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

Ehud Lesar

Unresolved

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [1] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk)

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. —Random832

That page is a gigantic mess. Who is ever going to read that whole thing to find out what the actual problem is? ^Avruchtalk 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on episodes articles

Unresolved

 – Moved long thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Edit warring on episodes articles slakr^\ talk /

User:BKLisenbee 3RR violations and BLP violations

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See [2] and [3] Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also asked this at AN3, could you clarify what the BLP issue is? It isn't obvious for those of us not familiar with the subject. --B (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He puts an external link on Frank Rynne which alleges illegal activity by the subject of the page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need User:FayssalF to look over this . He is familiar. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I should note that both users have been into this dispute for almost 2 years now. Back on 2007, i decided to deal with this issue and everybody has gone into informal dispute resolution (User:FayssalF/JK). It worked for a while but since i was the only admin left with the case, things started to get out of hand and the old behavior surfaced again. I then blocked both users (see here) for a week each. I believe those blocks had little effect. At the end i asked both parties to engange in a formal mediation process. So far, Opiumjones accepted while BKLisenbee has still had some concerns and never came back to respond to my querry for a formal mediation. I'd hope other admins take care of this alongside me. All details are found at User:FayssalF/JK.

Anyway, my usual message to both parties... A total respect of WP:BLP should be observed. Articles affected (directly or not) are Paul Bowles, Bachir Attar, William S. Burroughs, Frank Rynne and Mohammed Hamri. I have concerns about WP:COI as well since both parties have been showing a COI. They are both involved in real life disputes re the same issues. I've already informed all users involved in this that Wikipedia is not a battleground. In brief, users are advised to pursue formal mediation and if that fails, they are invited to bring it to the attention of the ArbCom. I urge some admins to take a look at this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I agree to formal mediation. How should Arb com be approached? Note Google friendly violations of BLP in above cited BKlisenbee some concerns[4]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the dispute resolution process is a prerequisite to an ArbCom case. Please give it a last chance and see if BKLisenbee would accept the mediation. If not try an RfC.

The ArbCom expects that other avenues will be attempted first:

• For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comment (RFC) process will be followed. The Committee considers community input from the RFC process both in determining whether to accept a case and also in formulating its decisions.
• For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

well we have seen that User:BKLisenbee has refused to mediate so what now? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this dispute reflects well the real life events. A problem which has been unsettled offline for years now. I am afraid it is time for an ArbCom case to sort out the mess here brought from offline disputes. Wikipedia cannot tolerate this. We've tried informal mediation and it didn't work. One party is refusing formal mediation believing it just a waste of time and would lead to nothing since they argue that you are supported here by another one's lawyer. We've tried our best and it is time for some forced peace over here. Anyone (you or BKLisenbee) can file an ArbCom case. See you there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

good . I think as a proposed tour by Bachir Attar is now cancelled that the abuse will lessen. I will also seek arb com intercession. Thank you for the advice. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones, if you are linking this dispute to real life events (tour cancellation) then i am afraid you'd be accused of a violation of WP:NOT (in particular WP:SOAP). Please do not talk about such things except to arbitrators. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann on User:Rokus01

To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization.

There might be system in this madness, though I have the strong feeling this pattern does not reflect anything I stand for or deserve, and basically reflects the bias of someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block. [5] Rokus01 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann was reminded not to use rollback. The arbitration case didn't say anything about personal attacks (at least I presume that is what you meant, and not WP:PSA). I see Dbachmann's statement that you have quoted as something that could be true, and should be seen in the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with. Rather than complain about any personal attack, why not consider trying to refute his claims? First, ask him to provide diffs to back up his claims, and then take matters from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case: [6]

This whole thing is nothing but harassment by Rokus01 himself. "Someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block"? Yes, very likely, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but accusations on both sides are unhelpful without diffs to back up those accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus's ultra-Netherlandishness has been noted by many editors. One anonymous individual parodied him in the following edits [7]. [8]. The real Rokus added this promoting the Netherlands as the Cradle of Civilization and then edit warred over it. He created an article on the Nordic race which attempts to prove the real existence of this "race". Numerous other articles are edited to promote his claim that the Nordic race has primeval paleolothic continuities and is the source of the IE languages (ie. The Aryans). Rokus will not engage in meningful debate. 'Debates' are endless reassertions of his line by argument and OR synthesising of sources. See Talk:Kurgan hypothesis, Talk:Neanderthal, Talk:Frisians etc. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Looks like Wikipedia has got its own modern version of Johannes Goropius Becanus! --Folantin (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 forum-shopping and harassing people as usual. Unless somebody wants to look into Rokus' history of disruption (he is basically reporting himself by quoting me above), there is nothing to see here. The diffs that back up my characterization of Rokus02 are to be found here (my 2 October posting). dab (𒁳) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive are editors like you that are on probation for being disruptive: [9] Moreover, your fanatism on military Kurgan antiques is famous, since your disruptive edits have been denounced on this subject as well. Still, your practice of retorting arguments with bias seems to work out for you, even here on the incident page. You are still on the loose. Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is the problem here. Dbachmann's characterisation of his antics and ideology is perhaps a little exaggerated, but is essentially accurate, as anyone familiar with Rokus's editing history will be only too aware. Rokus is also extremely disingenuous and this very entry in the noticeboard is clear evidence of his vindictiveness. It is nothing more than the pursuit of a vendetta and part of a campaign to get dbachmann to back away from dealing with Rokus's extreme nationalism and preoccupation with the glorious "Nordic race". Paul B (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think your use of "glorious" is as unwarranted and suggestive as the quote of your overlord. Weren't you the one negating [10] Fascism to be involved in Nazism, even after being refuted with the reliable sourced reference you asked for yourself [11]? Clearly WP:OR, I don't think Paul can be taken very seriously. Moreover, the mystery of your friend Dbachmann NOT investigating my suggestion that some obnoxious sockpuppetry trolling might have been yours [12] while being so diligent in other occasions, has never been solved.Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rockus01's statements on DBachmann's talk page were clearly made to taunt him over the recent ArbCom "reminder", and provoke a response that he could take to AN/I. Quoting from WP:TE: "Axe to grind? Try the hardware store." Ovadyah (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not "taunt", I politely advised him to take heart and not engage in soapboxing against the arbcom decision on his talkpage: [13]. I honestly think this is a bad attitude not worthy [14] of an admin that repeatedly pretends to speak in name of Wikipedia.Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"A little exaggerated"? Epecially "racially superior breed, the original Aryans" is highly suggestive and insulting. As far as I know this unwarranted claim is a personal attack, and a personal attack is a violation of wikipedia policy, and a violation of wikipedia policy of this accumulating degree (since as all of us know this behaviour is systematic and symptomatic to Dbachmann) is an incident. I would say, an issue. Rokus01 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• my observation on this situation is that Rokus01 has an agenda, and dab (primarily) stands in his way. I think Paul B's diffs show that while dab could be more polite, he's not the encyclopedia's problem in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I worry about dab for "standing in my way", as he has already difficulties in upholding his own edits? You can't blame me for improving on articles that interest me, persuing encyclopedic compliance to multiple significant views, or else you would have seen me fighting like a crazed bull against the bias of Nordic Theory and Fascism: here you'll see articles written and purified against all odds, logic, thought and sourced references by editors having an agenda. Editors, moreover, that are obviously very conscient of each other, everywhere and everytime, and consistently give each other a helping hand. Be careful with your observation, you might be wrong. And please stay on topic: "Dbachmann barely alive from arbcom and violating WP:NPA" (and WP:SOAP, of course).

