with (around) it as best as we can — fair use does allow us some leeway, but we have to be very careful.

For the case at hand, a photograph of a Transformer toy would be quite covered by fair use in an article about the toy, less so for an article about the character, and not at all otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sysop.js

I've chaged Sysop.js so that we have better auto-reasons when we're deleting pages (it's basically ^demons tool) and the text of the page isn't displayed in the deletion log (which can be especially problematic with attack pages). The problem is, if you have ^demons tool, or any similar version of it installed, you now get two boxes, so you need to remove ^demons tool from your monobook.js. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but isn't this more appropriate at WP:AN? -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As this is going to affect every single admin, I wanted to get as wide an audience as possible, and as quickly as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the new interface. Just my $0.02. Keilana_(recall) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not wrap the csdDeleteForm variable and the relevant functions and function calls in an if statement to test if it already exists? I think something like

if( typeof(csdDeleteForm) == 'undefined' )

would work. Then admins with local copies of ^demon's script would not be inconvenienced and would not notice two interfaces. Note that the name "csdDeleteForm" has been in use almost since the beginning of the script.[13][14] --Iamunknown 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I slightly altered the original - we didn't quite want WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a deletion reason, would it still work? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I got rid of this new interface because, to be honest, I found it highly annoying, and I have my reasons on autocomplete if I ever need them, because I usually clear out the content anyways. Maxim_(talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how is it worse than the old one? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I dislike the MediaWiki: list, but I'm OK with the sysop.js list but I still don't like it. Just put Twinkle into sysop.js and you'd have a csd tab that should work for 85% of sysops, and saves you a few mousecliks and looks after what links here for you. Maxim_(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block

I've just blocked User:Rosencomet for 24 hours for violating WP:CANVASS after being given a final warning. First warning (included diffs to canvassing posts and link to policies) [15]. Second warning, by a different admin Redvers: [16]. Rosencomet reverts admin (Redvers) removal of canvassing: [17] [18] [19]. Because of my history with Rosencomet, I would like a review of my block. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• My fault: if I'd glanced up his talk page, I'd have seen the previous very clear warnings and would have done him for longer than your 24 hours (to the end of the AfDs in question, in fact). Support the 24hr block as protective of the the deletion discussion system. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks, Redvers. Again, because of my history of conflict with Rosencomet, I felt the need to be cautious in my actions. What he did was clearly a blocking violation but I didn't think it wise to make the block too long. Extending the block to the length of the AfDs is warranted I believe but I'm too close to the situation to make a call like that. That's why I immediately brought my actions here to put other eyes on the situation. Pigman☿ 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support block and agree with Redvers that it would be best to extend the block till the AfDs Rosencomet was canvassing on (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)) are completed. As Rosencomet has shown himself willing to continue canvassing despite warnings from two different admins, and revert uninvolved admin removal of his canvassing, I think there is a risk of him continuing to violate policy when the 24 hours are up. The AfDs are also being hit by SPAs now, and judging from their comments, it looks to me like he's continuing to canvass off-wiki. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to his comments on Fred Bauder's talk page, this editor has been in a conflict with Pigman, Kathryn NicDhana and Matisse for quite some time. Given that, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to request someone else make the block? Particularly since it is a WP:CANVASS block, not exactly a critical reason to block first and ask later since you can put the canvass template at the AfD? Additionally, just above you reported him for personal attacks. All in all, you are clearly involved in a dispute with this guy and blocking yourself was inappropriate. Avruchtalk 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You're probably correct, Avruch. Please note the canvass template was already on the AfDs and that Rosencomet was actively engaged in reverting Redvers' removal of Rosencomet's canvassing at the time. Still, perhaps this could have been handled by requesting the block instead of doing it myself. However I'd also like to note that, despite massive amounts of evidence of COI spamming by Rosencomet, there seems to be some reluctance to take action against him because of the Starwood arbitration (closed March, 2007). If you'd like to get up to speed on Rosencomet's actions and community responses to his behaviour over the last 16 months, I'd be happy to point you to RfCs, mediations, his archived talk page, the closed arbitration, etc. (he said sweetly) Pigman☿ 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm sure I could find it but I'm not terribly interested. I just happened to have Fred's talkpage watched, and then noticed that same editors name come up here attached to yours (twice). I understand there is a long history about this user, but I also understand that you have been involved in much or all of it (correct me if I'm wrong here). Given that, you absolutely should have asked someone else to evaluate the situation prior to a block. The template is to warn people who have been canvassed, not the canvasser, and anyone who has been notified by Rosencomet would see it and understand (ideally). A block is not a typical response to a WP:CANVASS violation that I'm aware of - can you provide diffs that demonstrate his canvassing was having a disruptive result? We allow notifications, and in fact its built in to project templates and etc and there is even a whole sorting WikiProject to make sure interested people have an opportunity to weigh in. Avruchtalk 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, the relevant policy is here: Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing, specifically, "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." While it would have been preferable for another admin to set the block, I think that the fact that Pigman, by setting a short block to stop the violations in progress, then immediately coming here to ask for more eyes on it, has shown transparency and accountability in this. I believe Pigman was successful in preventing further disruptive editing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, which is why I asked for examples showing how his canvassing is being disruptive (as opposed to just irritating). A short block would have been an hour, or two hours. You folks are talking about blocking him for the duration of these AfDs, which is something entirely other than a short block. Avruchtalk 03:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the comments of Rosencomet don't inspire confidence, I think Pigman should undo the block, per Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute, from WP:BLOCK. Though one might argue that the canvassing offence was independent of the various content disputes, it is better to avoid the appearance of a COI in the blocking itself. If the issue is important enough, another admin can re-impose the block. If Rosencomet's block is lifted and no-one reimposes it, and that gives rise to additional misbehavior in the various AfDs, that can be taken into account by the respective closing admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pigman should not have made the block. A request should have been made here for consideration. No comment on the block itself, I don't have time to review the situation. Thatcher 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ed and Thatcher, I think both your points are well taken. This is precisely why I brought it here. Rosencomet's blatant canvassing after being quite specifically warned about it led me to act a little more rashly and impulsively than I probably should have in this kind of situation. I'm usually much more circumspect, deliberate, and mindful of these issues. I agree that even the appearance of COI in a block is not good. I'm lifting the block but I'm doing so with the expectation that others will keep an eye on the situation. Cheers, Pigman☿ 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good choice. Personally, if someone uninvolved decides blocking him is appropriate that would be fine with me (posting here and on his talk page with the unblock template is not a disendorsement of the idea of blocking him). I'm a little put out that my points weren't well taken too, though :-P Avruchtalk 04:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Avruch. An oversight, to be sure, and no slight to you intended. ;-) I did agree with most of your points further up. A little less than entirely gracious and wholehearted perhaps but I've also been dealing with this ongoing mess for quite a while and I hope you can excuse me if I'm a wee bit edgy on the subject on occasion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block for edit warring

IP User 24.91.119.156, apparently on a vendetta against certain well-established (& rather dry) geographic and demographic facts, has removed the same paragraph from Brighton, Boston, Massachusetts#Geography seven times in the past five weeks. Has ignored repeated invitations to discussion & to seek consensus, e.g., 24 December message on talk page User talk:24.91.119.156. No response, and no explanation ever given in edit summary space. Anonymous "account" is used for no other purpose than repeatedly deleting this content. Behavior pattern continuing after last warning (regarding disruptive editing), given on 25 December. It is an ongoing nuisance for me and another editor to watch the article closely and restore the deleted material each time. Please block this user long term or permanently. Thank you for your help. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I just thought I'd drop in and comment. Good call in reporting the user here. However, for similar incidents consider using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. This user isn't the best example (though they did have a streak on November 23rd [20] [21] [22]), but for edit wars you can usually use that page. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding: I do not think a short-term block would be effective, as there have been hiatusses of a few days to a few weeks between repetitions of the pattern. That is why I am requesting a long-term or indefinite block. Thanks again. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the infrequent nature of the edits, there isn't much that can be done. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely, because the person could come back with a different dynamic address or username if we blocked this one. All you can do is revert the edits if they are inappropriate. Sorry to be of little help, — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really true. The fact that this IP appears static lends weight to the possibility of a long term (not indefinite, but far longer than 24 hours) block being effective. Indeed, another admin has blocked him for two weeks. Just as a registered user who intermitently vandalizes Wikipedia for several weeks with no constructive edits inbetween can be long-term blocked with no collateral damage, an apparently static vandalism-only-IP can be blocked for weeks at a time without inconveniencing anyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is reasonable, but the request was for something a lot longer than that. There really isn't much benefit to blocking an IP for months at a time just to stop one edit per month. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:STBotI

Resolved

 – Bot broke, blocked, then fixed and unblocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This bot is malfunctioning and tagging images that have completed FURs. Can someone block it please? Exxolon (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, I'm trying to find ST47 on IRC now to inform him. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked as ST47 has fixed the issue. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BRD question

If you're trying to work within WP:BRD guidelines, and another editor simply reverts but refuses to participate in discussion, what's the next step? BRD doesn't seem to work so well without the D. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You should seek help from others. There are several ways in which to do so: find a relevant Wikiproject and alert them, seek a third opinion, or raise a request for comment on the issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Do you have any additional suggestions if the other editors are IP editors? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If an IP is revert warring and not participating in discussion, request semi-protection (don't do it yourself). Avruchtalk 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK late again

...and none of the usual DYK admins seem to be around. It's almost six hours late and we have a very substantial backlog already, so could someone please post the update? I've thrown one together, but we need an admin to post it to the front page, I can do the rest. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I do it right? I broke DYK the last two times I tried updating it. east.718 at 12:57, December 30, 2007

Did you remember to protect the image? Otherwise, it looks fine to me, thanks :) I'll do the notifications. Gatoclass (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not set this up to autorotate? It could easily be done with switch statements that will rotate per hour or every few hours. {{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} / 6 round 0}}, for example, would give a number that would rotate every four hours. So {{#switch:{{#expr: ({{CURRENTHOUR}} - 3) / 6 round 0}} | 0 = did you know w | 1 = did you know x | 2 = did you know y | 3 = did you know z }} would give you a different did you know every four hours, eg, "did you know z" for this hour. Another switch could be made to include day mod 2 or mod 3 so that they can be setup several days in advance. That way someone doesn't have to just so happen to be available right at the right time. --B (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please see User:B/DYK demo for a demo of this concept. If you transclude {{User:B/DYK demo}}, you will get only the current set, yet all four sets are stored in the same template. It's exactly like what is currently done - the only difference is you can set them up in advance. --B (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Review discussions regarding naming of buildings.

Resolved

There has been ongoing debate and an independent administrator need to review the arguments regarding the articles. As wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy the number of support and oppose "votes" are irrelevant. Also the discussions have not concluded and changes to the articles have been made before the articles the discussions have concluded. Please review 201 Bishopsgate, 110 Bishopsgate, 25-33 Canada Square, 301/3 Deansgate, and 1 Blackfriars. Some of the articles did not even have discussions regarding the name on the pages and were moved unilaterally. With the full knowledge that discussions on the names of other buildings were being conducted. I believe that the naming convention needs changing and a proposal has been made Here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for every edit and every move of a page to be discussed beforehand - in fact, we try to encourage the opposite, see WP:BB. Only where the actions are contentious does a discussion need to take place and consensus be attained. I can't really see anything going on here that needs administrator attention at the moment, although I will register my opinion on the proposal you've mentioned. Waggers (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just replied to this in the AN. Please don't forum shop. One place is plenty enough. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what forum shopping is but I believe that each article is individual and should be discussed individually.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant forum shopping. Closing this one out. east.718 at 15:28, December 30, 2007

Threatening language by an Admin

User:Iridescent has recently posted on to my talk page and appears to be threatening me. In there any action I can take?--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you've been edit warring a lot, and Iridescent has lost her patience — something she has every right to do. Edit warring is extremely discruptive and can result in a block, which is what she jsut warned you about.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 15:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To save cross-posting, see discussion here. — iridescent 15:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, and I haven't read the back-history yet on this, an administrators job involves telling users if and when they are engaging in behavior that's a problem, and if and when something bad may happen if they continue. That's part of their job, and expected. To do that they will use judgement to issue warnings, and those are intended to inform and guide.

In some cases sadly there have been admin posts that are improper, but these are a great minority. Note also that perfection is not expected, and lapses may occur; admins may at times be blunt, abrupt, curt, or to the point (but should still do so civilly); but good (or above average) conduct is anticipated to be the desired norm. The post on your talk page is blunt and curt. I would expect that "not assuming AGF" does not necessarily mean "seeking to assume bad faith". The admin notes that you continue to create (or be involved in) behaviors and conflicts of the kind you were previously warned about. Because you were told not to (but you continue), and because there is also evidence of other edit war related behaviors that are not part of good collaborative intentions, the assumption that these behaviors are mere innocent errors done unwittingly may not be appropriate.