By the way, please don't miss my observation above concerning this incident: "The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case:" [15] Rokus01 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The AN should be aware that ArbCom intended for the principle of Decorum to apply to all parties involved in the dispute, including two editors that were added as parties based on personal attacks and incivility against DBachmann. There was never a finding of fact against DBachmann for editorial misconduct. The findings concerned the use of rollback and semi-protection in Dab's capacity as an admin. Alleging otherwise amounts to fraudulent testimony and is a violation of WP:POINT. Rokus01 is the party engaging in personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system. Ovadyah (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ovadyah, your same argument "Axe to grind" was applied by you before to criticize User:Futurebird on the case. [16] She was as startled as I am now, and obviously this diff shows you are neither the neutral bypasser you want to appear NOR gifted with the capacity to choose the right side. Qoute: "It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the committee at this point. Good luck" In this quote, the only thing sensible and that worked out was the "good luck", since the commitee proved that Futurebird was right. Maybe it would have helped Dbachmann if you had contributed or thought something instead that did matter? Please be relevant or keep this page clean from WP:GAME altogether. I am waiting for the concept of AN: be aware that giving opinions while knowing yourself they don't matter, for whatever reason, could be explained as deliberate obstruction. Rokus01 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry at Andrea Bocelli

There are some very odd edits going on at Andrea Bocelli. Check the article history, especially re: the edits of the following users:

• Belcanti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Botoxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Legacie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• BotchelliFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Quodella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Sawchek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Something is quacking like sockpuppet farm here. Could someone look into this. Is this abuse of the kind that Checkuser could be useful for? Or is this nothing? Something has my Spidey-Sense tingling on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest, from a quick review, that LogonOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legacie are related, but that bottichelliFan might be unrelated. Perhaps some more detailed explanation of what sorts of patterns you're seeing could help?ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all small stuff. The issue is that each user shows up for 1-2 days, makes 3 edits all subtly changing the article in some way that lies just below vandalism, and disappears again. All of the edits are related in some way to Boccelli being a bad singer, such as changing opera to "popera" or entering some personal analysis of his vocal qualities. Several of these seem to understand how to use ref tags and other higher order aspects of wikimarkup, which seems weird for a new user. Some of these may be innocently caught up in this, but something smells funny to me about this. I still want to see what others think... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the things to go sock farm over, Andrea Bocelli? Ronnotel (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, weird, right? And yet, something doesn't feel right about this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a farm. I'll put the list at User talk:Jpgordon/Belcanti sock farm; someone should check to see there aren't any false hits in this list of 30 editors on one IP. You'll note that LogonOne and BotchelliFan are indeed there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Were these checkusered? Do we know they are one IP? And is it enough to take action against them??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I checkusered them, and I said they are one IP (actually, I found a couple more on an adjacent IP). And, sure, they might be a class. But the sort of stuff it's full of is like this at 22:40 followed by this two minutes later, then the creation of User:Dysopic at 22:45, and then the creation of User:Gitelmesumodat! at 22:54, then User:Gitelwomaner at 23:07... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent stuff. You may want to check out: User:Gitelmesome.

Prolly more too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there little discussion the content? What if there was a school lesson about the person and the kids then edited. Let's see a list of which users are good and which are bad, then block the bad. I know nothing about the article's subject so I can't tell. Republic of One (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK if I just butt in? If this had been a follow on from a school lesson then surely most of the edits would have happened very rapdily over a short space of time. These edits from new users (most of whom as has been said seem to have quite a good understanding of how wikiedia works) just keep "popping up", and don't come across as being edits as a result of a school lesson. On 10 January LogonOne removed one section and then Lefacie later that same day (after it had been re-instated by someone) made an identical edit with virtually the same edit summary. There just appears to be a pattern of editing from all these new users all seemingly trying to change the whole feel of the article, and most of them coming acriss as if they were all being done by the same person. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ftleitner is on the list. The most recent edits that I check seem ok. User:Wasted Time R carries on a decent conversation with the user so that's a sign of not being a vandal (either that or they are both socks carrying on a fake conversation). Felix Leitner is a known CIA agent. He has worked with James Bond including the latest film. Republic of One (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but: look at the sequence of edits starting with this one. Three in a row from the same IP. Actually, that makes it seem more likely that it's a class project. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've seen weirder. There probably are a lot more -- I haven't done a comprehensive checkuser yet (that is, I've not checkusered every username on the list yet; I just found these on the first one I checked.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If it's a class, make me a Sherlock Holmes award! Republic of One (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Take a look at the edits starting with here. The three edits within an hour of each other are from the same IP. I really really am inclined to hope that it's innocuous, because there are a ton more than I put on that page, which I'm now deleting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe run a Whois on the IP? See if its a school or what? I mean, ONE IP address accounting for all of this... This... I don't know what to think. I mean, it could just be some kids at school goofing off... But... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Oh, it's not one address anymore -- there are a handful of them in a small (so far) range, but from 3 of them, I've got over 60 names, and I'm going to stop looking unless there's an actual problem, like talk page collusion (rather than conversation, which is what I've mostly seen.) Maybe it's an Internet cafe? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Or a public library... Still, there MAY be some sockpupetry going on between some of these. It is probably no longer a "grand conspiracy", but we shouldn't let this color our analysis of some possible sockpuppetry from some users using this IP. But I agree, the idea that this single IP means it is a single user is getting harder and harder to believe... Weird stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as long as it's not Sefton Public Libraries... which has already been blocked a lot of times! --Solumeiras ^talk 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up"

  — User:Jayron32

Reminds me of that incident that incident involving a professor that User:Zoe got into a discussion about on here... --Solumeiras ^talk 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX (reprise)

I made a report here a day or two ago about ThuranX denouncing me as a "racist" and a "bigot" - labels that I find deeply offensive. As I did not have much time to respond to user comments at the time, the report was quickly superseded by newer reports, and as I've been reluctant to make an issue of it, I decided perhaps it would be best to just drop the matter.

On reflection however, I've decided that I can't really do that, because it leaves me feeling aggrieved and I couldn't possibly be expected to co-operate in future with a user who maintains that I am a racist and a bigot. I have also found that this matter has considerably soured my interest in Wikipedia, to the point where I no longer feel like contributing. Therefore, I feel this issue requires some sort of resolution.

Before I take the matter further then, I am going to ask once again, if ThuranX is unwilling to withdraw his slurs, that he be sanctioned for it. I'm asking here first because it strikes me as a relatively quick and easy place to resolve a dispute like this. In the event that no-one here is willing to sanction ThuranX for whatever reason, the next step will be to take it to WP:WQA. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, ThuranX is incorrect to call you a racist, when it's obvious from inspecting your contributions on Holodomor Denial, that you are a communist propagandist and Holodomor denialist. Being a racist is much more respectable. Argyriou (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As with any AN/I post - can you provide diffs, even if you have cited them in a prior thread? Additionally, Argyriou, observe WP:NPA or you will end up blocked. ^Avruchtalk 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-adolescent sex and Adult child sex

[I changed this section title to match the actual discussion content here. Page title was temporarily at Adult-older teen sex; that was changed during this AN/I report, per discussions that were in progress previously. The prior title is mentioned in the first few paragraphs but is not the main point of this AN/I report as can be seen here in the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

Jack-a-Roe was among the set of Wikipedians who supported keeping the article at Adult-older teen sex. I'm not sure why the pagemove which started the current kerfuffle shouldn't be in the section head, as it originally was. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, SSBohio, that is a misrepresentation of my position, and shows a lack of good faith. I never liked the title "Adult-older teen sex". I support either "Adult-teen sex" or "Adult-adolescent sex", or simply deletion. I changed the heading here, for clarity in this report only, in good faith, and not for any undue influence (that would not have accrued anyway). It's also completely untrue that the title of "Adult-older teen sex" is at the core of this issue, that's a sidetrack and discussing it does not help in any way to get to the root of the content dispute. Now, there is an AfD in progress for that page, so we'll find out what the community consensus is about that, and that is a welcome process. I believe the widest possible participation in the AfD process would be beneficial to Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin (or two or three) review the page move and subsequent creation of a dab page to prevent the move from being undone? A quick look at the relevant talk pages will show that this was done with virtually no discussion and is extremely controversial, with more and more editors weighing in on the inappropriateness of the move. Pairadox (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this plea. Three people "reached a consensus" among each other to move and re-direct within a few minutes after 15 or 20 similar or identical proposals had failed, where several dozens of people had voiced their utter disagreement with such a move. The current supporters of the move link to a "discussion" they themselves have deleted, just as they have deleted the whole history of the article they moved. Compare the current remains of Adult-child sex to my WIP draft of the same article that by now several people have agreed on that it would be better to revert to than to accept this mere disambiguation ruin. A number of newcomers to the talkpage at Adult-older teen sex already voiced how poorly the few materials the moving editors kept corresponds with this new article's theme. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The title "Adult-older teen sex" is utterly ridiculous, not least because it makes no sense in the English language. I have moved it to Adult-adolescent sex for this reason alone, and consensus on the page should determine a correct outcome (whether to go back to the old title or what to change it to if not.) Other admins should not feel they are wheel-warring me if they disagree and can think of a better solution to this mess. Orderinchaos 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To claim 3 people reached consensus is a complete under-exageration and I would argue that consensus has been achieved butt hat a tiny minority of editors refusee to accept it. Then title is now Adult-adolescent sex which is not ridiculous at all which I fully support as a fine solution, and I don't believe those who su[pport the creation of the dab page at Adult-child sex will disagree either. Hopefully no more admin intervention is now required. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual SqueakBox, you have the overwhelming majority of people against you and don't even acknowledge that. Just recently, User:Karla_Lindstrom has referred to your persistent disruptive behavior as "dictatorial behaviour with some vague appeal to common sentiment", not to mention the hundreds of accounts where people agreed with her on that and that are now conveniently deleted because you deleted the entire article. --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither side has an overwhelming majority on this issue. That's why there's a conflict. What should concern us all are the tactics being used to circumvent the ongoing discussion. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, is this not about deleting subjects which you can't comprehend, rather than making only important information available. The small group of editors that includes yourself seem intent on deleting any historical or anthropological mention of nonwestern adult-child sex that threatens to undermine the dominant theory. It really is quite pathetic and immature. digitalemotion 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with some of your points, but I wanted to clarify that this discussion is entirely about whether the article needs admin intervention, not the merits of any side. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Have reviewed the situation carefully. User:Nakon carefully reviewed the situation then move-protected the article a few days ago after some fairly extreme warring. Some constructive editing thereby took place but then some further wholesale changes occurred. Nakon reverted them, and placed a notice on the article that "Your Attention, Please! Anyone coming here to revert changes should read [17] before pressing the "Save Page" button. Editors continuing to revert changes will be blocked from editing for disruption and edit warring." There does not appear to have been consensus to move forward on this.

I note that even in the time since I restored to Nakon's version about 20 minutes ago, Squeakbox has attempted to jump to the thick of the battle from 6 days ago. There is indeed some problem editors and problem edits on both sides, and the article is not ideal, but the way to solve this is pouring water on it, not gasoline. Orderinchaos 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article Orderinchaos. Should we be inclined to understand this as a warning directed at SqueakBox? --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that other admins are advised to participate, as I now seem to be involved, due to Squeakbox's two reversions of my edit (strangely, the version being reverted to is way back on 7 January[18], not any recent version). Orderinchaos 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, as you can see, two editors (SqueakBox and Pol64) are obviously ignoring your admin decision as well as they are violating your user block warning that has been put at the very top of the article. I propose that said warning of user blockage ought to be put to action. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - a. as an admin I'm basically just a trusted user, I don't run the place and it should be noted one of the other parties, User:Herostratus, is also an admin (the one who moved the page despite sysop-protection). b. I didn't place the notice - Nakon did. c. I can't block - see WP:BLOCK. "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Orderinchaos 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I've seen admins use their admin tools when they've been involved in a content dispute. I think your way avoids conflict of interest to a greater degree. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There are two users (Squeakbox and Pol64) who are determinedly and mechanically fighting any attempt to deal with the situation in a rational manner. If another admin could look into this as I'm unable to act against any of the parties given my involvement tonight, that would be great - please note this is urgent and current. Orderinchaos 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, respectfully, there are so many kilobytes of discussion, and so much aggressive activity in this situation that has gone on for months, that perhaps you didn't notice the at least five more editors who support the change of article title. I'm not saying that's enough for consensus, but it is enough that it's not fair to focus only on the two users you mentioned, who happened to be the ones online since you became involved.

In addition to those two, I also support the change in article title, for many reasons; and other editors supporting the change include administrator Herostratus, who you noted above, plus administrator Will Beback, Flyer22, and JLove. That's at least 7 editors who have stated their support of the change in just the last couple weeks. Prior to that during debates over the last few months, there have been many more, though I have not organized that information so I can't present it here.

My point is that this is an ongoing complicated difficult situation and a larger issue, not just a couple people being pushy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's a lot of people being pushy. Pairadox (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've said things I'm not proud of during the course of this dispute. Others, presumably, have as well. The discussion here is primarily concerned with what admin action needs to be taken, not with who's right about the article's title or content. Right now, I feel that the article may need to go under a (brief) period of full protection, as semi-protection hasn't doused the fire. These issues need talked out, not repeatedly reverted. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, but it strikes me that what is going on is largely a content dispute. Whilst admins can deal with the issue of edit-warring and other conduct issues, the actual content dispute should go through paths starting with RFC. At the moment we have a ridiculous situation in which Adult-older teen sex is redirected to Adult-adolescent sex is redirected to Adult-child sex. Thus we have a redirect from something that is legal in most contemporary societies, to something where there is a legal fault line (i.e. Age of consent) through the middle of the legality of the concept in most societies to something which is illegal in most societies. What is needed is sensible discussion on how to deal with the content issues. Admin fiat isn't going to solve them. But the blurring of the subjects produced by the chain of redirects makes Wikipedia look muddled.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescensts, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents as you can see in my further advanced draft in my own namespace I've linked to above, but then Herostratus moved it to Adult-older teen sex by agreeing with SqueakBox and Pol64 after we had 15 to 20 unsuccessful proposals for delete/merge/redirect already.

Also, as it might interest a few people here to know, the people that have been warned today by admins of getting blocked for more unilateral, "disruptive" redirection have now started another proposal for delete/merge/redirect. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of course is not a disruptive action at all and hopefully will give greater community consensus on this matter. If people feel the need to edit the article to resolve the problem screaming don't until you are blue in the face is not helpful. Some editors appear only to to be here to promote a POV and trhen they go blamingm other editors who are more interested in NPOV. Count the number of SPAs and you will see whaty I mean. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On "disruptive", I've only quoted literally those admins that have now warned you. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tlato, are you aware that Hersostratus was an admin and that Orderinchaos was wheelwarring? I am not criticising any admins but I do think Tlato is being a bit presumptive here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL does not actually encompass moving an article, strangely enough, so your position's a little hard to justify. Admins who make non-consensual changes after a resolution has been attempted in complete violation of WP:PROTECT (in summary, don't use one's tools to advance one's own position) are likely to be reverted as would any other user - mine, as I have noted, was not a position taken on issue but a status quo based on the last review (which the paint hadn't even dried on yet). Orderinchaos 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of these cabals gaming the system. Yes, cabals. real ones. I said it. There's a pattern here. Cause trouble, find an admin willing to jump into this gigantic morass of morons and sort it out. As soon as one does, they're tainted, and cannot resolve it again, because one side or the other tags them as 'involved editors by arguing their actions with reverts. Once an admin action that didn't involve the fancy buttons is reverted, the editors claim the admin is now part of the content dispute, insulating themselves from blocks by that admin. Then another admin must step in, read it all, and issue blocks. Those blocks are contested by the editor's fellow travelers, making the new admin also tainted. Then, there's two less courageous editors who can ever again step in to resolve this stuff. It's a war of attrition, and it's intentional manipulation of the situation. Admins who step in based on AN/I reports ought to be covered by policy to protect their effectiveness. Any admin actions can be appealed through various methods, so why should we give them a 'one shot deal' system? By that logic, our oldest and boldest admins are relegated within a year or two to policy debate and vandalism fights, because all the content and dispute stuff is off limits as 'involved'. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. It puts administrators in a no-win situation and encourages inaction. Orderinchaos 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Shouldn't WP:AGF cover this? After all, an otherwise uninvolved Admin entering a dispute should be assumed to be objective until it is clearly proven otherwise. (Emphasis on "clearly".) -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't there already an article on ephebophilia? Merkinsmum 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but because one is attracted to a certain group of people does not mean one has sex with that group of people; conversely, just because one has sex with a certain group of people, doesn't mean that you are fixated on that group; it may just be a source of easy sex that's close enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathewignash posting cartoon images

A few days ago I asked to hear for feedback on the images of toy/cartoon/comic characters. I asked what was the most accepted source - a comic book scan, box art, the toy, promotional images, assuming I use a proper non-free source tag. Has anyone put any thought into this matter? I was hoping to post one or two more pictures for character articles lacking images tonight or tomorrow. If I don't hear from anyone here, I'll guess it's okay to try two more and then ask for feedback on if I did them properly. Thanks in advance for any input. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MCQ is a better place for these kinds of inquiries. —Random832 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta's user page