That's how I read it. It is blunt to the point of abrasiveness I will agree; to the point I'd say consider wording it slightly differently, but that's my understanding of what he/she is saying. Hope that helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This and this are the diffs in question. Although she deletes them as fast as they come in, a skim through her talkpage history shows she's had more than enough warnings to reach "final warning" stage. — iridescent 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have diffs to prove it myself, but I seem to recall this user (Lucy-marie) filing a lot of frivolous complaints against users in the past. JuJube (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any warnings since the block. I think it would have been better not to jump to a high level warning. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(from Iridescent's talk page, the disussion seems to be continuing here) Having reviewed Special:Contributions/Lucy-marie I think a short block of the user in question might be warranted. She's constantly edit warring, wikilawyering and generally being disruptive. Any opinions on this?--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence on this? I can see this user has also contributed alot of positive edits. --neonwhite user page talk 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she means harm. I think she just doesn't understand collaborative editing. My impression is that for her, the rules as written down, are everything. She seems to see everything in black and white, no interpretations are needed, no working with others are required. I don't feel a short block would remedy that :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the warning was out of order, if anything it was to lenient, AGF does have its limits. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of that warning may be a bit more curt than even I would use, but Iridescent's impatience is quite understandable, and Good Faith has been more than assumed as demonstrated that this editor is not already blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall blocking User:Lucy-marie a little while back for abusive sockpuppetry; my take from the occasional skim of her talk page (which apparently remains on my watchlist) is that Lucy-marie is an editor with serious difficulties in her approach, which seems abrasive and uncollaborative. For what it's worth. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Oltnilen

Resolved

 – I guess this one is resolved. The user was already warned, so I'm not sure what User:Ilhanli was trying to achieve here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit

It is in Turkish and says "This user is stupid". bu, kullanıcı, salak. --Ilhanli (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The user already had a warning, which I've further explained. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

I've not encountered one of these beasts before. Does this qualify? Assistance/advice appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith, and assumed that the user was not aware of our position on legal threats. I have notified him/her of WP:NLT. If he/she continues to make such legal threats, blocking would be appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, this was a new one for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Account sent a similar but expanded legal threat to me in email after the NLT warnings. Pursuant to policy, persistently making repeated legal threats is grounds for indef blocking, and I have done so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued problems by User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

Resolved

 – Magnonimous and his sock drawer blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 14 December 2007
• 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 5 December 2007

Articles

• Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created 20 December 2007 by Magnonimous

(Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [23], so I'm assuming these are the same person.)

Magnonimous behavior problems continue and are getting worse. See previous ANI at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161

Since this last ANI, he has removed a number of tags including an afd notice from Okinawa Coral, the latest pov-fork of Coral calcium, and has spammed defamatory accusations to multiple talk pages: User talk:Ronz Talk:Stephen Barrett User talk:Magnonimous User talk:B User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf and User talk:Levine2112 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Afd notice was added without justification, without notice or relevant talk, and went against the general consensus we had on the talk page. I believe MoonLightGlory's contribution removed significant amounts of POV content from the original quote-unquote Coral Calcium article, and seemed to relieve the edit warring, at least temporarily. In retrospect it seems ridiculous to add more POV content to an article to try to balance it. I wish I had done what he/she did in the first place, and removed that crackpot's ramblings from the original article altogether. Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now. Magnonimous (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I had NO IDEA :-] about the ban on canvassing. Where did my mind go hm hm hm. Secondly, it's hardly defamation if presented as an opinion on an opinion based page. Magnonimous (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Magnonimous meant by, "Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now." He replaced the content of Coral calcium completely by that of Okinawa Coral, which is up for deletion as a pov fork of Coral calcium. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Above action was not without relevant support: "I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article, removing all poorly referenced material. However, I see no reason to change the name. Okinawa coral is a subset of coral calcium, so redirecting would seem entirely inappropriate." Someguy1221, some might say this verges on consensus. Magnonimous (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, I apologize for my colleague's continued dredging up of past issues that you shouldn't have been bothered with in the first place --Magnonimous (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for ongoing disruptive conduct, including removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted content forks, canvassing, abuse of article talk pages, WP:BLP violations, and a generally unconstructive approach. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Alot of good material was being trashed by a couple editors who don't understand NPOV and the fact that all significant POV are included in Wikipedia articles as long as they are well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. We don't publish the "truth" here, we publish verifiable POV. That is regardless of whether they are considered facts, opinions, POV, "the truth", or whatever else one chooses to call them. What we don't publish is OR and articles that don't meet notability requirements. -- Fyslee / talk 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, as soon as he was blocked, Jerome709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was autoblocked as a result. I'm assuming that means they are socks and based on the disruption I've seen from the two of them, I'd support a community ban. --B (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the ban; this has been going on for too long. As I said in the first ANI report, Magnonimous is a clear spa, who every couple weeks gets an idea that no one agrees with, leading to edit wars, an ANI report, and warnings all around. The fact that he's also a sockpuppet suggests to me this account was created with the express purpose of editing tendentiously, while avoiding any consequences following him to his main account. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this just got more interesting [24]. If this claim is truthful, then 24.36.201.161 is a shared private proxy. The IP that left the message for me is an open proxy and I have now blocked it. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous if anyone is interested. I have removed the direct block on Jerome709 pending anything interesting from a checkuser. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone following this, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous has proven Magnonimous and Jerome709 are working from the same computer. --B (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued ban evasion by Arthur Ellis

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 209.217.93.84 (talk · contribs). I think we need a block here (which would be his fourth this week). For more background, please see see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly bear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden in mind? There may be a case for letting him edit this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you read the Proposed Decision page of the case that you just cited? Arthur Ellis was banned by Arbcom from editing articles relating to Canadian politics and the blogosphere, then had his ban widened for having violated the first ban by editing Rachel Marsden. Then the community hardbanned him for continued ban evasion, and the Arbcom rejected his appeal of the community ban. You might also want to check out the vandalism in the edit histories of the Arbcom pages that you just cited; most of it is from Arthur Ellis IP ranges. If an edit needs to be made to that article surely someone other than a long-term Wikipedia vandal and serial BLP violator can do it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the Rachel Marsden RFAR the ArbCom judged Ellis's edits to be in accordance with BLP. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether Athur Ellis is a serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying he's unlikely to be violating BLP on this article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all people mentioned in an article. He violated it today with this edit:[25] But moreover you are missing the point of banning someone from the project. When someone has given us a stream of vandalism and harassment, we want that person to and stop interacting with us and to forget about Wikipedia. Back to my original point: If an edit needs to be made, anyone can make it and defend it. If you need more eyes on the article, why not ask the thousands of active editors in good standing to watch it instead of inviting back (of all the people in the world) a long-term vandal and serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to continuing the above discussion, could someone block this IP please? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Static IP - 100% link spam

76.16.242.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 100% link spam indicates static IP. Final warning. Non current. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... I think we block-conflicted - I just blocked the IP for 31 hours. Though I have no problem with a month. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it occurs each weekend, a block that covers, at the least, next weekend would be more effective, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've extended it to 1 month, as per Theresa's original inclination. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

This user is making useless edits to bypass redirects in violation of Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. When I explain this, he calls me "an insensate policy wonk". What should be done? --NE2 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or articles concerned? Avruchtalk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec]FCYTravis (talk · contribs) is making perfectly valid points on your talk page. I don't see the issue with changing a piped link that heads to a redirect into a piped link that goes directly to the target article. This is a completely pointless revert and an edit war worth WP:LAME if it continues. Please find a way to solve this dispute that needs no admin intervention... — Scientizzle 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that they are useless edits, and should not be encouraged. They also increase page size. --NE2 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more useless to edit war and argue over harmless, if useless, edits. — Scientizzle 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If it stops the useless edits, it might be worth it. --NE2 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Edit warring is by defenition more harmfull then a harmless edit. The only reason WP:REDIR states not to change links is to prevent confusion over future articles that may be created in the context of that link. The edits you are warring over do not fall under that reason, as these redirects only apply to spelling of a link, not it's meaning. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo (talk · contribs) & Ungurul (talk · contribs)

Moldopodo complains about Ungurul

User:Ungurul, before vandalising the article Balti steppe, has never said anything on the relevant talk page. Further, this user has simply replaced every word "steppe" with "depression" and also added diacritics signs everywhere. None of these edits were justified. For none of these edits has user Ungurul tried to reach a consensus in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Ungurul, also present on German speaking Wikipedia (according to me, as uses exact same insults and numerous personal attacks), - ref. [26], [27], on French speaking Wikipedia ref. [28], [29], [30], [31], on Romanian speaking Wikipedia (was blocked for obsceneities written in Romanian) ref.[32], [33]. User Ungarul was asked to stop personally attacking me under the above mentioned user names on all Wikipedias, to stop insult/personally attack me and vandalise disussion pages by repeatedly deleting sections containing discussion and research of consensus on the proper city name in the cocnerend language, namely on French Wikipedia).--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Further explication of User:uNgarul's actions may be also found at my talk page, and namely at its edits history (the same applies for other language version Wikipedias). thank you for your time.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Ungurul complains about Moldopodo

Can one look about the behaviour of this user? He was blocked for a week, now is again trolling and being disruptive. I mean this guy is not accepting official name of cities and he's been blocked in others wikipedia as well. See French wikipedia for example. Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Ungurul (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for harrasing Moldopodo (talk · contribs). These two just can't get along... — Scientizzle 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not harrasing him, I just asked him on his talk page something. One can see my edit there. A very innocent question. Ungurul (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia projects are completely autonomous, at least in regards to user conduct, so whatever actions Moldopodo has undertaken on other projects should not be taken into account here. Whether he accepts official names or not is a personal matter. What should matter here is his conduct in seeking or following consensus and generally abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. I agree that Moldopodo has not been the ideal editor in those respects, but to be fair, you have also breached various policies, and Moldopodo's actions should be seen in the light of these mitigating circumstances. TSO1D (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he's being very disruptive. I see that others from other Wikipedia also dealt with him properly. By blocking him. Ungurul (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I blocked him once, and I'm not going to do it again on your say so. You can both get along, or you can both be blocked. You are being as bad as each other. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because I simply revert his POV pushing and I respected the rules. He didn't accepted even the consensus on talk page. See that he's reverting. Ungurul (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See his disruptive trolling on Talk:Bălţi 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the statement that I did not look for consensus. Please check relevant talk pages on any language on Balti, Balti steppe, everywhere I engage in the research of consensus and discussion, everywhere I always source my edits, and may be I am too strict by requesting the same from others. Also, User:TSO1D please provide a diff for your statements and namely where I personally attack User:Ungurul. To avoid repetetive attacks from user Ungurul, please find below a copy of my unblock request, where all is explained with diffs: Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, without any single reference to a verifiable source, nor any other type of explication (talk page is empty), which is moreover, their personal invention called 'Balti depression'. How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression). Please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balti_steppe), check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itself, as edited by myself last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balti_steppe&oldid=179776522). User Ungurul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. User Ungurul has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungurul kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side as I was continuously adding new text, pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic). Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also references on the Balti steppe article itself(http://www.biotica-moldova.org/ECO-NET/part6-2-2.htm) and and Britannica Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9012051/Balti), but also: Scientific Ph. D. Research dated 2006 on Fertility of Chernozem in Balti Steppe (Beltskaya Steppe/Бельцкая степь in Russian)(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/files/theses/2006/5617/stanislav_stadnic_abstract_ru.pdf), press article in the major Moldavian newspaper (http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/06/03/0000.html), travel company site(http://www.spectrumtravel.md/eng/country.php?c=3&cid=13), Draft Assessment Report for establishing a national environment and natural resource information network compatible with the UNEP/GRID (http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/moldova/md_assm.htm), Beltsy Steppe(http://www.justmaps.org/flags/europe/moldova.asp), Belcy Steppe in Columbia Encyclopedia 2007 sixth edition, link to European Commission mentioning Balti Steppe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_emerald_network/Pilot_project_Moldova.asp), National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md (http://www.cnaa.acad.md/en/thesis/5617/), Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement (http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/moldova/Biodiv.htm) etc. etc... Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. User Ungurul clearly violated the 3RR and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to the article. Please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the disruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungurul, as suggested initially by User:Dc76, and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one week and User:Ungurul for 24 hours. I would also like to check users for socket pupetting User:Bonaparte, User:Ungurul (uses exact same agressive style, does not listen to arguments and does not provide any sources, edits exclusively on Romania and Moldavia related topics), Utilisateur:William_Pedros (on French speaking Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros) (exact same style, calling me right off "vandal"), User: 89.185.33.40 (exact same editing style, calling my sourced edits "vandalism") and User:Dc76 (initiator of the page move); also User: 89.185.33.40 used exact same language as Dc76: "pushing POV, bordering vandalism, and edited only on Romania and Moldova related articles, namely to make sure that Dc76's edits or ideas are brought back. Thank you very much in advance for your answer and most importantly: "Happy Christmas!" (even if you do not celebrate it today)--Moldopodo (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

There is no way I'm reading that whole thing. Can you just discuss it without edit-warring or making personal attacks? Is that really so much to ask? Avruchtalk 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you can see all how disruptive he is. Imagine how he destroyed all the articles with huge talk pages like this one. Yet, he said he never attacked me or he was never beeen disruptive. This guy is a troll, and a vandal. No wonder he was blocked so many times. Ungurul (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there was no single personal attack from my side regarding User:Ungurul, however, there were plenty from his side in my regard, and the last one just here[34]. Please, do take some time and have a look through my arguments and presented diffs. --Moldopodo (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Everyone can see, now you'll be blocked for good. People are tired of you and your vandalisme and trolling. --Ungurul (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

and User:Ungurul continues:[35], aslo check how User:Ungurul renamed this whole section "Banning user Moldopodo"--Moldopodo (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Don't worry, you're just a vandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo

• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

Time to block both?