The controversial "China=shame" section of Certified.gangsta's user page was recently the subject of a thread here. It was removed, the page protected, the page was unprotected, and the section restored. Those wishing for the removal were advised to follow dispute resolution or perhaps take it to WP:MFD. A single purpose account Lysol x has taken the section off of his page again. Pretty sure he's violated 3rr and perhaps a checkuser should be run. AniMate 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No point in MfDing a page for one small section. Viridae^Talk 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see people edit warring to put back such questionable content. Friday (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same. In any case, Lysol x (talk · contribs) has already been blocked indefinitely. Up to the checkusers if they want to pursue it further. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I permablocked Lysol x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a clear harassment-only SPA. Review, of course, is welcome. This whole business is - and those who would seek to turn it to wikidrama are - very dull. On all sides. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, user pages should be dull, certainly. This one is way too exciting for my taste. Maybe MFD is reasonable here- there's more than just one section that shouldn't be here. Friday (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, that userpage may as well say: "This user is a 13-year-old upper-middle-class kid from the muthaphukkin' suburbs." As to whether it warrants an MfD... no comment. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's a Ferrari driving lawyer who is also a professional DJ and a muthaphukkin gangsta from the 'hood. (Who supports John McCain). ^Avruchtalk 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiighhht. If he had a Romney userbox, now, I might have bought the rest of the gangsta bit... MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I agree. Clearly, people are finding this "China = Shame" thing offensive and inappropriate. In any case, that phase can be interpreted as policy violation, in the sense that 1. the phrase is directed to China and therefore the Chinese people, which would make it a racial remark or 2. it is directed at the Chinese Government in Beijing, which would mean that he is using his userpage, in part, as a soapbox, which is a violation of WP:SOAP. Thats my 2₵. nat.utoronto 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the second reason. There was a large movement recently to have people put banners on their user pages criticizing the Chinese government for a recent rights controversy. It was advocated by Jimbo himself. - Revolving Bugbear 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pretty much the same issue as if he had a China=Shame userbox, and the approach should be the same. Political userboxes survive at least in part because they are self-descriptive, not on a content page or talk page, and you can simply ignore them if you wish. What is more disruptive - a userbox some don't like, or thread after thread about whether it should stay? ^Avruchtalk 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely lame edit war, but I wonder, per WP:CSB, how long a userpage with "USA=shame" would last? BLACKKITE 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking when I suggested that they mfd it. It's one thing to say "China's policy of censorship is a shame" or "Oppressive governments are shameful," but saying that "China is a shame" is fairly controversial. Moreover, it would seem that several editors expressed concerns over it, and the long-term solution isn't full protection of the user's user page indefinitely, so the only other option is WP:MFD if he/others insist on readding it. At that point, let consensus there determine the overall appropriateness of the user's user page. --slakr^\ talk / 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The other solution, dare I say it, is that we ignore him. How much offense can possibly be taken from someone who writes "China=shame", in between describing his exploits as a member of the Rollin' 60's and listing depressingly predictable celebrity crushes (then crossing them out because they got pregnant, "nuff said")? We're talking about a dozen characters or so, from someone with a block log a mile long and clearly not to be taken seriously. Can't we go back to arguing about really important stuff, like whether Michaelmoore.com is an attack site? MastCell ^Talk 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the "mile-long" block log carefully, a lot of them are actually 1 second blocks to apologize for previous bad blocks. Sure, I am controversial, but admins who know me well enough know I do make valuable contribution to the project. Also Lysol x is User:PalaceGuard008--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes. That's why I was posting on this account at the same time that Lysol x was editing and subsequently blocked. Can't you accept that not everyone who dislikes youyour "contributions" is from a vast right-winganti-you conspiracy? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You should back that with a SSP or RFCU report or both. ^Avruchtalk 02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough edit count for the sock can be used as evidence, but given the time stamps and the viciousness of the attack and his past history in “Sumple” of userpage harassment. I seriously couldn’t think of anyone else. He also has a habit of abusive sockpuppetry given that Sumple and PalaceGuard are in fact, the same person. (issue currently discussed in another thread on AN/I)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've kept continually removing his user interface spoof at the top of his userpage, and he's kept reverting it. I'm trying to keep his userpage within WP:USER. Is this OK?? --Solumeiras ^talk 11:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Of course not! This is already an issue generating pages of discussion and some minor drama. We don't need any petrol thrown on the fire by someone else starting to edit war over something else on the same page. Please desist. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for that one, I wasn't trying to edit-war about it though. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I've kept continually removing..." == edit warring. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I actually didn't continually remove it, I just removed information twice, but stopped further edits to the page. I'm not editing that page anymore now. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The case of Certified.Gangsta is very puzzling. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, in April/May of last year, he and another editor were found to have "engaged in extensive edit-warring" and both were put on standard revert parole for one year. Just a few weeks later, a review of the case was opened after the other editor presented prima facie evidence that the remedy had not worked in Certified.Gangsta's case. That other editor was banned by the community in August for his own disruption. In the review of the case, more evidence of tendentious editing was turned up, but the committee closed the case when it became apparent that Certified.Gangsta had left, the case to be shelved "pending his return". Although he has returned to editing, he has made few article edits since the arbitration case [19].

In late November, Certified.Gangsta appeared to have made up his mind to leave permanently, leaving this message in his edit history (read the page names out loud in descending order) by way of farewell. This was apparently due to "constant harassment from another user", whom he named as User:LionheartX on the talk page of workshop in the Durova case [20]. LionheartX himself had changed his username to User:Master of the Oríchalcos in September (I hope everybody's keeping up). Shortly before his departure, he had complained about this alleged harassment in this thread on WP:ANI.

A couple of weeks later, Kirill Lokshin, an arbitrator, announced that Certified.Gangsta's edit restriction had been lifted (presumably after private consideration of new evidence or possibly because they had reviewed and decided the remedy was not commensurate with the facts of the case). [21].

Now Certified.Gangsta's userpage is of course a completely unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia resources, and his conduct in editing has often been questionable. However it does look to me as if there may have been considerable provocation in the background. At the very least, I'd say it would be best to consult the arbitration committee in private before proposing action on this matter. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the problems at hand, and not endorsing it in any way, but that sequence of edits spelling out a message like this has got to be one of the most creative and amusing way of making a subtle personal attacks ever. — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Legrand and the sock puppets

Please block very recently confirmed sockpuppets of Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand.

 Confirmed - sock puppets of Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs)

• AmeliaElizabeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Simon,Jms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JanosGalomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CharlieFeff. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MRKPinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• H Wilf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RDSW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thanks. CM (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this specifically - doesn't the RFCU clerk typically perform these blocks? ^Avruchtalk 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No :) We often do since we're obviously watching the page more often, but the procedure is for the requester to ask an admin to perform the blocks based on the evidence. Some clerks are not admins, which shouldn't prevent them from closing and archiving cases. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to add to what lucas said, sometimes the requester doesn't want a block, or a block is not the best solution, and all that is being requested is the confirmation. Orderinchaos 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, we need to seriously discuss an indef community ban at this point. This behavior goes back to at least January 2006. — Satori Son 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

05:18, 10 January 2008 User:Krimpet blocked "User:Alfred Legrand (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This situation is so long-term and complex, I'm not sure which account could even be classified as the "puppetmaster" at this point. But I see that East718 has also indef blocked the longest existing account, MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · block log), which I fully support. — Satori Son 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logical Defense (talk · contribs) making personal attacks and threatening to subvert IFD

Under a previous username (which is open for anyone to see), I applied some RFU and missing fair use rationale and copyright tags to an image. I have since retired that username and begun using this one after a bit of drama involving a former admin and an alias signature I was using at the time. In any case, I gave up previously. However, I ultimately decided that a rule is a rule and everyone should be required to follow them. So, I retagged the image in question. [22]. Logical Defense once again deleted the tags (even though the RFU tag clearly states that it should not be removed). I was told that if he did this again, I should IFD the image, which I have done [23].

Logical Defense is mistaken regarding a great many things. He continually accuses me of bad faith, claims I'm tagging the image because I'm "pro-Christian" (I'm not). Now he is going around bad mouthing me on other people's talk pages and violating WP:CANVASS to boot [24]. At the end of his screed, he claims that if the image is deleted at IFD, he "already knows what to do". Which I assume is to subvert it by uploading the image again.

I've never said the image is needless as he claims. I'm NONE of the things he claims I am (a kid, a teenager, religious, etc.), and instead of following the rules according to our non-free media policy, he deletes tags and makes personal attacks. I would like it very much if someone would explain the replaceable fair use policy and the nonfree media policy in general, and warn this person to stop canvassing and making personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the IFD tag. If it continues to be removed, the image can be protected until the IFD is over. None of the other tags (replaceable, etc) really matter as any of those processes are superseded by an IFD discussion. --B (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I probably should have IFDed in the first place. Oh well, live and learn. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "personal attacks" are greatly exaggerated, and any investigation into what I've said in edit summaries and so forth will show that nothing I said was intended as "attacks". If you take offense to being called a "teenager" (which according to info on your former account, you at least were when I first met you here), or "Christian" (which again, you named yourself at the time our conflict emerged), then that's your personal misconception. You keep trying to spin my actions in an attempt to hurt my rep, but the truth is, I've done nothing wrong while communicating with you or anyone else.

I stand by my claim that your pursuit to erase the image is personal bias; the image, afterall, provides mood and intrigue to the black metal page. If providing a clear portrait of a historical moment is something you're against, then I can understand this game you're playing. Otherwise, I don't get it. But we'll let review decide. "Reuploading the image" -- by the way -- is another exaggeration you've made without merit. Logical Defense (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stand by your claims all you like. I just hope you're accustomed to being wrong about a great many things. My age and religion/lack thereof are immaterial and constant mention of them is nothing more than an attempt to divert people from the issue at hand, which is a non-free image being used in violation of WP:NFCC. Sadly, nonfree images can't be used to provide "mood and intrigue." IFD will determine the ultimate outcome and whatever the reviewing admin decides will be fine by me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates and user pages at CSD

While doing the gardening, I noticed there's a bunch of templates and user pages for consideration at CSD. These make an interesting change from the usual "is gay" moronic stuff, so please pop along if you've a mind to do some mopping. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Before anyone asks, no I don't do the gardening with a mop. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) taking over articles and removing tags

Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) has been editing a number of Romanian royalty related articles, which the articles in question being: Line of succession to the Romanian throne, Romanian Royal Family and Carol Lambrino. The user has been translating surnames on that basis that a royal family can translate a title (for instance, "of Hohenzollern" because they are members of the House of Hohenzollern and also princes and princesses of Hohenzollern), so someone else can do it as well. I countered that we don't have "Vincent of Gogh" in English, among other answers, although we very well could but that would be original research. I have tagged the articles for POV and OR, but the user in question keeps on removing those tags. The user is also claiming ownership (on behalf of Romanians, but also for the user's self) that only Romanians can determine if a surname should be translated[25] when in English practice no one's surname is. The point to be made is that Hohenzollern isn't a surname only, it's a house name as well, and that is why it can have "of" in English ("of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", "of Habsburg", "of Bourbon", etc). Carol Mircea was given a surname only and not a title by the Romanian government. Please warn or block the user (which ever is appropriate) for nearly inciting an edit war with his or her behaviour and also for removing tags. A literal translation of Romanian documentation does not account for English practice. The source quoted is also compromised by using the title of "Prince", which was not granted to Carol Mircea by any authority. Charles 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also for royals we sometimes don't even translate what is used for their surnames. For instance, the Prince of Prussia's legal name, and the one allowed on his birth certificate, is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen. We don't say his legal name in English is Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, although he may be styled as such in social situations. In English his legal name is still Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen (or Preussen, allowing for transliteration of non-available letters). Charles 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not "keep" on deleting tags: I only did so once per article, asking Charles to prove with a reference his POV that surnames cannot be translated into English for non-aristocrats, without which proof the tags appear as unwarranted and aggresive POV-pushing. Because I do have two references for my claim re: Carol Mircea's surname, I will delete the OR tag as unwarranted and leave the Neutrality one as long as there is no consensus, awaiting Charles' reference on his POV. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil' Mouse does not have proof of a surname because the context of cited passages does not support it. Sources referring to someone as "prince of Romania" does not make their surname "of Romania". Carol Mircea's birth certificate says "al României", not "of Romania". A literal translation of a surname is erroneous. Yes, his surname means "of Romania", but that does not change it to "of Romania". Note, for example, the lead articles on the Habsburgs. We don't give them as "of Habsburg-Lorraine", we use "von Habsburg-Lothringen". Charles 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR, hence the OR tag was removed and will continue to be removed as unwarranted. For it to be warranted, either of the two conditions are necessary to be true: "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.". The definition of the former says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." There is a verifiable, published, credible source proving Carol Mircea's "of Romania" surname --the Evenimentul Zilei daily, one of the main Romanian dailies: "Carol Mircea Grigore of Romania, the first born son of Romanian King Carol II, died on Friday night in London. (...) Mircea Grigore of Romania as mentioned in his birth certificate issued in 2004 by the Bucharest City Hall following long trials, was the first born of Carol II and his wife Ioana Valentina "Zizi" Lambrino." (Source) As to the second part of the OR tag, "unverified claims," its definition is given by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Clearly, the above source fulfils the verifiability requirement as it is published and reliable. Therefore, neither of the two reasons for the OR tag are warranted. Hence, this tag will continue to be deleted. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The validity of "of Romania" exactly in English as a surname is compromised by the use of "prince". A territorial designation is different from a surname. Lil Mouse, cease your campaign of vandalism and original research. It is you who is pushing original research by saying "of Romania" is the surname on his birth certificate, taken from a literal translation of the Romanian when the Romanian form is his surname. Your behaviour and admitted point of view, which you have not addressed here, is not suitable for Wikipedia. Carol's surname is "al României", not "of Romania". Charles 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the English of Lil Mouse's source is absolutely atrocious, slightly above that of a machine translation. Perhaps this source would be reliable in Romanian, but it is not a reliable English source for individual names in English as much as it might be for facts about his death, etc. Charles 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim Carol Mircea is a "prince." My edit is not OR, as there is a verifiable, published source proving his last name is "of Romania." Read again what WP:OR means, before making again such untenable claims about my edits. Also, your behavior is not suitable for Wikipedia (e.g. you accused me repeatedly, above as well as in this edit, of "vandalism" with regards to removing the OR tags, an act which I have proven above it is not vandalism, but warranted; such an accusation violates WP:AGF). As to your aggressive POV-pushing with the repeated insertion of the OR tag, please, provide a reliable source for your POV that only the aristocrats' surnames can be translated into English, but not the non-aristocrats'. If you do that, I'll accept then that Evenimentul Zilei was not so reliable when it translated Carol Mircea's surname into English. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said only aristocratic "surnames" are translated. I said that "of Hohenzollern", which you compared "of Romania", is not just a surname, it exists as a surname and a territorial designation, whereas Carol Mircea's does not, because he is not titled "Prince" on his birth certificate. The OR is the lack of proof on your part that the English language translates surnames. An awful translation literally from Romanian does not cut it, it is not reliable in determining English usage. Answer for your claim of ownership on behalf of Romanians, why don't you. Either Evenimentul Zilei is reliable or it isn't, it doesn't rely on me proving something that I never claimed (that aristocrats have translatable surnames). I will say it again, for the record, that using "of Hohenzollern" for the Romanian royals is not translating a surname because it exists separately as a house name and as a princely title. Even for royals, "surnames" (to use your terminology, although these were house names) are not translated. Take a look at the leading lines of this article, for instance: Charles I of Austria (von Habsburg-Lothringen, not of Habsburg-Lorraine). An identifiable "surname" (again, house name, really) which is presented as such, not translated. Charles 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall the French revolutionaries addressing Queen Marie Antoinette during her trial with a translated French version of her Austrian surname, stripped of any princely title. So the translation of a commoner's surname (she was a commoner at that time) into a foreign language can be done; whether it can be done in English also is a matter of debate. Until you prove with a reliable reference your POV (thank you for all the above details on your POV, by the way), I have a reliable source for my edit and you don't for yours. Your opinion as to why my source is not reliable on this matter relies solely on your unproven POV. Still awaiting your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you comparing present day English conventions to revolutionary France?! You are also referring to French conventions, not English ones. Your source is compromised and your comparison is faulty. You are not the arbiter of what is correct in English, indeed you have indicated that you are concerned with what Romanians think. The practice is evident in English. Think of all of the nobles with "de" and "von" in their names. We don't translate those unless there are titles. English isn't a language with an academy so conventions are governed by what is the predominant practise. All you have shown is what a Romanian would do, not a general (especially native) speaker of English. Are you going to tell everyone how the English language is supposed to be used? You took what is known to be fact, that Carol's surname on his birth certificate is "al României", and extended it with unreliable and compromised sources (do you expect an English translation mentioning "Prince al României"? "Prince" compromises the already sloppy translation) and are pushing to say that his surname IS "of Romania" when his surname is "al României" and only means "of Romania". My surname means "of X", but that is not my surname. My surname is "von X". If you think surnames are a matter of debate, you obviously have no proof on your side that surnames are always translated into English. English practice backs me up, and I hate saying "me" when what I really mean is you vs the English language. Charles 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

168.167.93.241‎ (talk · contribs) and La'teen (talk · contribs)

I may not be handling this properly so I would like some help if possible.