New section header so this doesn't get lost in the flurry of polemics above. I propose that these two editors are both acting disruptive. If each continues to rail against the other here (and in other forums, such at article talk pages and admin talk pages fishing for blocks) they would best serve the project by losing editing privelages. You two have a content dispute, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the proper forum. — Scientizzle 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking when reviewing this mess of a thread. I'd support a block of both for mutual disruptive unpleasantness and wastage of WP:ANI bytes. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd support a double block; neither of them seems able or willing to just discuss their disagreement like reasonable adults, and I'm tired of them looking to us to referee this lame edit-war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept to be blocked for one month if Moldo is blocked also. Anyway, I was the good guy here, because I didn't accept to change official names and I was not disruptive and I didn't fill huge talk pages like he did. One can check. Ungurul (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And also please remark that everything was OK until he get unblocked. He was blocked for a week last time. Ungurul (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a child. Shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a child. But he is not. Ungurul (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked them both for 14 days. When the blocks expire, anything more disruptive than good-faith dispute resolution, if necessary, won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scientizzle. Moldopodo and Ungurul, when your blocks expire you're welcome to contribute to the peaceful resolution of this content dispute at Talk:Bălţi steppe. Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Account of Moldopodo unblocked. You failed to look into user contribution history. For last 7 days I see no disruption of wikipedia editing. This is an outrageous abuse of admin privileges. `'Míkka>t 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An "outrageous abuse of admin privileges"? I fully disagree. I won't revert your solitary sysop undo of a supported (see above) admin action without discussion. But I'm nonplussed. These two, continually bickering over many, many pages, was considered disruptive by several editors. — Scientizzle 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has be no discussion or support for an unblock, nor has an attempt been made to contanct the blocking admin prior to it. Wheel warring is considered improper behavior for an administrator.--Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this unilateral unblock, which I think is in very bad form, and about your comment, which I think is unbecoming an administrator. I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair. Also, a statement such as "outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is way out of line considering the support expressed for this action above. Mikkalai, I recommend that you retract that statement and reinstate the block of Moldopoldo. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend y'all stop wikilawyering upon me and address the issue: for the last week there was no any disruption of article ediing from the side of Moldopodo. Your refusal to admit an error confirms my opinion about certain attitude about way too trigger-happy administratitis. The fact taht he person is kinda inconvenient does not mean taht you have to hit in on head after the first cry wolf wthout looking into the essence. If you disagee with me please provide example of the disruption and we shall talk. It is especially outrageous that an attempt to involve more people to resolve a conflict between the two by posting in this page was an argument in favor of block instead of help. What is wrong with you people? Did they spoil your holiday supper or what? <sadly shaking the head> `'Míkka>t 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The expression "I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair" makes me wonder: who of us is crazy? Or wikilawyers already concocted a policy that you may ban a person for last year snow? `'Míkka>t 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One important note: There was no disruption from Moldopodo for a week at least partially because he was blocked for the week of December 23-December 30. I'm willing to concede that maybe Ungurul (talk · contribs) was a bigger problem in this case, but Moldopodo not being disruptive on articles during his or her week-long block for edit warring is hardly a strong argument for an unblock. I'm a reasonable guy and will listen to reasoned arguments, and had this been brought up to me directly I may have been convinced to unblock the account myself. — Scientizzle 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor can see thusfar that this discussion as has the previous ones, contradicts an unblock. and by no means could this discussion be consrude or intrpereted as a consensus for an unblock. More troubling is your confrontational attitude, and rejection of community input and its consensus process.--Hu12 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a reasonable editor and I have to say I was uncomfortable about the block of Moldopodo. What exactly (with diffs please) did he do wrong? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this unblock, because whereas I have often disagreed in the past with user Moldopodo, and he always describes me as his nemesis, I think that in this case he did not really do anything severe enough to deserve a two week ban (or any ban for that matter). However since both he and Ungurul were blocked simultaneusly for their mutual conflict, I think that since Moldopodo has been unblocked, Ungurul's block should also be reviewed and shortened if not completely set aside. TSO1D (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ungurul was persistently teasing and harassing moldopodo and I am strongly against the unblock. On the contrary, Moldopodo was discussing unguru's ridiculous edits mixed with lies. This very thread was started with false accusation by ungurul. Super-admins decided to play annoyed unstead of looking into the matter. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. No one (including myself) looked into the matter deeply enough. I am strongly opposed to unblocking Ungural who was clearly only trying to get Moldopodo blocked; clearly disruptive in my book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that ungurul's actions were more severe and that he should not be immediatly unblocked. However, since both users were banned for engaging in a disruptive conflict more than anything specific, it seems hardly fair to pardon one of the users and let the other serve the full block. So I reduced Ungurul's block to three days. If any of them starts edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, the original block should be reinstated. Actually it might be wise to do a Checkuser on Ungurul, he could be a sock of Bonnie and then the result would be clear. My actions were based on the assumption that he was a new user. TSO1D (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

←A few points, some I've previously stated above:

• Ungurul (talk · contribs) was clearly disruptive and a block to this account appears to be well-supported, even if it has been shortened.
  • Any sockpuppet suspicions should have been brought up much earlier and much clearer. If this is possibly a banned user causing trouble again, that would have been nice to know yesterday.
• Moldopodo (talk · contribs) was sucked into this by the frenetic accusations of Ungurul, and I'm willing to concede that Moldopodo appears was less deserving of a block (of any length) than Ungurul. Moldopodo's statements and actions in this last round were light-years more appropriate than Ungurul.
  • That said, the statement that Moldopodo hadn't caused any disruptions over the last week is misinformative, as Moldopodo was blocked for a week on December 23 and couldn't cause any disruption during that time.
• I am sufficiently ignorant of the details of Eastern European geography that I am ill-equipped to analyze all of the "factual" statements thrown around in this and other forums. The content disagreements between these users that has previously resulted in numerous edit wars and blocks for both. The repeated characterization of each others' edits as vandalism and trolling had the distinct feel of an overly heated content dispute, one in which neither party was willing to tone down the attitudes or rhetoric.
• Moldopodo has starred in previous ANI threads: edit war with Dc76 (talk · contribs)[36]; complaints about TSO1D (talk · contribs)[37]; complaining about admin Nat (talk · contribs) as well as TSO1D[38]; more TSO1D v. Moldopodo[39]; and more here and here and here and the most recent iteration. And there have been at least suspicions of abusive puppetry by Moldopodo, too. In any case, I did see much of this prior to my enacted block (despite claims otherwise): Moldopodo has displayed some tendencies of the classic tendentious editor, focuses all efforts on a particularly tendentious arena, and has certainly conflicted with other tendentious types. This sort of resume, admittedly, often makes other uninvolved editors (myself included) less patient with drama-producing (or alleged drama-producing) edit warriors in more esoteric fields. This is futher compounded by Moldopodo's communication style that makes it difficult to wade through his/her side of the various issues. All of this combined quickly sapped my patience, I admit.
• Finally, I object to a few things specific to mikkalai (talk · contribs):
  • My block summary was not a "false reason" as you claimed in your unblock summary (though I should have selected "disruptive" over "edit warring") and the lack of disruption in the prior week is a sham of a defense (vis-à-vis Moldopodo’s week-long block during said period).
  • Making statements like "User ungurul is an ignorant arrogant person and suspected sockpuppet" does nothing to defuse the situation (without evidence or elaboration on the sock allegation) and can appear to be evidence of a bias on your part, deserved or not.
  • Characterizing my action as "an outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is more than a touch hyperbolic.
  • Had you brought any of this up on my talk page or via email before unblocking I would have listened carefully; I am very comfortable admiting and resolving any mistake I may make. I hope you and other editors will not hesitate, if necessary, in the future, to contact me prior to any unilateral action opposing or undoing my adminstrative activites.

— Scientizzle 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• All this smoke and mirror does not address the one and only basic question: which exactly disruption happened during the last week that warranted a very long block. BTW a nice move to turn tables and turn discussion into how bad I am. I describe the action in question as blatant abuse of admin privileges and you did nothing to change my opinion. And I will act exactly the same way when I see the one next time, and you may sue me. I may give a slack to a childish anon vandal and warn him 3 times before blocking, but we are talking about inappropriate acions of admins here. I could have understood that you alone misjudged in a hurry, but when I saw several of you banding up into a lynch mob chanting: "I don't want to read all this bullshit he wrote, just hang him high block him deep and done with it!", it really ticked me off. `'Míkka>t 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jim62sch

See this edit.

User:Jim62sch disagrees with my editing style, although he didn't see fit to really explain why in my sole previous encounter with him (and, per his comment there, was quite flippant about the idea of providing a reason in an RfA). However, this sort of comment is beyond the pale. I'm being treated like some sort of vandal, or serial abuser of the system, and don't deserved to be talked about derisively in the third person on random article talk pages.

His last comment on his own talk page, along with the general attitudes conveyed within, suggest that this is indeed what I should expect from him in future. I'm not sure how to handle this, especially as I'd rather not go through the same torrent of personal abuse and pointed insults as I did from the group of editors in question as I did during my RfA. However, while walking away from homeopathy entirely was okay (first step: back off), I'm not prepared to simply keep retreating every time I'm attacked like this. Suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit you cite is out of line, although I don't see the relevance of the other two edits. I've given Jim62sch a WP:NPA warning, and a link to this thread. Sandstein (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than handing out a template warning I'd have been inclined to ask why Jim, who joined Wikipedia over two years ago and has over 8,000 mainspace edits, should consider that drive-by edits without discussion are characteristic of Thumperward. YMMV, of course; I have become so cynical that my first reaction to any report by a user I do not know is to investigate their behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll hear Jim's side of the story soon, and I have now changed my template warning to a more personal one. Still, even if Thumperward should turn out to have conduct problems of his own, edits such as this are not acceptable under WP:NPA. Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the "assuming good faith" part. I joined WP more than two years ago and have > 10k mainspace edits. The links I provided show why Jim responded like this: a spat with User:Orangemarlin over homeopathy three weeks ago which resulted in a heavy battering of my RfA by sympathetic editors (including Jim62sch) with whom I'd had no previous interaction. I'd hoped to resolve this by walking away from the article, but that's apparently not working. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking away from which article?

In any case Chris, when you make substantial edits to an article, edits that significantly change the article (especially a featured article), and neither leave messages nor engage in any discussion on the perceived merits of your edits it is quite difficult to WP:AGF. The edits appear to be just as I said: hit and run changes. I'll note that PL, an excellent editor and the main writer on the article, has left very cogent statements here. Apparently the merits of your edits are escaping both of us.

Finally, given that I made an observation of the behaviour of the editor, not of the personality of the editor, I fail to see how NPA applies. No offense, Chris, but the manner you went about making the changes was simply wrong and keep in mind that at no point did I claim that you were a vandal or serial abuser of the system.

Note, Chris, I could claim a vio of NPA on your part given your comments above and the fact that you felt the need to include unrelated diffs in an effort to "sully" my reputation. Of course, I won't, as I'm not into silly tit-for-tat games, but I definitely could. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the way I was editing: I'm following WP:BRD, and I've replied to PL on talk now that he's explained his reasons for reverting. I feel that your attack on me on the Nostradamus talk page is a continuance of my previous (albeit vicarious) interaction with you on the homeopathy article and my RfA. Misrepresenting my edit history in a manner which is clearly intended to be derogatory ("glad you caught him") was clearly meant to be insulting, and bringing it up here (when frankly I didn't feel safe bringing it up on your user talk) is in no way a personal attack. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly bullying, given what passes for civility these days, and the NPA warning seems excessive. Again, admin warnings require having a sense of proportion in addition to diligence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So, Chris, you can read intent? Really? So much for that there WP:AGF stuff (at least as a universal concept, anyway). You don't feel safe on my page? I'm sorry Chris, but I don't even know how to address that one ... to the best of my knowledge my page isn't booby-trapped and the same folks that frequent my page frequent this page as well, so I'm afraid I just can't see the genesis for any fear. Nope, I just can't.

Oh wait, was it this? Well, quite honestly, yes the teacher will find his career ended when the school board informs him that it is in his best interest to resign. See, that's known as exercising one's political power -- just like the parents did in Dover. The board members found their careers ended. If someone harms my children in some way, you can be sure that I'll take legal action to rectify the injury (as I did with a school disciplinarian who is no longer employed by the school district). Not that this has anything to do with Wikipedia, but since you brought it up ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean Chris Cunningham is pressing this An/I because a bunch of us voted against him in the RfA???? Are you serious???? You were battered at the RfA because of YOUR behavior at Homeopathy. My friends did not show up to batter you, it is in fact a group of editors here who observe a whole host of articles, making certain that the NPOV is strictly followed. I would suggest heartily that you spend a few moments to consider that these baseless accusations against very good and very prolific editors are only going to hurt you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the RfA comment thing, but, now that you mentioned it (the RfA that is), there is something I'd like to reclarify:

As I posted at the RfA, "I don't think explaining one's reasoning is imperative, or even necessary in the case of RFA's as they are functionally elections. Explaining one's reasons in such a venue may be a nicety but it is hardly a requirement."

Explaining oneself on article discussion pages on the other hand is, if not required, damned close to it.

Odd, I hadn't even realised the connection between Chris being mad at the outcome of his RfA and this AN/I. I must have been exercising too much of that there WP:AGF.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see the RfA material being dredged up again. I was hoping, and I still hope, to support Chris in the future when he is put up again for admin. In fact, that has been my plan. However, if this is going to be used as an excuse to blow every tiny dispute up into a huge mess and for recriminations to be slung around, this makes me wonder about maturity levels, and readiness for more responsibility here on Wikipedia. Chris, just try to show some class so I can support you wholeheartedly next time around for admin, ok?--Filll (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been the victim of Jim62sch's off-wiki harassment techniques in the past; this is something that has even been called to Jimbo's attention (and Jimbo promised a blockban, though it unfortunately never happened). I'm willing to provide the evidence by e-mail to any established user that asks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're going to bring in outside evidence? Oh, yeah, I remember you. You battled Jim and others over your aggressive stance on images. That's just a content dispute. Let's get real around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another member of the club. You don't believe Jim would engage in off-wiki harrassment? Jim threatened to contact my employer on a suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network. After viewing his e-mail, Jimbo said "In my opinion, that's enough to ban Jim62Sch right there. This is not the kind of person I want participating in Wikipedia, period, full stop.". Unfortunately there was no followup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I'd rather see it than believe it, where's the diff? And let's see if there was any context. Because Jim is here. And what club? And did I say Jim wouldn't engage in off-wiki harassment? Honestly, how much drama do you enjoy having around here? Since I'm a huge supporter of protection of Intellectual Property rights of owners (for example, I don't think music should be freely shared without explicit permission of the copyright holder), you will note that I rarely supported anyone who "steals" intellectual property. Moreover, you could have my support in these disputes over images, except you aren't very nice to those who "oppose" you. I think you are the perfect example of WP:KETTLE with respect to Jim. But since this isn't about you, and it's about Thumperward getting overly upset about Jim, let's stick to that issue and only that issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've forwarded the evidence to the ArbCom mailing list, as it includes addressees whose names should remain confidential at their request. However, I'm now starting to wonder if I was just being jerked off in the responses to my earlier complaints to to keep me from raising a stink, seeing how exactly nothing has happened in response to pretty serious allegations, except for some "I feel your pain" responses. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri)Go for it. However, you seem to forget that as a federal employee it is my duty to try to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, and this includes the military. That's not harrassment, sarge, that's known as doing one's duty as a civil servant as described by the OGE. Do you really want to take this further? Feel free to, if you wish, but I doubt it'll prove satisfactory to anyone. Why you felt the need to bring this up here is beyond me, but so be it. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government and the military have a limited personal use policy regarding PC's. Enough said? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this, some kind of blackmail attempt? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go to arbitration ... seriously. Contacting employers of good faith Wikipedia editors (or threatening to do so) is unacceptable. --B (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. VO is a Federal Employee, a military NCO at that? And you're on here on wasting MY taxes? And trust me, I do NOT pay a tiny amount towards the management of this government. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez B, I thought you quit and you'd only worry about that 3rd rate technical school in Virginia. Now you're threatening Jim, and he doesn't care about the 3rd rate technical school in Virginia either. But as for contacting employers, yeah too bad, but he's a military NCO, he deserves what he gets. And if Jim is using federal computers to come here, then turnabout is fair play. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't wasted your tax dollars, I've only edited while off-duty. I even double-checked following Jim62sch's earlier spurious allegation to make sure. So I'm not susceptible to extortion in this regard. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer removing WP:CfR tags from categories

User:Neutralhomer is in the process of removing WP:CfR tags from numerous radio station categories which are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 29#Category:Radio stations in CITY. I have, for the last few weeks, refused any communication with NH on my talk page because he doesn't listen to what I tell him and has prohibited me from posting on his. He questioned my placing of these tags on the categories on my talk page, and I broke my silence to tell him to follow the links and join the discussion. I don't know if he did or not, but he has now removed all the notices using Twinkle, because I apparently can't respond in a timely enough fashion for him and walk him through what a CfD is.