I suspect that the IP and the username listed above are the same person based on the fact that they are editing some of the same articles and at about the same time. User La'teen created article S.C.A.R which was a cut and paste from " this site. I tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. User La'teen, the creator of the article, removed the speedy tag which, per the tag itself (do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself) was in violation of policy. I replaced the tag back into the article and posted a notice on the user's talk page regarding this violation. Shortly thereafter, 168.167.93.241 deleted the speedy tag from the article. If 168.167.93.241 was a different user than La'teen this would have been fine but I suspect that they are the same person and are using an account and an anonymous IP address to circumvent policies and rules. Here are some of the articles they have both contributed to:

• S.C.A.R
• Botswana hip hop
• Gabane
• Category:Villages in Botswana

I have placed templates for suspected sock puppets on their user pages but am somewhat unsure how to proceed and whether or not I handled things correctly so far. Please advise. Thanks.

P.S.
The S.C.A.R article has been rewritten since I first tagged it as a copyright violation so it may not qualify for speedy anymore, at least not for that reason. SWik78 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is a real intention of violating Wikipedia practises even if they were the same person... I don't think La'teen knows enough Wikipedia policies to try to circumvent them. I think he's just a new eager editor from Botswana, who wishes to contribute but is finding the learning curve too steep. This is exactly the situation I was hoping to avoid when I advised him to create articles in a subpage of his user space and asking for comments before going to main space :( Sadalmelik (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HemperorOfSmokeLandVillez.dum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Current involved in an edit war at Bourke Engine, but that not why I'm bringing him up; looking through his edits and his talk page, the man is almost literally incoherent. Also, he's now threatening people HalfShadow (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the edge of blocking him for re-creating promotional articles - at least, they look like promotion if you squint at the nonsense long enough. I think he's been using too much of his product. He seems to have achieved a critical blocking mass at this point. Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm. Too much "hemp(eror)", perhaps. However, communicating through edit summaries is not helpful. Neither is the provocative format, never mind the content. I'll drop him a note on his talk page and see what that brings up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was formulating a 48-hour block for edit-warring/spamming/nasty edit summaries/craziness, but will hold off for the time being. Acroterion _(talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If craziness were a reason for blocking, two-thirds of us wouldn't be here; feel free if my move doesn't work, but we have to realise that editors come here with widely differing value systems. However, this editor has had a wider variety of warnings than I can remember seeing; a 48-hour may allow him to come down from Cloud 8, perhaps. And that's not an insult; I've been there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he might descend from #9 to #7. I'm not in favor of crazy-blocking either - this place would lose many of its more amusing charms if we did that. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't even make no sense; he makes anti-sense. If sense and him entered a room at the same time, there'd be a massive explosion and release of energy. HalfShadow (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You say that as if it were a bad thing. Whilst it would be beneficial if he would meet us half-way, I think first we have to be on the same road, and since we hold the keys to the road, I would suggest the ball's in his court right now. It's not quite the same as other users I've seen whose first, or even second, language, is not English; or who have some other communication issues. But this editor had got to be straight sometime, and realise that if he wants to participate, he should accept prevailing cultural values, limited though they may appear to him. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 48 hours after starting right back up. Reviews welcome, as always. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well; I tried to engage here. It's said that failure to hit the target is not the fault of the target. Apparently this is an exception to that proposition, and I can't criticise your judgement here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Their editing behavior on Bourke engine‎ has clearly crossed into disruptive. Hopefully they'll get with the program. — Satori Son 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bpeps

Hello Administrators' incidents noticeboard,

I'm becoming increasingly concerned with User:Bpeps. I have been recieving unusual messages from him/her for a few weeks now. I had not had any contact with this user at all until he/she began leaving crypic messages on my talk page, beginning with this. I did not respond as I knew it was purely disruptive. He was also virtually or seemingly new to the project. However, the nonsense has continued with this to which I began leaving messages about how I could help this user (see the polite and engaging messages I left at User talk:Bpeps/archive1#Have_we_met.3F - I also make it clear that our paths have never passed before).

The user has continued to e-mail me off site with simillar cryptic nonsense, to which I ignored with the hope that this user would leave me alone (he has singled me out from millions of other users, which I'm concerned with)... though knew this was going to continue.

Bpeps has continued to bring me into his world as with his recent attempts to obtain Rollback status (see the conversation thread at User talk:Bpeps/archive1#RfR). I made it clear that I was uncomfortable with his remarks, attitude and harrassment and I did not wish to discuss any matter with him/her any further.

Just now, I have recieved a message from him where he has gone through perhaps a few thousand or more edits of mine to undercover (what he thinks) is accurate information about me (see here please). I'm now very concerned with how Bpeps is trying to uncover personal information about me. I'm putting WP:AGF completely to oneside (invoking WP:IAR) and believe he wants me to respond to his offline messages to he can obtain my real name. What also strikes me as un-nerving is the edits (to me) evidence discrepencies within his work - he dumbs down with me, leaving incoherent, provocative and cryptic messages, yet with other users and features, he writes with perfect diction and seems rapidly aware of advanced features of Wikipedia (monobook, obscure guidelines etc).

I believe this user to be one of two users who I've faced conflict with before. The user began this work around the same time that a content issue surfaced and I believe it none-other than to be a single purpose sock-puppet. I would like some admin input about how best to tackle this now. I believe this to be harrassment. Is it also possible that an administrator could delete User:Jza with the utmost urgency? (It was an account I set up in error a long time back). -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this case deserves some attention as I do believe it violates WP:STALKING clearly. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have said that he did threaten to stalk me here. I advised him (the user claims this gender) that this was not the way forwards. But it seems to have continued regardless. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I trolled a little but is it wrong that I bring attention to a user some differences in his accounts? Especially when he points them out as being special. I use Wikia as a sysop so am aware of features in wikimedia and stealing ideas from wikipedia. Dunno why the guy can't be reasonable. Bpeps (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have synop status you should definately know better than to troll. And why the cryptic messages, accusations of bullying, asking how to archive talk pages, obcene language? Something is totally suspect here and I find it most distressful that I'm the target. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Jza84 has concerns that I may be one of two users he's faced conflict from take it up with WP:SOCK or just request a checkuser - the stalking thing was tongue in cheek and certainly nobody can take it as a threat when it clearly outlines a WP: of not what to do. Bpeps (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the principle concern is the continued harrassment, both on and off Wikipedia. Foul language, oddball comments, talk about your family, going through several thousand edits to catch a glimpse of personal infomation ONLY to then post it on my talk page. I do not think these are tongue in cheek at all no. I find them abusive and threatening as I've already made clear on your talk page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No wikimedia has a redirect lookup it takes a few glances to check. Look you are not an indiscriminate editor - you have five stars and I would rank you as pretty above average. My approach was bad. Not sure about the email or emails I will definately have copies and don't mind you adding them to this dispute. This is getting silly on AN/I please take it to RfC. Sure somebody else will help you work out how to post to my user page if you are already minded to go this far. Bpeps (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I do not think this is silly or suitable for RfC - I think this is disgusting, threatening and abusive behaviour and there are serious discrepencies with how this user is contributing. As I've said, I've had nothing but harrassment and nonsense from this editor. He's admitted being a trolling synop(!?), there are diffs of nonsense, threats, insults, and strange tactics when it comes to dealing with me, when I've been nothing but polite. Why on earth would a person come to Wikipedia and single one person out to do this? Why would they then go through thousands of edits to find personal information? Why, even when they have it would they post it on my talk page? I've never dealt with this person (under this name) and he doesn't do this to anybody else. An admin agrees this is a case of stalking. I would urge this be addressed please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Redent) Dunno this can be taken out of AN/I - I seriously don't think this is appropriate here. If you take it to SOCK or CHECKUSER or something I can have a say without wasting space here. There are no threats - you apparantly have my email address to make an anonymous one and reply. I certainly have no record of flying emails and my Wikipedia account sends a copy. I didn't choose you from a million, I chose you because you were good at articles. I phrased my question to you wrongly. With regard to my trolling ok I found out last night that the editor has had three accounts (some changed because of abuse, but I didn't know that) and his personal details went from degree to degree and being born in 84 to 58. Thats not wholesome surely (and Jza84 you cant say that those accounts weren't yours)? Trolling sucks, but so do people who we trust trying to be something else. Bpeps (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked over this a little -- and here's what I'd strongly recommend.

• Jza84 -- I understand how this can get frustrating. It's probably best, to disengage at this point. There are nearly 1,500 admins, and 5 million+ users, and noticeboard upon noticeboard if User:Bpeps needs help. I'll keep your talkpage on my watchlist, and redirect questions to the appropriate places if you'd like.
• Bpeps -- You're making Jza84 very uncomfortable, whether you see it (and, when you admit to trolling, I think you do) or not. Please, disengage. Just leave Jza84 alone, please? There are almost 1,500 admins, and 5 million+ users, as well as dozens of noticeboards, if you need anything. I hate to be blunt like this, but, some of your messages come across to me, as... well, plain creepy, threatening, and, trollish. I'm asking you very nicely, please, leave Jza84 alone, OK?

It's 6am, and, I'm tired. If I've been overly blunt, I'm sorry. That's how I see it, however. SQL^{Query me!} 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to stay far away from Jza84 Bpeps (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Situation out of hand and possible meatpuppet

On the Talk:Las Vegas (TV series) there is attempting to be a discussion about the infobox. It has broken down a number of times because of two new editors, one of which claims to be a former admin. Tonight when replying to an admin, the editor who claims to be an admin threatened/warned me when I had done nothing but comment. Since last weekend, User:DJS24 had blamed me for a 48 hour block. Last night CarsGm5 (talk · contribs) showed up claiming to be a former admin and immediately took DJS24's side. Tonight he threatened me over a comment I made regarding a previous discussion about infoboxes. He also reported another editor that didn't agree with them as uncivil but brought no evidence of the incivility. The similarities of comments and user names makes me wonder but I don't know what to do. CarsGM5 and DJS24 can be related and I would be more than happy to connect the dots. In NASCAR (a noted interest by DJS24) the 5 and the 24 are GM cars owned by the same team owner. Both have essentially only edited Las Vegas (TV series) (DJS has a couple of minor edits to other pages) and nothing else except a report about a user that disagreed with them but remained civil. The claims of "dispute" verses "discussion", regularly incorrectly spelled words, it makes one wonder. The "warnings" however do seem to cross the line. I admit, I've been no saint through all of this, but these two new editors really make me wonder what is going on. The incident, and why this is here, is there's considerable question as to the behavior of those involved and "warnings" issued that are questionable. I will willingly take any warning necessary just to get this resolved. KellyAna (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "they" just tripped "themselves" up. [26] One commented, I replied to essentially leave me alone, on the other account, meaning to be the first, replied and then tried to cover. Please, address the situation I figured out 36 hours ago. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, you have been itching' for the beginning to find a flaw between DJS24 and myself, because that’s the type of person you are. Any admin. who looks into this issue will see that and how difficult you have been during this whole discussion. I was trying to leave you a comment regarding the discussion about the trivia section on the Las Vegas page as you address it in the Las Vegas Discussions. I put in into the wrong section, as I've been leaving comments in that area regarding our main discussion for days. Of course, KellyAna being who she is, was waiting right by that computer and sent out notices before I could even replace my comments. The admins will see that when they look into the issue. Let me finally point out that our main discussion was almost resolved until, KellyAna took this last approach to make sure her point stays on the site. This is unfair actions and they need to be looked into right away. Also, I hate nascar, who can watch cars go around and around and around it's boring. I prefer football myself. So any relation between a 5 in my name and a 24 in DJS's name in farfetched. In best regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Without examining the content issue, IMHO if a user is a former admin, they really ought to follow the model set in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive116#Death_threats.2C_privacy.2C_telephone_numbers and have a crat confirm it without revealing their old user name. Even if its not possible to regain the mop (thats a crat discretion call), no situation should be too embarassing as to evade the normal channels. MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the comment "being who she is, was waiting right by that computer" could be taken as a personal attack, but since I was working last night at home on the computer, it's actually a fact. I was working on the computer as I generally am when I'm not cleaning or sleeping. My reasons for the report are simple, I believe you to be a meatpuppeteer and I didn't know if I could report a meatpuppet on the sockpuppet page. It has nothing to do with the Las Vegas article other than you are backing yourselved up even misspelling the same words and using the wrong words grammatically incorrectly. The issue is, as CarsGm5 calls it "out of hand" because of the tactics used by the two users. Claims of former adminship, misspellings/misuse of the same words, related user names, same (unfounded)accusations, and a tucktail and run by one when the meatpuppetry was exposed. I was asked my opinion last night by Mangojuice, as soon as I offered it I was accused of causing problems. What I wrote can't be deleted or changed when looking at history. You're welcome to see what happened and that any changes I made were to keep the article as it was before this mess happened waiting for it to get straightened out. KellyAna (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like, to have KellyAna and Irlishlass looked into as well. I don't want to continue to add flames, but now that I've been accused of a meatpuppet, makes me start to wonder. Please let me plead my case here. Not ONCE has either KellyAna or Irishlass been on at the same time. Irlishlass is on during the day, while KellyAna comes on at night. KellyAna is on during the weekends, while Irishlass isn't. Makes me believe that she uses, KellyAna as her home account and Irishlass as her work account. That would get rid of posiible same IPs, and she won't dare use one user on the same computer as the other user. Just looking at all the times in both their history seems too convincing. They both work on the same pages, in same groups, support each other like crap, and contact the same admins when they need help. Now farfetched, yeah, but not as fafetched as her nascar/# theory above this. In Best Regards CARS!--CarsGm5 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial block needs review

Unresolved

 – Block endorsed and overturned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question, suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh come on...

Resolved

 – image deleted

Yes, i am aware that wikipedia is not censored (fuck that stupid policy ) :). But is this really needed? I mean what good is it going to do on this project? What article does it relate to? I personally see it as vandalism and think it should be turned into another pretty red link. Thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that got someones attention fast! Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the curious, it was added to an article in [27] and deleted 3 minutes later (3 minutes before Tiptoety saved the first post here). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more appalled by the username and have reported it at UAA. ALLSTAR ^echo 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That was unnecessary as the user has been blocked indef for about 3 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now the user can be deleted for about forever.. and get a non-offensive username. ALLSTAR ^echo 07:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What? The issue was the image, and the user was a vandalism only account. There's no reason to add any more admin actions here. This is not a UAA issue. It never was.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, user is already blocked, what more do you want? Tiptoety ^talk 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kuru

Resolved

 – all socks blocked (more applause). Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock harassment This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. danielcase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. pharmboy (talk)

This admin continues to vandalize West Texas accounts through his army of sockpuppet. He has created over 25 sockpuppet accounts to avoid detection. luna santin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhill45 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've blocked all sockpuppets blocked involved. east.718 at 05:06, January 19, 2008

(Applause) --B (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As it ends up, I had to protect the sockpuppet's talk page. I consider this an extreme measure that is warranted in this instance, so review is welcome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, it's about the 20th time this ding-dong has had one of his sock account's talk page protected. List is here. Kuru ^talk 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm... Ding Dongs. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mandloi

Resolved

 – page deleted, user blocked

Mandloi (talk · contribs) is creating User space articles touting a pyramid scheme. Corvus cornix_talk 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• deleted the user page and user talk page. Left a warning on talk page. If it continues, let us know, and a block may be forthcoming. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not just spamming, this is an illegal pyramid scheme and possibly even a criminal scam. I am blocking the user, and will make a checkuser request since he may well be operating from an open proxy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like Ryulong has been faster ... - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Andy Marchbanks

Resolved

 – No action required.