His edit summaries using Twinkle imply that, in my belief, every time I make an edit he doesn't understand, I have to explain it to him or he will revert it. He's repeatedly ignored my edit summaries, and I refuse to be his tutor in these situations.

What is my best course of action in this circumstance? JPG-GR (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer appears to have been warned and blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has now been blocked by Moreschi for 24 hours for his edits. Metros (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick response to this matter. JPG-GR (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Neutralhomer's ban of JPG-GR from his talk page is very unfair. They are clearly interacting, Neutralhomer addressed JPG-GR on JPG-GR's talk page, etc. --Iamunknown 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's TWINKLE was also removed for 264 hours by Maxim. A good move. Metros (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Such "bans" probably violate some policy, but at any rate, they are to my knowledge not enforced by administrators and may be ignored. Sandstein (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not enforced by administrators, however it is enforced by the users who make sure bans on their own talk pages by simply reverting without reading anything that gets posted there by the opposing side. Not exactly collaborative or civil if you ask me. Metros (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that they are not necessarily enforceable - in many cases, however, it seems best to abide by them if only in order to minimise drama. (I am speaking somewhat from my own experience being "banned".) That seems like JPG-GR's motive. But it seems inappropriate and uncollaborative for Neutralhomer to ban someone from his talk page with whom he is communicating and editing elsewhere. --Iamunknown 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OWN (I knew there was some relevant policy here...) probably does prohibit users from forbidding others from editing their talk pages. We have, though, no policy that forces someone to actually read or preserve comments posted on their talk page. Of course, some comments are ignored at one's own peril. Sandstein (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest block of single-purpose account.

Hello. I would like to propose a block on Alykirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears to be an SPA, created only for self-promotion. The user has only created the article Alyson Kirk three times, then created Talk:Alyson Kirk twice. The user did not read over WP:N and WP:BIO, although it was cited several times. She now says she will become notable in a few days by creating YouTube videos about how she was mistreated by Wikipedia. Does anyone think this account should be blocked? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article Alyson Kirk for six months, which should solve the problem. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We can protect articles that haven't been created? Cool! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a new feature. WP:PT is now historical. Sandstein (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:AL2TB

This user's talk page is hard to read. When I went to make a post on the user's talk page (which I never posted because someone else beat me to it), I was completely distracted by the font. I noticed a section where another user commented on the font: User talk:AL2TB#Your Talk page. I, Son (talk · contribs), added an additional comment. The response the user gave was "Follow the advice above, or maybe check your eyesight." [40]

What should be done in this situation? --Son (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked and it wasn't that hard to read, just my 2 cents. — Save_Us_229 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing needs to be done. He was nicely asked to change the font because it was hard to read. He would prefer not to change it. It's his talk page, and he's allowed, within reason, to format it as he chooses; most users know how to use their own browsers to enlarge and reduce type on their screen. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It instantly gave me a headache. But I don't think there is a policy for this type of thing. Bstone (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How the font is rendered will depend on what browser you're using. I'm seeing two markedly different fonts (one bold and sans-serif and one non-bold and serifed) in Opera and Firefox, respectively. Neither is in the least unclear to me. I'd hate to see what it looks like in IE, though. --Dynaflow babble 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it the way it's probably intended to look, set in a curly decorative font that is illegible to me except at about a 500% zoom. This impedes proper communication, but I can't immediately find an applicable policy. Sandstein (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't such policy, but there is common sense. I can read the text just fine (curly font, etc, etc.), but in order to ensure clear communication, a better font needs to be used, since the font set right now is illegible to some, and it overrides the normal font(s). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

?? I'm looking using Firefox, and I don't see a curly decorative font, just a fairly ordinary typeface if in a rather small size. I didn't realize that some people were actually seeing an illegible page; sorry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because your system does not have that particular font installed. It seems to be invoked by passing the parameter «class="fn org"» to the table code containing the page's content. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

{{User:AL2TB/Userpage}} has font-family set to Curlz MT. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

What's worse; it's set to 10pt static, making scaling and enlarging impossible. I've changed it to 1.25em, so people can at least enlarge the letters. — Edokter • Talk • 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't have the relevant fonts installed on this computer (my backup laptop), but I see nothing odd about the font or its size on this user's page. It's perfectly legible to me in 1280X800 mode in Firefox 2.0.0.11. Horologium (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since EDoktor changed the parameters, the font now appears to be unpleasantly large on my display. Horologium (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes with Microsoft Office on various platforms, according to its article, so those of us lucky enough not to have it installed are spared, by the sounds of things. Hmmm. Is this worth filing a MW bug request for? ("Ignore styles on other users' pages"?) Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll probably be a rare enough problem that it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Besides, you can always click "edit this page" and everything goes to the standard font. --Dynaflow babble 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I changed it to 8pt verdana. Are you all happy now? Also, regarding to the last post, that was exactly what I was trying to say on my talk page. AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost... Please use em as the size unit; pt is unscalable. — Edokter • Talk • 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have a scalable font? I like to keep things in tact, so the page looks the same when viewed by multiple browswers. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because some people set their browsers as such that it scales the text accordingly. Some people don't like to squint. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (GMT)

Can you give me some more time, like about one week from today? I'm going to congifure it in a way that I like it and at the same time it could be legible to others. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Resolved

Sock of banned user blocked. miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to state first and foremost and apology for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I was only the CIyde Vandal and the Clap Vandal. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing.

- Encyclopedist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merdanda (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is reformed, look at his edits to User talk:Merdanda. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was really hurt that he called me a faggot. I'm not a faggot, I'm a dyke- users who make inaccurate edits really shouldn't be editing at Wikipedia. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Love it, FisherQueen. ...don't you wish your username was hot like me....don't ya? :-P miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's Jonny the Vandal / Mike Garcia, not Encyclopedist. WP:RBI is the cure for that guy - Alison ^❤ 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a persistant vandal

Since Late September/Early October, I have been a watchdog over all of the General Motors minivan articles, because they were all under attack by a vandal who used a series of IPs to push POV into all of the articles, to make it seem that these minivans are the greatest to ever be devised by man (Which is false, its the Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Town and Country/Plymouth Voyager, but then again, thats my POV) and some of his revisions would cross the line into blatantly advertising the minivans, with him constantly adding POV into the Pontiac Montana article, talking about how it is superior to the greatest minivans ever devised by man. Anyways, I managed to get all of the GM minivan articles semi protected for a month (which expired just before Thanksgiving), and his IP rangeblocked, and he threw in the towel. But, there is still another Ip lurking around the Pontiac Montana page.

This vandal, whose most current IP is 99.224.59.58, keeps adding misinformation to the Montana article. Mainly, he keeps claiming that the Montana, which was discontinued in 2006 here in the States, but put on the life preserver until 2008 in Canada in Mexico, will continue production in the ladder two countries. He has made it obvious that he is nothing more than a fan of the GM minivans in denial. Now, I want you guys to understand that the facts are against him. GM is exiting the minivan market, and a;though it is stated that GM isn't exiting the minivan business forever they have no plans to produce another minivan unless they see they they are being demanded which they aren't. And although I have solid facts from the articles I have just given to support my reasoning of reverting his edits and writing him off as no more than a fan in denial, he never states a source for his reasoning, and his facts keep changing. He has said that the Montana will be redesigned, then said that it would simply continue production. He has never provided a source for this, just cited this article. Now, since the articles I cited have contradicted his views and this article. Plus, the average car only takes one and a half to two years to develop. Only in special cases, such as the Edsel and first generation Ford Taurus has it taken longer. Plus, since that article was written in 2006, if GM were to produce this minivan, they would have announced more information about it or would be unveiling it soon, so, in a nutshell, it is safe to say that this GMC minivan has been canned. But besides that, he has never cited a cource for this outragous claim, and has just said to contact General Motors Canada as they have no plans to discontinue the Montana.

This user has used two IPs, and has registered accounts to add the false info as well. All of the accounts are currently inactive, they are User:Stevecurwin, User:Stevecurwin01 (which has been blocked), User:Dongzhang. Plus, he registered the account User:GMCANADA to "praise" his sockpuppets, for "correcting the false into" about the Montana being discontinued. However, I don't know who he is trying to fool, as a company representative wouldn't leave messages with blatant typographical and grammer errors. An example of a message that this account would leave is here.

Since I am pretty much the only person that has combated this idiot, he has attacked me numerous time on my talk page, even saying that my account will be suspended if I continue to "add false info". [41] He has also stated that he knows that the Montana will not be discontinued because he works for General Motors Canada [42], then said that he knows this because he has a friend who works for GM Canada [43], and this made me laugh, as he then said that GM Canada is watching me because I keep adding "false information" about their products.[44] (Do you think that I need to enter witness protection?) Again, he has never provided a source for his claim that the Montana will continue production, he is now just telling us to contact General Motors Canada.

We have been through page protections and blocks with this guy, but it has just been going around with circles, as nothing is making him stop. I am bringing this problem here so we can finally find a permanent solution, so this doesn't carry on forever. Karrmann (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like there is problematic editing here on both sides. Please note that blogs, like autoblog.com, are not reliable sources and should not be used to justify the inclusion of statements in articles. The easiest way to justify your statement is to find mainstream sources (say, something like Car & Driver) backing them up. *** Crotalus *** 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

obvious AFD socks

Lastchild is apparently using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicRack. S/he created the article. The socks are:

Solano2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Clayton.Aguiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users both have very few edits and used similar arguments in the AFD. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is not true. I created this account to add an entry to my favorite ComicReader program (I guess almost everyone starts that way). I added an entry which was speed deleted in about 1 day. After a week i found out that a different person has made a ComicRack article. As it was marked again for deletion, I just added some comments to the deletion discussion board. I'm new to this wikipedia thing, but the experiences i had in the last 2 weeks have almost destroyed any liking i had for wikipedia. As i do not how to prove that i am not Lastchild, who this JetLover is, and in general in what beehive i've stuck my head, those who are in power here should do whatever they like. --Solano2k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To a normal user like me, seeing your first and only (non-deleted) edit looks a bit suspect. The use of "Do not delete" has also shown to indicate a relative new-ness to Wikipediam whereas veteran users use "Keep". Will ^(talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're socks or not, but while rzgofv's argument looks like lastchild's, solano's did not to me, and in fact, i supported a "keep" based on his argument for parity between the file format and the software supporting it. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD are discussions, not votes. So socks should not matter if they don't have valid arguments. I am not supporting socks but merely saying that the creators are wasting their energy.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't appear to be socks through Checkuser; it might be the case that a call to action was posted to some website or mailing list, but these appear to be different people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed Solano2k. Sorry. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally commented on that AFD that it smelled like socks; specifically, User:Rzgofv made his first contribution there. I find it hard to believe that someone would create an account then make a beeline for AFD 21 minutes later. I brought this concern up with User:Snowolf but was told to WP:AGF. I did leave a note on User:Lastchild's talk page, but the user seems to have been offended, and accused me of personal attacks, so I just requested that they follow Wikipedia's policies and stepped back.

Also, I don't believe Solano2k is the same user; the style of writing and way that they formatted their comment on AfD was slightly different than Lastchild's, in a way that is pretty hard to fake. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnated copyvio uploader?

I believe that Colomero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a reincarnation of Evis Daison Marrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indef-blocked for violations of the copyright policy. Colmero is re-uploading the deleted files of Evis Daison Marrero - for examples, see this and this (there are many more). Sufficient evidence for a block, or should I take this to checkuser? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This passes the WP:DUCK test for me. Indefinitely blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking of my previous username

I don't know how it was done, but someone has usurped my previous username SolidPlaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is using it to vandalize articles and sundry other mischief. Yesterday, an IP address, 4.130.134.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for abuse directed at me and other users. That IP address claimed that it had been editing since 2005, and called me a n00b, but its edit history started on Dec 30, 2007. This suggests sockpuppetry. How could my previous username have been usurped so quickly? Please make this person stop, and find out who they really are. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your first stop. And as for sockpuppetry, I don't think it counts if you're using dynamic IPs, like one of our vandals do. —BoL 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked over at checkuser. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• 65.33.92.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attacked my userpage. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

About five hours ago! Whitstable (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But pretty puzzling vandalism, yes Whitstable (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now he's showing off; he is cycling through IPs; the latest is 85.127.111.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I've protected your userpage for a week. Could you elaborate on your username? did you put in a request at WP:CHU when you changed to this name? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed my username at WP:CHU because people at my job found out what it was, and I didn't really want themm to know how much time I spend on Wikipedia. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked it for you, and Ryan protected your page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How odd. I just had to have my user page and talk page protected for the same reason, a bunch of IPs were vandalizing them in the exact same way (replacing my user page with a link to my block log, and taking stuff from talk page archives and adding them back to the talk page). TJ Spyke 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about the anon IP attacks, btw. It is who is behind the use of my old username to attack my own contribs that I would like to see solved. It is possible that they are not the same person as the nasty vandal. Alternately, this may provide a clue to who that prolific vandal really is. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a great place to apologize for my really sloppy reverts during that run - I started reverting the wrong IP, which only added to the confusion. Kuru ^talk 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SolidPlaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been renamed, so AnteaterZot, please recreate your old username ASAP to stop this happening again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the latest rage; the bud guys read this page for ideas. This problem needs to be prevented as a standard part of username changes. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Tkguy at Asian fetish

I discovered this apparently disruptive SPA user through an RfC. User continually accuses other parties of bad faith, misrepresenting sources,[45] and racism.[46] (See also asking LaraLove to intervene in against the "racist" re-definition of Asian fetish) User appears to be promoting an original theory about the causal link between the Asian fetish and suicide, and insists upon including questionable sources—edit warring to user's preferred version. (See prior 3RR block) I think Tkguy should step away from this topic. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• This user has engaged in a variety of problematic behavior. I don't think he is interested in building a NPOV encyclopedia; rather, he wants to use Wikipedia as his personal soapbox. He has engaged in few or no edits outside of the topic of Asian sexuality.

• First edit.
• First signs of blatant POV-pushing
• Removes two reliably sourced statements, and accuses other participants of bad faith
• Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of sourced material.
• More blatant POV-pushing
• More accusations of bad faith and POV-pushing
• More accusations of bad faith in edit summary
• Claims he shouldn't have to follow sourcing policy
• Threatens edit war
• More accusations of bad faith
• Yet another insulting edit summary
• More unsourced POV
• Attempts to shift burden of proof to anyone opposing his edits
• Commits 3RR and responds rudely to a warning
• Blocked on Nov. 29 for WP:3RR violation
• Unblocked after he promises not to do it again
• Accuses other participants of sockpuppetry, with no evidence
• Requests full page protection on his version
• Accuses another editor of "vandalism" for opposing his edits
• Invalid AIV report
• Inserts conjecture into article
• Adds material sourced to a student newspaper

• I grow tired of summarizing. Suffice to say he is continuing the same nonsense. He's accused me of "vandalism" at AIV, which was immediately removed, and continues to assume bad faith of other users and attempting to WP:OWN the article. He also persists in adding blog posts and other nonsense after being advised that they are not reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

At my talk page (User talk:Saranghae honey#Asian fetish) he accused me several times of having an agenda to mitigate the article when I was merely copy editing the article. When I removed external links because there was an excessive number, he said it will be my "last and final warning" for my "vandalism." This is not the first time he has engaged in a disruptive edit war as you can see from Crotalus's comment. He has also engaged in an edit war with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi. Before I requested RfC for the article he frequently singled me out in his edit summaries and accused me of "gross manipulation." миражinred 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From RfC at Asian fetish He has accused me of being a vandal and someone with an agenda to mitigate the article in question ([47][48] , his edit summaries used in the article, and the section below) against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. миражinred 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was 3rr blocked but I was introduced to the 3rr rule by Chris Mann Mckay. I explain to the admin that Chris Mann Mckay and Kaitenbushi were working together to trick me into violating the 3rr rule. If you look on my talk page this is apparent. I actually had my 3rr block removed. Kaitenbushi was 3rr blocked. Chris Mann Mckay only reverted the page 2 times so was not blocked. But apparently the guy is a vandal on many other pages and was 3rr blocked not just for 24 hours but for 48 hours. If you look at his talk page you will notice that people were very much aware that he had barely avoided the 3rr block on the Asian fetish page. [17:19, 30 November 2007 Chris's talk page] so I am pretty confident his actions on the Asian fetish page caused him to get a longer block sentence. But still most of the references above were from when I started out and when I was dealing with these two. I encourage you to read my talk page on a summary of the kind of edits that Chris Mann Mckay did. My summarization convinced many to 3rr block him. Here's the link to the 3rr report board [Revision as of 02:19, 29 November 2007 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]. Much of the above is my interaction with Kaitenbushi and Chris Mann Mckay.

Tkguy side of the story

First off this page has a history of being vandalized. It has been requested for deletion twice and possibly more times, notably one time by Saranghae honey. Cool Hand came to this page because Saranghae honey wanted rfc on the definition to be used on the page. This rfc was requested by Saranghae honey at, I believe, the advice of Lara❤Love. I had a problem with the definition that Saranghae honey put in as it prominently used a quote from a the colorq.org site that was determined to be an invalid source. Even today this definition is still up with the reference to the invalid source placed prominent as the first entry in the page. During this arbitration rather than commenting on the definition I provided Cool Hand Luke and Lara❤Love started writing about how the page should have a WP:LEAD rather than a definition. I've brought up the fact that similar pages such as Sexism and Racism started out with a definition and not a WP:LEAD. Anyway, Cool Hand, also without discussing, removed a section on the Asian fetish page. Soon after Crotalus horridus came on and started to delete much of the content from the page. So I am in an edit war with Crotalus horridus, Saranghae honey, and Cool Hand Luke. I believe these people are determined to make Asian fetish out to be something benign. This is apparent in the way they delete items from the page and misrepresent the source data. If you read the talk page I have numerous examples of situation where people have been manipulating the source of the data. One big area this is done is with regards to Phoebe Eng's work. For a long time many people have used a small counterpoint she made in her book "Warrior Lesson" and made the claim that Phoebe thinks asian fetish empowers asian females. I read the portion of the book and discovered that this notion was actually derived from a two sentence entry in a chapter that was overwhelming negative on the topic of Asian fetish.

Here's what people put on the page [18:07, 21 April 2007 ]

“ Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disempowered minority ”

I realized that Phoebe Eng's work was being misrepresented and manipulated. I proceeded to add the actual quotes from the book that convey the notion that she was trying to convey and presented like so:

In order to provide a counterpoint to the overwhelming negative impact that Asian fetish has on the lives of Asian American females, Phoebe Eng wrote the following,

“ Not all of us, for instance, agree that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad. In fact, for some of us, the new visibility of Asian women, even though stereotyped, can actually be liberating. ”

Much of the chapter that people are referencing have a very negative bent towards asian fetish. Here are some quotes that accurately convey the much of the content of the chapter:

“ While hypersexualized, commodifying images exist for all women, and especially women of color, the image of the Asian woman combines with this the notion of ultrapassivity. Sexuality for an Asian woman is so tightly wound up in issues of power and global economic order that it is virtually impossible to address the spector of an Asian woman's sexuality without examining the subtle roles of governments and enterprise in perpetuating this situation, especially in developing countries. ”

“ a legacy of prostitution that began in the servicing of American and European soldiers has since flourished into a sex industry that has grown into a major source of foreign exchange that rivals the gross national product of many developing nations. ”

“ it is estimated that two or three thousand men each year find wives through mail-order catalogs. ”

Crotalus horridus proceeded to chop down my entry to the following:

Phoebe Eng wrote:

“ Not all of us, for instance, agree that the current trend of "Asian fetish" is bad. In fact, for some of us, the new visibility of Asian women, even though stereotyped, can actually be liberating. ”

I believe this last quote should be removed from the Asian fetish page as it has long been used by many as a reputable source to claim that asian fetish helps asian females. I tried to remove it but the people I am edit warring with keep bringing it back.

As for Cool Hand, I been trying to get him to put an article by Raymond Fisman under the heading "Controversy" and not "Studies related to Asian fetish" as it gives the impression the article is an actual scientific study. This article was panned by many for claiming that a study proves that Asian fetish does not exist. He even acknowledged that this article is not a study with the comment to the changes he made with "The analysis is not a study, but one of the principle economists behind it has a pretty good handle on interpreting it." 20:37, 30 December 2007 yet he keeps putting it under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish"!

here is my version of the entry 19:45, 30 December 2007 :

Raymond Fisman authored a controversial article on Salon that claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond used the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct to come to this conclusion. A blogger at Hyphen found the study to be flawed. Journalist Moe Tkacik also expressed skepticism to the findings of the study.

here is the current version that once again has been chopped up and placed under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish". This is obviously making an opinionated article out to be the study that was conducted. This is far from the truth and once again a gross manipulation of the source data:

Raymond Fisman authored an article published in Salon which claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond based his conclusions on the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct. The study, based upon speed dating experiments among Columbia University graduate students, found no general statistically-significant racial preference among males.

And this is the nature of the edit war we are having on the Asian fetish page. Nearly all the quotes and summarizations on the page I've found to be a gross misrepresentation and manipulation of the source data. Once again please look at the talk page for the many examples of such manipulations. I assure you that if you look at the edits I've done I have accurately let the sources "speak for themselves" and have been trying to bring back contributions on the page that have long been deleted by vandals. I assure you I am editing in "good faith". Because I've been trying to fix the gross manipulation of source data people are accusing me of being biased. I am not allowing people to manipulate other people's work to convey a meaning it never intended it to mean. Obviously such actions have been pissing people off.

Tkguy (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tkguy, you have been told numerous times by me and other users that neither blogs nor your own personal opinions are reliable sources. You continue to place unsourced and poorly sourced material into the article. As long as you do this, it will continue to be removed. Salon is a reliable source; the two blogs you cited to impeach it are not. If the Salon article was indeed "heavily panned," as you claim, then please cite reliable sources justifying this statement. You simply do not seem to have (or be interested in obtaining) a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. *** Crotalus *** 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First off the problem is that this opinionated article is being presented as a fact by being placed under the heading, "Studies related to Asian fetish". Only objective analysis of studies that present the findings of the study should deserve to be placed there. This is no such thing. The Fisman guy is deriving that the study proves that Asian fetish is a myth and caused a huge amount of controversy by doing so. And that's why it probably more fitting to put it under "Controversy" as it's a liberal interpretation of a study that caused a lot of controversy. As for blogs not being a valid source. It might be so for the Jezebel thing. But the hyphen one is probably valid as it's made by the managing editor Neelanjana Banerjee on blog that is part of Hyphen magazine. But still these blog references are not being used as the main source but to illustrate that the article was panned by the public. But that's beside the main point, that a biased opinion of one man is being presented as a scientific study. Once again this is the nature of the edit wars on the Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fisman conducted a study. Like all researchers, he drew a conclusion from the study. You don't like the findings of the study. You want to relegate it to the "Controversy" section. That's all there is to it. миражinred 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected. Please forward all future debate to the article's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why one problem user should be able to get a page locked. Everyone except Tkguy had no trouble working together. *** Crotalus *** 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crotalus. All other editors drained their time on reverting Tkguy's edits and struggling to improve the article. I (and I think other editors) was expecting some sort of solution that would prevent Tkguy from editing this article. On a more positive note, I guess we can spend the New Year's in peace. миражinred 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I considered simply taking this to RFPP, but the problem is only with one editor. The other editors use the talk page and even have constructive disagreements. The edit war is caused by this user who stubbornly insists on their version against all counterarguments. This same user caused the previous edit war (and previous page protection) with completely different parties. The problem with with Tkguy editing this article. Cool Hand Luke 08:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A Favour Please

Resolved

We have a new User:I LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO. He started out by making changes to Beatles'-related articles like this [49], which I reverted leaving pointers in the edit summary. Having put advice on policy on this talk page, he then blanked it & redirected to The Beatles and carried on his unencyclopedic additions. I left him with a VW3, since I think he should have had the message by then, and a Welcome pointing him the direction of policy. He then did this : [50]. I am reluctant to engage if this is his tone and ask if someone will leave a note about WP:CIVIL and the use of Talk pages for him. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've honestly never seen such a reaction like that. I think his edits to the mainspace are generally good-faith, just misguided.J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i left a level one warning about civility towards other users, its just the generic attack1 warn, so if someone else wants to leave him a message feel free. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to keep an eye on his contributions as he is showing signs of a vandal account. If anyone is doing the same remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to monitor User:ILOVETHEOC (contribs)as well. Similar usernames, similar editing style.Kww (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Block by admin User:Sandstein

This involves a 3RR report I filed here. A relatively new user is trying to exclude a certain paragraph largely because he doesn't like a word in it. I told him on the talk page and in edit summaries that this content was sourced and that was not a reason to exclude it. He ignored my warning against edit-warring and reverted four times. I reverted three time. In response to my post about the 3RR violation, Sandstein blocked me for "edit-warring." Would other admins please comment on this action, and give their policy for blocking. "Edit-warring" is vague and subjective. It is unfair that admins block other users based on subjective judgments when other users would not be blocked for the exact same behavior in other situations by other admins. Arrow740 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Each decision is made on a case by case basis, apparently. Is there any webpage, where I can get more information about such blocks?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the policies applying would be WP:EW and WP:3RR. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, that's the point. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein blocked Imad marie (talk · contribs) as well, and that is what I would have done as well. It takes two to edit war. The fact that Imad was the first to revert should not disadvantage him, and allow you to call him out for doing the same thing you were doing (edit warring) simply because he hits four first; as WP:3RR says, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". It was just you two reverting, with no edits in between. If you had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. If Imad had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. So, you should both be blocked for edit warring; you both committed the same infraction, numbers notwithstanding. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I didn't violate 3RR, he did. Maybe you'll admit that. I already know your opinion; I should be blocked whenever I reach 3 reverts, even when combating sockpuppetry. By the (not quite coherent) philosophy you're espousing here, anyone who uses even two reverts could be blocked for edit-warring. You're giving yourself too much power. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh common Arrow740, why do you think these fellows wanted to be an `admin` in the first place? Obviously to exercise power, of course they will give themselves `too much power`..And dont use too much confusing logical reasonings when dealing with Tariqabjotu or Sandstein, they wont be able to follow you, and you might end up being blocked again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.217.15 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents Sandstein's wrong. I took a look at the 3rr report and you've reverted

vandalism 3 times. According to 3RR , removing vandalism is an exception to 3RR. The 3rr shows, just as you said that IMADMARIE was removing sourced content and you were restoring it. The block needs to be removed - 3RR on ARROW740 never happened, per policy. Just my .2 Cents The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sugar babe96

This user's only edit was a long post to their talk page, which began with the stated intent of using Wikipedia as a blog. I removed the post and replaced it with a welcome message and a referral to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. However, when I read the post, I began to worry. This may be nothing but someone with a pathological sense of humor, but could someone please look at it? Michaelbusch (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

either a blog or an attempt to post original fiction. You did right to remove it. DGG (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not considering the removal incorrect. I was considering the possibility that the content was factual to the extent that the editor believed it, and not someone posting bad fiction. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: user has posted again, this time in a large set to the userpage. Also removed. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the User and User talk pages to remove the history and selectively restored the welcome and warnings. Please watch this. If the posts are done again, I recommend an indef block. The user is creating a hazard for themself. Additionally, I have concerns that this user is not what they represent and may have very bad intentions. Contact me offline if you want to question my actions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Page blanking (noticeboards)

Resolved

Semi-protected.

Could someone semi-prot this noticeboard and the fringe theory noticeboard, so people don't have to keep reverting IPs all night? Avruchtalk 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh - little edit to make the header show in peoples watchlists. Avruchtalk 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, its kind of funny to watch. The IPer has blanked it at least ten times, wonder when she/he/it will get bored. Avruchtalk 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, the vandal has to keep typing captchas, three admins who are watching the pages he's vandalizing just click a button. It's amusing to think of all of the different silly words the vandal has had to type over the course of an hour or so :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was just one person. While certainly there was an IP hopper attacking the page, the last IP was on a different continent from the rest. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahaha, didn't even think of that. Avruchtalk 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the same person. They're likely drones. --slakr^\ talk / 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only concern I guess is if someone is trying to report something, they're going to get brutally conflicted. Avruchtalk 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be that if a valid IP has a concern and wants edit this page to add it, semi-protecting would block them out. When its semi-protected there should be a header on top pointing them somewhere that is being watched. MBisanz 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage masquerading as an article

This is not a HUGE issue, but I am seeking the advice of an experienced admin on this one. Isn't this kind of thing: see User:FFaF, generally frowned upon? I am not an administrator myself, but I tripped over this, and thought I should bring it here for further attention. This is the text of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux. I know under certain conditions, deleted pages are allowed to be "userified" as a subpage of the main page, but I am not sure this usage qualifies. I am concerned that this may be confused with a "real" article. Any ideas on what should be done? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's spam: Wikipedia:CSD#G11 applies (as it does to ALL pages, regardless of prefix), and it's been so tagged. Time to go looking for more. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was more specifically a recreation of an AfDed article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux). --slakr^\ talk / 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Calton and Slakr for resolving that. It looks like the situation has been dealt with!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Burntsauce

Je suis un Hippo (talk · contribs) is claiming to be a sock of Burntsauce (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blockinated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a sock puppet, more likely just some random troll stirring up trouble. Note he also claimed to be the banned Brian G Crawford. 75.175.21.206 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the single post IP evaluates what is or isn't a sockpuppet.[51] Durova^Charge! 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather strange

When this sockpuppet identified himself on Burntsauce's talk page, he announced his name as Brian G. Crawford. After a quick search, it turns out there was a User:Brian G. Crawford (who is banned) and after a search into his contributions of both editors, it seems the sockpuppet had a problem with Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin and JzG [52] and it was no surprise when I looked at Brian G. Crawford's contributions had a dispute with these editors.

This is all very confusing considering Burntsauce was confirmed to have been meatpuppeting for User:JB196, a totally unrelated banned editor. Considering Brian G. Crawford = Burntsauce per that "confession" of sorts, I will tag Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford, but it seems really, really strange that one banned editor, Brian G. Crawford, would create an account to become a meatpuppet for another banned editor, JB196. — Save_Us_229 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that tag, a claim made by an IP editor for whom we have no evidence of any connection to either is not a valid basis on which to make such a claim. —Random832 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do we have any evidence linking this to Burntsauce? I've been in contact with him via e-mail, and Brian G. Crawford is not Burntsauce's real-life name. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you have been in contact with him enough to know that. In any case, User:Je suis un Hippo is tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet, so besides the 'confession' (which I guess is deemed invalid), why is User:Je suis un Hippo still tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet? Shouldn't it be moved to a Brian G. Crawford sockpuppet? — Save_Us_229 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Bunch of IPs keep blanking this page... odd. Very bad. Please protect it! futurebird (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. Avruchtalk 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

oh. and seems like it stopped anyway. Sorry! futurebird (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue IP rangeblock

67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for abusing sockpuppet accounts (being a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), despite his strenuous denial that he's been editing legitimately and not being a sockpuppet. I think Special:Contributions/67.135.49.177 will be instructive in determining why he's been disruptive.

I recently asked him a legitimate question about whether he plans to constructively edit any pages once the block expires. In response, he undid my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 180656254 by Elkman (talk) - rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". That pretty much tells me that he doesn't plan to do any constructive editing.

I have blocked his entire range of IP addresses (67.135.48.0/23) for three months and protected the two user talk pages that he's been using. I'm reasonably convinced that he has no plans to edit Wikipedia except to make complaints about Wikipedia administration. Frankly, I'm tired of his continued abuse of his user talk page(s) to go on about his grievances. Since I've placed a rangeblock that may affect users of a small ISP based in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, I'm posting here to get feedback. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That seems to be casting a rather wide net, for three months. Is he that disruptive? — Coren ^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh - definitely using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Blocking an entire ISP seems too extreme. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A /23 block is only 512 IPs. These are all the anonymous edits from that range up to August 4th, 2007. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate reading about these situations. being as careful and narrow as possible almost always lets them back in, then they get ip after ip blocked piece-meal, leading to frustration and irritation; blocking massive ranges which assure the editor can't get back in easily run the risk of blocking other contributors. I'd like to go with 'let them register', but that often falls on deaf ears, and the 'anyone can edit' clause. well, we're not precluding registered users, just IP vandals. I suppose the 'right' thing, by current WP standards is to unblock the range, but I keep thinking about all these declarations here on AN/I to crack down on vandals, and how wimpy they wind up being. Given that almost all were by the vandal in question, I say let them stand. The other IP in that range can register. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, the main account itself isn't blocked. So an anon only block on his IP range is going to let him edit from his account. Of course, this may be a good thing - it will force him to use an account rather than obfuscate behind multiple IP addresses. --B (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Forcing" someone to use a registered account is the wrong answer - it's a violation of the privacy policy, which states that editors may edit logged in or not. Can someone explain the point of blocking an ISP to prevent anon editing by a person whose main account isn't blocked? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has imposed a sanction that editors are limited to one account before, so I don't see why that would be totally out of the realm of possibilities. I was more or less tongue in cheek about that part, though, obviously using an ISP block for an editor who isn't even blocked isn't quite right. --B (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering the rangeblock based on the opinions above, but I'm going to wait until the morning (CST) to make the decision. I still don't think he has anything positive to contribute here, and I don't like the idea of users using talk pages to bash Wikipedia and its editors, but maybe the rangeblock is overkill. Other opinions are welcome. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main account isn't even blocked. So right now, it's in a logically inconsistent state. It doesn't make sense to block the range if the editor can just edit using his account. So something needs to change - block the main account or unblock the range (or both).--B (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - also, it's not up to Elkman or any other single admin to tell an editor where they may or may not edit. The more I look into this, the uglier it looks. Guy should never have blocked an IP for sockpuppetry to begin with (editing anonymously is specifically allowed by policy, and cannot be "sockpuppetry"), and this answer to an unblock request only seems liable to inflame the situation rather than improve it. I still don't understand why this person was blocked, anyway - it looks to me like it was possibly over a content dispute, which should have gone to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Has the IP/Jinxmchue edited outside of his usertalk space since the block? If all he's doing is being obnoxious on his IP usertalk page, and he's not actually disrupting articles or editing other spaces, then a range block definitely seems like overkill. Right now, he's just ranting on his IP usertalk page. I'd suggest semi/full-protecting the talk page with a clear explanation that he's abusing it. If he starts using his dynamic IP to evade the block and edit article-space, then a range-block might be appropriate. Just my 2 cents. Also, Jinxmchue edits to provoke a reaction and constantly seems to be in a state of barely contained rage. I still have a couple of... er... colorful emails he sent me after I blocked him for 3RR long ago. He's best ignored or flyswatted rather than nuked. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Videmus, I think (though am not entirely certain) that JzG blocked the IP because Jinxmchue was using it to evade a block on his main account. That was a correct block. As for range blocking to stop an unblocked editor from editing? That's a different story. --B (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there was no block evasion - the IP was blocked for 31 hours on 30 Nov by Adam Cuerden. On 2 Dec, Guettarda blocked the main account for "block evasion" on the IP even though that block had already expired. On 3 Dec Guy blocked the IP for sockpuppetry. Unless I'm missing something, the only good block is Adam's. And the more I look at that IP's talkpage the more it looks like a volatile person was cyber-bullied and provoked into getting mad on their talkpage, which was then used as an excuse for talkpage protection and "harrassment" and "trolling" accusations. That is a thoroughly despicable tactic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP was being used to evade the block put in place by Adam, so blocking the IP was the right decision. Blocking the IP for a month instead of merely blocking it for the time of the original block was a bad decision. --B (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Adam blocked the IP, not the account. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 15:17, 30 November 2007 Adam blocks the IP for 31 hours. Jinxmchue edits with his account starting at 20:24, 30 November 2007 and continuing until blocked by Guettarda at 00:23, 2 December 2007 for block evasion. The IP does not edit until after that block expires, so yes, you are correct and I was wrong. --B (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam blocked Jinx for a 3RRvio. After he was blocked, he switched to his logged-in account, and was editing outside of his userspace before the block expired, and was repeating the same edits for which he was blocked. So I re-set Adam's block, and posted notice of the block here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? --B (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Guettarda here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree your block was 100% correct. JzG's block is the one about which I said I was mistaken. --B (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why are there edits from your IP to Natalie Erin's talkpage that say "natalie erin is a big dyke"[53] or "natalie erin is bitch ass dyke"[54]? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did an IP lookup - it's the IP for Michigan State University, so there's going to be quite a lot of users on that IP. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's right ... it appears to be the computer lab at MSU. Many people could be using that/those computers. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rangeblock and the two protections I just placed. As for the existing block of 67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), that's a block that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) placed, and I'm not going to undo that -- that's wheel warring.

Apparently, I'm the one who screwed up here. Apparently, I can't do things correctly around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a one-month block 29 days into it would not be wheel warring. --B (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed an unblock request on the IP talk page, and request a neutral review. This looks to me a bad block by Guy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was placed because of disruptive edits using that IP (which had no evidence of other uses, so no obvious danger of collateral damage) combined with querulous complaints on the admin noticeboard, the while absolutely refusing to admit to any fault, notably with these: [55] [56]. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me, he admitted it was Jinxmchue. Jinxmchue and his IPs do little other than edit war and push their POV. We should waste less time with such foolishness and concern ourselves instead with helping those editors who are capable of presenting minority POVs without the attendant problems that editors like this bring. It's pretty clear that this editor has used and will continue to use IPs and his account in combination to evade scrutiny and blocking, and there seems to me to be adequate support for editors with a problematic history being required to keep to one account. No provacy violation exists, Jinxmchue freely admits these are his IPs on his user page. Jinxmchue needs, in my opinion and I'm guessing that of Felonious and others, to "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it's logically inconsistent to block his IP when his account is not blocked. --B (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more of an argument to block the main account too than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against anything other than logical consistency. --B (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy - if the reason was blocking was edit-warring or POV-pushing, why does the block log say that it is for sockpuppetry? And why a month? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As to whether 1 month is an appropriate block length for edit-warring/POV-pushing, it may be, given that this user (as both User:Jinxmchue and various IP's) has run up a number of prior 3RR blocks in a short time and has continued to edit-war. As to why the block log gives sockpuppetry as a reason, I don't know, though my suspicion is that there were multiple issues which Guy deemed block-worthy (recidivist edit-warring, POV-pushing, block evasion) and he grabbed one from the drop-down menu. As to whether the IP should be unblocked, or Jinxmchue blocked, or some other combination of actions, I have no opinion beyond the one expressed above - that this is an irascible editor spoiling for a fight, and others have obliged him. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can speak to the quality of Jinxmchue's edits, but the actions on the other side seem to be an unworthy attempt to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by unwarranted use of admin buttons. I'm particularly concerned by FeloniousMonk's actions - he apparently was involved in the dispute, then placed an {{IPsock}} template on the IP userpage against the user's will, then protected the page while involved in the dispute. I don't have any involvement in the Intelligent design/Dominionism area (except for a long-ago dispute regarding non-free images); it seems that users involved in this area are willing to engage in tag-teaming and provocation to enforce their point of view on the articles involved. I'm not saying the blocked user was correct, I'm saying that there seems to be some questionable use of admin buttons by users involved in the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that;s an assumption of bad faith, and extending greater good faith to an edit warrior than to several long-standing contributors. I picked one moth because that's what I usually use in cases of block evasion using what appear to be stable IPs - I use a week or less if the IPs seem to be reallocated frequently. Feel free to help the user fix his behaviour problems, though. I don't think that would be at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this doesn't explain why you blocked for sockpuppetry when there was no sockpuppetry. I can't even see that there was any block evasion. Can you please explain (citing policy as necessary) the reasons for your block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef Blocked user might be back

bear with me, this is the first real report of this kind I've done

User:Booze broads and bullets was indefinitely blocked in Feb 2007 for persistent vandalism and uploading copyrighted materials. Shortly thereafter a new username popped up, User:Broads, which was determined to be a sock and subsequently indefinitely blocked.

I am making the assertion that User:THX2046 might be another sock of Booze broads and bullets.

The original incident reports on Booze and Broads were written in Feb 2007 and are found at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#User:Booze broads and bullets
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#Booze broads and bullets
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#User:Booze broads and bullets, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive197#User:Booze broads and bullets persistent copyright offender
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Banned user back with new account

At a couple of points this user has been referred to as 'banned', but it doesn't look like they have been formally banned, only indef blocked (i.e. they don't appear at Wikipedia:List of banned users.

1. On User:THX2046, they state "I AM A PEXER! BUT YOU HAVE TO GUESS WHO I AM! I AM ALSO THE LATE: B³"
   • I am taking "THE LATE: B³" to mean "Booze broads and bullets". No idea what "A PEXER" means.
2. User talk:THX2046 is littered with non-free image warnings
   • BBB was known for uploading non-free images, one of their hallmarks.
3. The very first edit for User:THX2046 was to re-create Bakekang.
   • This was also among the first actions of User:Broads (see deleted contributions), who only had 5 recorded edits in all.
   • Bakekang was also a target for BBB in the last days leading up to their indef block.
   • The timing is right as well ... BBB was indef blocked on 10 Feb ... Broads was created and indef blocked on 12 Feb ... THX2046 was created 19 Feb and began editing where the other two left off. Not to mention that, in April 2007, THX2046 replaced User talk:THX2046 with "I AM THE GUARDIAN ANGEL OF BAKEKANG" (version)
4. User:THX2046 has particular ... almost exclusive I think ... interest in Philippine television and film, including an emphasis on ABS-CBN programs.
   • This focus was also a hallmark of BBB's activities

That is as far as I've gotten. Note that THX2046 has been active since Feb 2007 and contributed >1500 edits according to the Contributions page. I suppose the question is whether to do nothing or do something. I am not sure where consensus with dealing with socks is at presently as I've not paid much attention to that aspect of Admin activities (User activity monitoring).

Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A "Pexer" is a poster at the PinoyExchange forums. I haven't hanged around the TV/Film fora since it's very messy and the moderation is awful. --Howard the Duck 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the assertion that THX2046 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block-evading sockpuppet of Booze broads and bullets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Broads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on editing patterns. Another similarity is that neither has made a contribution outside mainspace. I have blocked THX2046 indefinitely. I will also add Booze broads and bullets to the list of banned users (since no-one seems willing to unblock him) if there is no opposition to this here. Sandstein (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland101 and Tsourkpk

User:Ireland101 is impersonating an administrator by threatening me with a block here [[57]] as well as here [[58]]. He has joined some sort of counter-vandalism unit and is pretending to have the ability to block me. This constitutes bullying and harassment and I would like file a complaint against his behavior. He is very aggressive, seldom consulting the discussion edit before making controversial edits, and accuses everyone who undoes his edits of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as his contribs log attests. He has repeatedly slandered me by baselessly accusing me of vandalism and sockpuppetry, and has even tried to "eliminate" editors who disagree with his views by trying to frame them for tag-teaming, as can be seen here [[59]]. His attempts to intimidate and silence thos who oppose his views are extremely dangerous to Wikipedia, and I would like to request that he be disciplined.--Tsourkpk (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the other particulars of this situation, those are standard messages and it's widely accepted that non-administrators are allowed to use them. —Random832 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised this Tsourkpk is trying to make these allegations about me, as he has a history of simular attacks. They are all false. I have never claimed to be an administrator. I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject on user warnings all I did was use the appropriate templates on this users talk page after vandalism. I never claimed to be an administrator and take offense to this personal attack. As this is not Tsourkpk first time and has been warned I suggest action be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did is not vandalism. He accuses EVERYONE who disagrees with his views of vandalism. Take a look at his contribs log, just about every edit summary contains the word "vandal". He is using the templates to try and initimidate me. This is classic bullying and needs to stop. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides that fact that most of my contribs no not contain the word "vandalism", I do allocate time to correct vandalism in the encyclopedia. I am in no way trying to intimidate anyone, I am just going by the WikiProject on user warnings. You shouldn't fear anything if what you have done is right. Recent types of vandalism by this user have been removing sourced text from articles and adding incorrect unsourced un-encyclopedic text to articles. Ireland101 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None of your "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS and are only intended to push a particular POV. This is why all your edits have been undone by myself and other users (whom you have also tried to silence). --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source in question is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This is defiantly a reliable source. Please stop with the false accusations. Ireland101 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So that I do not need to start a new thread this is were I am reporting this user.

Tsourkpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeated vandalism in many articles. Has been warned numerous times however has chosen to delete many warnings on talk page. Has been warned to Level 4. Examples of vandalism:

• removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly[60], [61].
• added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly [62], [63]
• made changes against talk page decision [64]

There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour. Action needs to be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. None of the "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS. Regarding the Greeks article, the source is original resrach and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. As for Bryges, all I did was undo weasel wording. This is bullying and an attempt at intimidation. If any action needs to be taken, it is against Ireland101. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to try WP:Dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that you consider mediation as there isn't very much that ANI can do - in neither case is there blatant vandalism or bad faith edits. --B (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source about the Greeks appears to be reliable. It is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health, a scientific agency. I don't know about the other two though. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 thank you for posting your finding, Tsourkpk seems focused to making people believe it is not a reliable source. I do not know of the other sources Tsourkpk is talking about, as this is the only one I have added that I can remember. Ireland101 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, I think you really need to rethink your entire editing strategy hear. I see in your contributions history plenty of revert warring and use of somewhat hostile edit summaries. Especially in this most recent edit war, I see very little evidence you actually tried to discuss the issue. What you have to realize is that edit warring without discussing the content dispute at hand is plainly an unacceptable practice. Even after reverting vandalism, you're accountable for that revert, and expected to provide a reason if asked (reason here is more than just listing policy shortcuts, you should be able to explain how they're being violated). As for the issue at hand, except perhaps for blatant attack sites or personally published work, determining whether a source is unreliable is something that is going to require discussion. Not to satisfy yourself, of course (I'm sure you've already made up your mind), but to satisfy everyone else and arrive at consensus; for if you don't, then any admin is just going to see this as an edit war and block you if it continues. And when you can't reach an agreement (which I don't see evidence of your even trying) you ask other editors for their opinions through requests for comment or the less formal requests for third opinions. And last but not least, always keep in mind that neutral point of view is about confining included points of view to those that are noteworthy and reliably sourcable, and not about keeping out any point of view that might be considered offensive. So to put this all in a nutshell: Except when reverting very obvious vandalism, you should try more discussion and dispute resolution, not because you might be wrong, but because admins don't care if you're right; edit warriors get blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 has already been warned not to try to impose tiny-minority views on Wikipedia. The study in question simply regurgitates the findings of an earlier and extremely controversial paper by Arnaiz-Villena and his politically-motivated colleagues in Skopje, using a single genetic marker to make far-reaching claims about the origins of the Greeks. Naturally, the results have been seized upon by racists and nationalists with a bone to pick against Greece. However, as the Arnaiz-Villena paper has been comprehensively discredited by mainstream geneticists, anti-Greek activists have turned to the more recent Tunisian study which uses the same single genetic marker, i.e. the same methodology for which the earlier paper was so vigorously criticised by Cavalli-Sforza et al.: "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics." In other words, the source fails to satisfy WP:V. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps you are ether mistaken or deliberately misleading people. The study in question is not the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Ireland101 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nrswanson article hijack attempts

Nrswanson (talk · contribs) and 2-day-old likely socks Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs) and Voicequeen (talk · contribs) are attempting to replace the established article Voice type with tne Nrswanson-written Voice classification. (I have no opinion on which version is right or wrong; however, Nrswanson has been asked to contribute to the existing articles rather than attempting end-runs around WP:CONSENSUS.)

Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new(/sock?) accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge")[65] in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type,[66] copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.[67])

A sock puppetry report has been filed here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

I'm bringing this to ANI because this user is disrupting quite quickly. Nrswanson has already been rebuked for a similar stunt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto, yet shows no interest in changing, continuing to edit war by restoring his Falsetto register fork of the Falsetto article [68] [69] (with help from his sock[70]).

I should cite WP:OWN in here somewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's amazing. I note diff over a span of edits on 5 Dec, Nrswanson builds UP the article, adding his version, then methodically strips away all the old stuff, making it look like good faith edits, but by the end, it's all his. Ironically, he slaps an 'unicted' template at the top. Then he protects it via edit warring, sets up a redirect... what a mess. It should be reverted to the 1 Dec version, befoe he took it over. It's defintiely WP:OWNed by him. That level of action, I'd support a block, as an editor who finds the sneaky methods used to be disturbing. Finally, The actual content cahnges are problematic, because he takes out examples, and explanations, assigns gender roles without citation (it is true that only men are allowed to be basses, or are men basses by biology, not women?) and so on. His whole rewrite smacks of game-playing, and should be disallowed. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for full page protection on Falsetto register (which should be a redirect to Falsetto, per the AFD). I'm not sure the WP:RFPP staff get what's going on, so I'm not confident this page will be protected. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the forking of voice classification and redirected to voice type, I will review the rest for OR and other issues, I don't know how current Miller's The Structure Of Singing might be in terms of current mainstream thought, so anybody who knows please let me know on my Talk page, as that would be my major source for a review of his contributions. I've watchlisted Vocal resonation, which superficially seems OK but is woefully think on citations for the amount of text. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Elkman blocking himself?

This is bizarre. I guess it's related to the User:Jinxmchue discussion above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bizarre self-enforced wikibreak? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a stunned message on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I spy satire. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• don't worry, admins do this all the time. I can list at least four other admins who've done this ;-0--Phoenix-wiki 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Raymond Arritt (talk) raises hand sheepishly... it was an accident, honest —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to do that, per the blocking policy, right? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thar's right.Although it's less damanging than it was in the days before logged in users could edit from blocked IP ranges. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101's behaviour

I couldn't help noticing what this user has been doing recently since from his very start on Wikipedia he obviously aimed at pushing some sort of agenda into so many articles - thus getting into many conflicts. What I think is he needs to get some sort of a formal warning so he stop pushing for the same things in so many articles (most of them totally irrelevant to his ideas) and most of all to stop calling people vandals for every single revert of his edits. I'd think he might not know what a vandal is, but since he's got the current infoboxes on his page he ought to be well acquainted with the subject. Just to prove my words he are his reverts on the Rosetta Stone article [71][72][73] It is obvious he is adding some pretty strange and poorly sourced info to the article (as a few editors tried to explain to him on the talkpage, but he persists on pushing it. He has persistently referred to other editors as vandals despite the fact he got explanations as to why he was reverted. Here is the next example on Bryges where in his edit summaries he has strange comments like [74] [75] spiced with threats that a user'd be blocked. He are his reverts on Macedonian dynasty [76][77][78]- I'm not sure if this removal of NPOV as he describes it compiles with any policy. I was going to point to the Vergina Sun article as well, but the revision history is full of Ireland101's edits (and with word Vandal again). It's the same with Hellenization - I'll highlight just a few edit-summaries [79][80][81][82] Then comes Macedon with edits like [83][84] - he seems to be using the administrators as some form of a threat so the others do not try to edit the page (I'm only sure he lied when he said this). I already mentioned his edit-pattern and how he adds the same things to other articles as well (Samuil of Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia, Justinian I, United Macedonia, Philip II of Macedon, Kalash‎ and so on. And moreover in all this articles he is editing against at least three or four other editors (that is on every single occasion). He got warned on a number of times by others on his talkpage (without anyone calling him a vandal), but as obvious he continues to do the same things. --Laveol ^T 10:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth notign that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ireland101_and_Tsourkpk is also about Bryges and Ireland101. He does seem to be pushing this Macedonian Identity thing pretty far and wide, and the rampant threats to get everyone else in trouble are pretty repetitive. ThuranX (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: User talk:65.35.219.74 - Disruption via {{NoAutosign}}?

Resolved

 – NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a new one for all you admins. User talk:65.35.219.74 added {{NoAutosign}} to their talkpage. This would be perfectly fine if they weren't (deliberately?) leaving their comments unsigned. Diffs:[85] and [86] (which contains an attack against SineBot as well). Could this be considered disruption? NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not constructive. The editor's contributions suggest that constructive editing may not be the point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, not disruption. Now if someone could tell them that WP:NOT and others doesn't apply to Lamest edit wars, then maybe they would quit vandalising too. I'd do it but I usually unintentionally make things worse.NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would help much, all things considered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User not getting the point about sockpuppetry

User:Wikinger is evading his block (again). It is incredibly obvious that 83.5.16.168 is a sockpuppet; he is once again engaging in personal attacks and editing other people's comments. See User_talk:Wikinger#Blocked to understand. Please block, and in fact extend the block on the main account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is probably just the users' IP address, wouldn't SSP be a better route here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on VanBrigglePottery and 72.11.124.226

Resolved

 – Referred to 3RR and RPP

WP:AN/3RR I believe VanBrigglePottery and 72.11.124.226 to be the same person. As they keep vandalizing the article Lakota people. As they keep reverting to the same POV wording on that page. As well the editing history of both users. Already one 3RR violation for VanBrigglePottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=180888643

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=181197879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=prev&oldid=181066917

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakota_people&diff=181198137&oldid=180570412

I would also like to request of Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old to that article.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you report this to WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP instead? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't know. thanks, --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked, reporter admonished viz 3RR

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on wing chun and WingTsun. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He also keeps insisting on wikifying a group of words on the WingTsun page, even though he's been told by other editors and my self that no such page exists, please stop per the established guidelines. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. I'm requesting administrator intervention. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Koonleg50 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disregard of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. In the future, it's preferable to get an admin involved before reaching 8RR on both sides, as you've both technically violated WP:3RR. However, since it appears from my review that Koonleg50 is clearly editing against policy while you are reverting to a stable and well-sourced version, I've blocked him alone rather than both of you. Call it WP:IAR if you like; it's open for review as always. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it and apologize for my part. I guess I thought by continuing to try and reason with him on the talk page it would finally get through. If he does it again after the 24 hour block or from an anonymous IP, I'll just come here right away. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs handling

Resolved

 – User blocked

Someone please take a look at these edits: [87] and [88] and [89], the latter 2 being where this IP used my picture off of my page and placed it on his talk page, and all 3 edits being personal attacks against me. -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've blocked him so he can cool off but really why did you post a warning note in his talk page in the first place? All he did was to call a spammer scumbag off. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in violation of WP:NPA, all over the place. Check all of his contribs. That's why I posted a warning in the first place. -- ALLSTARecho 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bo;;ocks . I've reverted you. We don't welcome spammers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierceshow (talk · contribs), TheBrianP (talk · contribs)

This seems to be a sock-puppet account. Both usernames have created an article titled Brian Pierce today, claiming the subject of the article to be the current mayor of New Berlin, Wisconsin. The article has been deleted 3 times so far today under WP:CSD#G3. TheBrianP (talk · contribs) is also engaged in an edit war on the New Berlin article with 5 reverts so far today. SWik78 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, they might be related to Brian002100 (talk · contribs) who was a suspected sock-puppet and was blocked indefinitely on July 23 as a vandalism only account. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Pierceshow created the article months ago. Suspect two different people with the same name. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777's deletion game

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past few months, has turned wikipedia into a deletion game, he is nominating hundreds of articles based on fictional topics for deletion using the AFD and PROD process, claiming they are not notable, when they are, Star Trek, Futurama, and the elder scrolls related articles have all been targeted and the topics are notable and they have big fan bases however he claims they are not notable and gets people who are not fans of the topic, and so will not be intrested in the topic to know what it is to claim for delete. This is all he ever does and it is causing a lot of disruption and it is reflecting that editors like him are destroying wikipedia, he is becoming very unpopular because of this deletion crusade and if anyone tries to talk him out of it he threatens them. Blueanode (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's customary to provide actual diffs of disruption if you're going to accuse someone of it. From perusing his contribs, a lot of his AFDs have ended in delete, redirect and/or merge, so he's clearly not starting them without merit. Further, you may be interested in this essay; being important to a lot of fans does not translate into actual notability. And since, at heart, all I see is a broad content dispute, you may consider requesting comment on this user. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD is a process available to all users. He is perfectly entitled to nominate any article that he believes should be deleted with a reason based in policy. You also have the right to vote keep stating a reason based in policy. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is massive amounts of articles on fictional works that totally ignore policy, that's what is causing the deletions not rouge editors. Ridernyc (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconding Someguy1221 here. Extensive fancruft belongs to dedicated wikis; I suggest Wikia's services. Wikipedia on the other hand, is an encyclopedia written from a real-live point of view and doesn't need an article for each Wazza-Bazza-Pistol someone, somewhere thought up. This is not a game - this is called building an encyclopedia. Миша13 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is unfair. Blueanode (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're also free to propose changes on any policy's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This all raises an interesting future discussion (if there is not already one) to be held elsewhere. I was thinking only recently that a number of Star Trek related entries could be better off on the Star Trek wiki, and Family Guy on the Family Guy wiki. I'd also suggest episode guides should be scrapped, but that would be against policy. May go around Wiki now and suggesting a lot of articles for AFD. Thanks to the editor who started this thread for giving me the idea Whitstable (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This recent arbritration case may be of use to editors here. I agree that rouge editors are not the problem; poorly created content is. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion regarding editors and the use of TW to mass nominate articles for deletion may also be helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict encountered)

one explanation for the expression of angst: I have seen a lot of traffic on AFD generated by Judge. My understanding is that WP:FICTION is a disputed guideline, which is the source of much of the friction. There is a general misunderstanding on the part of many of the people who have authored the articles coming up for deletion that WP:V is non-negotiable and that the potential for verification through reliable sources (rather than primary sources) is needed ... it would actually be better for Judge to be focusing on nominating items for their inability to meet the verifiability criterion, which is a much stabler plank to sail on than notability criteria. Why is the notability criterion creaky? Because it is potentially negotiable; consider the people notability guideline for entertainers that states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I've seen this invoked a couple of times (I don't have diffs at hand right now - it is infrequent) successfully. There are some aspects of "fancruft" that could pass this notability criterion if it were included in WP:FICTION - some, not most; something like "An in-universe fictional element is notable if it has a specific, significant and demonstrable "cult" following or real-life influence". In the end the "game" that Blueanode refers to might well be an attempt to get as many articles gone before a new version of the WP:FICTION guideline is in place that would allow them to stay. As pointed out, Judge is well within his rights to do this and might well argue (I would argue this as well at this time of year for some of my actions) "I have time now - I didn't have time before". It is unfortunate, though, that Judge is doing mass deletion nomination while the guideline is being re-drafted ... but there is no reason to ask him to stop, nor any justification to do so. I believe that other Admins would agree with this, as reflected by the comments above. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I would suggest personal attacks are not the best way forward. Whitstable (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be mudslinging from both sides here and to a lesser extent here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even without WP:FICT the articles still fail basically every policy, WP:RS, {{WP:PLOT]], WP:OR, WP:V, while notabilty is offten the reason cited it's not the main reason,99% it's actually WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The large numbers of keeps that appear in many of those discussions suggest that a good deal of editors believe that the articles pass these guidelines. A big problem is that the guidelines and policy pages are themselves edited constantly and so what someone sees in one instance and cites as policy may be changed even minutes later when someone else decides to cite that page. I had a nice discussion about this matter recently. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If it can be shown I have done something wrong, other than occasionally beginning to lose my cool, I am more than willing to be given guidance as to how to proceed in the future. But it seems to me than many who would keep fiction articles outside of current notability parameters are taking their anger out on me and others who are following existing policy on fiction and notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Commenting as a 7000+editor and a Trekkie: I have already discussed this briefly with Judgesurreal777, as I was concerned that he was raising too many PRODs at a time for defenders to be realistically able to improve/merge/otherwise rescue them. However, apart from that, I have not come across any cases where I dispute his judgment, and I do not support the complaint against him. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

JudgeSurreal777 has an attitude problem. If a AfD is not going his way, or if this one dissenter, he is very, very quick to anger. A few diffs from a recent AfD debate is a small percentage of these outbursts.

• Completely condescending and disrespectful towards admin
• Further condescending tone against same admin
• shouting down 2nd admin

He acts as though he is at war with those who support the articles, per comments like this. In AfD comments he has often slipped in remarks like this that only attack how well the article is written, rather than the importance of the subject.

Some of these articles do need to be nominated for deletion, but his explosive temper and probable priority conflicts raises the concern that he does not have the correct mindset about handling this in a respectable and responsible manner, and that he should either slow down with his AfD noms significantly, or let someone else handle this responsibility. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (moved here by Whitstable (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

• How about if the two sides came up with some kind of triage system in the relevant Wikiproject, to sort them into unambiguous deletable cruft, subjects worth working on to see if they can be sourced or merged, and unambiguous keeps? Articles on fictional subjects sourced entirely from primary observations are a plague - virtually everything linked to Bionicle fundamentally fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NOR and probably WP:NPOV, and I don't think that's the only place where unchecked fandom and lack of an appropriate subject-specific Wikia or fanpedia has led to Wikipedia becoming the place to document your favourite Lego brick from your own microscopic examination thereof.
  So, it would be better if the fiction lovers and the cruft-deleters worked together to actively purge the project of the worst of the crap; working together would help both sides to appreciate the good in the other. Remember, folks, that the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing. we have already run through the Pokemon universe once, with good results for the project and a much more solid base for the remaining articles. It may well be time to review some of the other genres in this way. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about blanking every fiction article and starting from scratch? Or at least looking at every article again and judging by policy? Whitstable (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fails to recognise that many fiction articles are the result of good, thorough research. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not insult other peoples' work regardless of your conception of its worth. You know that it engenders hostility if that's a word, and helps with nothing. --Kizor 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Fair enough, I should have made it clearer outside of the edit summary that I was only being half-serious. But there does seem to be a problem here - WP:FICTION being disputed does, in some circumstances, appear to outweigh other policies that are not disputed. As Guy says, "the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing," and I cannot agree any more than I do with that. There also appear to be problems in the AFD system in that those who are more likely to take part in Star Trek-related (for example) AFDs are quite likely to be Star Trek fans who will vote to keep, whatever policy is involved. But yes, will agree with Guy that a lot of further discussion is needed elsewhere on this one. Whitstable (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to Guy, not you - the suggestion of destroying years of work made me visibly cringe, but was not an insult as such. (Sorry if the * made it unclear.) --Kizor 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, must be the time of year! Hope worthwhile discussion does come of this to the benefit of the project Whitstable (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment why is this still even being discussed. there has not been a single bad faith nomination shown, The editor who complained basically admitted his issue is really with policy. It's been shown that the editor who started this complaint has been uncivil in the past. Conversations about policies on fiction are pretty much a waste of time here, nearly every guideline on fiction is being rewritten right now. Ridernyc (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gerda9

Resolved

 – for now, page protected as redlink

Gerda9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned only with repeatedly creating Future food. User completely refuses to engage in any discussion either on his/her own talk page or the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation. The user was not greeted in polite way. The repeated deletion of their contributions may naturally be considered as an annoying harassment of a newcomer. I suggest you to review Don't bite newcomers and WP:VANDAL before labelling someone "vandal". Also, please assume good faith to understand that the person simply does not know wikipedia ways and places to talk. `'Míkka>t 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one has left a note requesting that this user engage in discussion - I see only templated deletion messages on the talk page. I left a note asking the user to stop re-creating the page and instead discuss the reasons why it's being deleted. If they keep going with article re-creations after that, then a block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the page be salted, may be easier? Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec] Awesome! "protect" on redlinks. I love that. I've given it six months, it's clear the time is not yet ripe but it might be one day. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already resolved, but:

I only used the vandal tag as a way to easily expand the user's contribs, talk page, logs, etc. I wasn't implying the user was a vandal.

The templated deletion messages on the user's talk page do invite discussion, which invitation the user has not accepted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I use those templates myself, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I've just become a bit more sensitive to how forbidding and unintuitive Wikipedia's system has become, so I try (not always successfully) to err on the side of a more personalized and informative message when time permits. Anyhow, it looks like things are resolved, and I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, MastCell. I just wanted to clarify since I was challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) - is this person's User page grounds for indef. blocking? Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Hut 8.5 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some fool kid. I'd like to go to his talk page and taunt him "Go on then" but I wont. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Block on DarkFierceDeityLink--too lenient?

Can some other admins look at the 24 hour block I just placed on DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It relates to the user's increasing belligerence and incivility topped off by this gem. Now that I look back at the edit that set it over the edge, I'm thinking maybe I was a little too lenient. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've only looked at his block log so far, but since he has already had a short block for incivility which didn't seem to curb him my first thought would be to up ot to medium term. Say a week. But like I said I haven't looked into the history. What provoked the ourburst? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL warned EveryDayJoe45 with a vandalism warning and called him a "waste of sperm". I came along and changed the heading on that and warned DFDL for incivility. This prompted this discussion on my talk page. EveryDayJoe45 responded to DFDL with this which had a personal attack in it. EveryDayJoe45 was upset because he was warned for an article he has never edited and because he was attacked as a "waste of sperm" by DFDL. I warned him about the personal attacks which is when DFDL posted this to my talk page which prompted the blocking.

DFDL had been on my radar for the last couple of weeks because of vandalism to the Jamie Lynn Spears article and talk page which were completely out of line and violated BLP. Thoughts with this background information now? Metros (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL's on my list after placing an {{indefblockeduser}} tag on User talk:V-Dash, although he was not indef-blocked. Good block. -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawat-e-Islami threat

See this threat. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And another - [90]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's comment Those are worrying; while the threats are highly unrealistic (if this sort of thing were possible we would've fallen to 4chan ages ago), they do seem to foreshadow that the article will be seeing some more activity... perhaps a semi-protection? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need worry about the threats. I suspect the anon has severly underestimated the regular traffic we get. However I have semiprotected the article for a week to stop the vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tens of millions of Dawat members in small-town UK, eh? Avruchtalk 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible ban

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Silly people, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090 for relevant information. Redspork Friend001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another House sock as per the checkuser, did this in an attempt to get Redspork02 (talk · contribs) into trouble. House has used a variety of socks and has generally been a right pain, see things like this, this and this, and so as far as I am concerned he is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. I post here for review and to see if anyone disagrees. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User Barefact (talk · contribs) and personal attacks

Barefact (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against me before [91]. He has been warned before for doing this: [[92]] but no action was taken except a warning. Thus realizing no action was taken last time, he did it here again: [[93]]. He calls me a "militant ethnic editor". I should not have to tolerate this, but do not want to escalate my language to his level. I explained the logic of my revert in the talkpage of the article and the issue was an editorial dispute. But his labeling [[94]], which he has been warned for before , makes resolving future editorial disputes harder. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's anything more here, these diffs are only deserving of another warning. Two incivil acts seperated by 10 months don't warrant administrative attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AntsOnNuts

Links: AntsOnNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not too sure what to do. User:AntsOnNuts Has only made one edit but it could be interpreted as a threat - given the username - to vandalise in the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but...? Whitstable (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a threat, but I do see it as an account that will only be used for trolling. That diff is just an attempt at getting around BLP. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As EVula says, not an immediate threat, but keep an eye out for things worsening, and block if necessary. Anthøny (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)