Since his first edit at 21:05, 6 December 2006, User:Andy Marchbanks has refused to use edit summaries. As of 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC), Mathbot's edit summary usage for Andy Marchbanks stands at 1% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. The reason it is 1% is due to page moves and article creations which use automatic edit summaries. According to User talk:Andy Marchbanks, at least five users (including myself) have asked him to use edit summaries. It is very difficult to monitor recent changes and watchlists when established users don't use edit summaries to help their fellow editors. Can anyone help resolve this situation? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no unbreakable law that editors have to use edit summaries, Help:Edit summary, it is simply good practice, and although it does help other editors if you use them, no one can force you to do so, some people may simply not what want to bother, and it is an easy thing to forget to do. Also, nowhere on his talk page does Andy refuse to use summaries, he simply does not acknowledge the messages. Sorry all anybodycan do is ask him to use them, we can't force him to. Try talking to him about it on his talk page without using an automated message, it may get a response.--Jac16888 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Edit_summaries. At 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC), an administrator, User:Kralizec!, composed what appears to be a non-automated response.[28] It was met with silence. Using edit summaries is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette (although for some reason it is not listed on that page). The edit summary help guide is grouped under related editing guidelines in {{Guideline list}}, but does not have the status of a guideline. Why? The edit summary article even says, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And i quote "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits;failing to provide edit summaries....is considered incivil and bad wikiquette", taken from the arbcom precedents page you quoted, which also says it doesn't have a penalty attached. Out of any given recent changes page, very few edits will have summaries, i.e., the ones by established editors. I repeat, you cannot force someone to use summaries, literally, there is no way of doing it. What is it you actually want to happen?--Jac16888 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Andy's just a good old-fashioned WikiGnome? --Merovingian (T, C) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you. I was planning on saying that in my next response, should i need to :)--Jac16888 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Anyway, to elaborate, I would venture to guess that as long as his edits are legit, we have little to worry about. --Merovingian (T, C) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FANCYHOODLUM

Resolved

User keeps on creating nonnotable autobiographical articles (Eddie Vegas and Eddie vegas despite multiple editors telling this user not to. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have protected Eddie Vegas; Eddie vegas already is protected. If the user continues to disrupt Wikipedia, I will briefly block him to get his attention. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist comments

Resolved

I wish to report the edit of 86.147.3.72 to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. on 19th January.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=185365879&oldid=185353160

This clearly inappropriate content and I would appreciate investigation by WP with a view to this user being permanently blocked. Tmol42 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already given the user an only warning, which is the best option, and they have not edited since, its possible they may have listened to the warning. If they come back and post more attacks, give another warning, see WP:Vand, then report them to WP:AIV--Jac16888 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, report them directly to me and I'll block them. There's absolutely no place in Wikipedia for racist crap like this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Block 83.70.165.171 please

Yeah, please block 83.70.165.171 because he added TV channels on Chart Show Channels article and TBA section on List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland article without any sources, so I removed them which they don't have sources. HMR 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless they keep reverting you and re-adding the deleted content there is no valid reason to block, instead i suggest you talk to them, explaining clearly, in a civil, non-accusatory tone, why you removed the sections. And by the way, the ip you have given only has one edit, 83.70.165.17 (talk · contribs), back in december 06 the Ip is 83.70.165.171 (talk · contribs), --Jac16888 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have been more approriate to tell me i'd got the Ip wrong rather than simply changing, it was only luck that meant i noticed it. Anyway, i will look into the edits, but at a glance it doesn't seem particularly troublesome, and definately not blockworthy. Again, try just talking to the user--Jac16888 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior (HalfShadow & VigilancePrime)

Since his recent rejection in RfA , user continues negative input to the project. Edit summaries such a[talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=185364705 this] and [for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=185364315 this] are quite uncivil.68.245.183.155 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't sooper-civil, but if anything needs to be evaluated which can be found beneath those links it is the behavior of User:VigilancePrime and others in that AfD. ^Avruchtalk 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First point: how I summarize my edits to my own page is my business. Second point: he was having a tantrum, and I don't mince words. Never have, never will. Third point, you're the second or third random IP with no edits attached to directly comment on my talk page concerning my editing practices as their first edits, which I find awfully damn curious, especially seeing as all the IPs involved are so close to each other. This stinks of stalking. HalfShadow (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I left a 3RR warning for VP on his talk page (which has the most complex design I think I've ever seen...). There is also some other warnings apparently, and a block notice, tucked beneath the dozen or so collapse boxes. ^Avruchtalk 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

moved from AIV board; Vandalism to Science Portal

(I will advise editor LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
I have just reverted vandalism to the Selected Article on the Science Portal. I did this by clicking "edit" on the Selected Article box and then reverting in the normal way. Featured Article/19 is now definitely showing to me with the vandalism gone. However, the vandalism is still showing on the Science portal. Can someone take a look at this as I don't know how to fix. SpinningSpark 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Have you tried purging the cache? Caknuck (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had cleared the cache and that did not clear the vandalism. Clicking "Show New Selections" has got it gone, but of course, I now have a different article in the box. SpinningSpark 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• When I finally got #19 to display in the portal, it looked fine (ie. no "teflon" or dog poo). You may want to go directly to Portal:Science/Featured article/19 and use the "?action=purge" from that page. Caknuck (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it you got to it by repeatedly doing 'Show New Selections'. I did the same thing and it now looks fine to me also. Sorry to cause you trouble. SpinningSpark 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how I accessed it. No trouble at all. Caknuck (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin TerriersFan abusing his position

Could someone please deal with this admin. TerriersFan is yet again abusing his position by excluding IP editors who don't agree with him. Please see Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the associated Talk page. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection is valid due to repeated adding of unsourced information, but as an editor, TerriersFan should have asked another admin (here or on WP:RFPP) to do so. — Edokter • Talk • 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No - a single addition of material that apparently was sourced. Problem is TerriersFan didn't rank the source, so because he seems to think he owns the article, he simply SPd it to stop those annoying IPs from contributing. This is not the first time he's done it - check his request for Admin. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On Terrier Fans request for admin! One person made reference to his alleged refusal to accept consensus, and that was quickly countered by other editors, and shown to be a reaction to a warning Terriers Fan gave. This is not a reaction to a "single edit". Indeed, it was me and not Terriers Fan who reverted the addition. This article has been plagued by vandalism and unhelpful edits by IPs, which is a serious problem in an article where WP:BLP issues have to be considered. Several instances of IP vandalism have occurred since semi-protection was removed, and this unhelpful edit (it was sourced, but quoted the source selectively) was simply the catalyst for re-instating protection. I had previously asked whether it should be reinstated in an edit summary. The user making this complaint seems to be engaged in a vendetta, hiding behind multiple IP addresses (he has already changed it since his initial post). Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't change it, my ISP changes it. No vendetta, just observing what's been going on at the article in question. There are in fact three users, of which TerriersFan is one, who own the article and implicitly require other contributors to seek permission before editing. The tactic of SP, which as pointed out above should not be used by an admin with an editing interest - is one of the methods used to force compliance. A check of the edit history will show numerous examples of semi-protection by TerriersFan on grounds which are unsound. Look also at the suggestion by another user for a timeline (start of Talk). TerriersFan invites the user to "be bold" then tells him "don't do it".

This is a long shot, but there is a slight possibility of sockpuppetry here - and it is only slight. The users in question are TerriersFan, Harry was a white dog with black spots and The Rambling Man. Checkuser might be worth trying. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a baseless acussation, two of those users are admin who work on separate areas of the project outside of this article, there is no evidence suggesting sockpuppetry, and a request will most likely be declined because checkuser is not for phising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That these users are sockpuppets of each other is patently rediculous. Even insinuating so does not do your position any benefits on this. I will review the protection and see if it was appropriate, however don't go throwing around baseless accusations of sockpupettry; these are three long standing Wikipedia members with long histories of positive contributions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here he goes again, making ludicrous accusations from behind an IP address. He has been rumbled on his ludicrous misrepresentation of Terriers Fan's request for admin debate, so now he is changing tack. And again, he misrepresents Terriers Fan above. He did indeed tell the editor to be bold, but he didn't then tell him "not to do it" - he said, don't put an incomplete timeline in the article. Do it in the sandbox and add it when it is finished. That is quite different to the implication above, This user is not to be taken seriously if he can't even get his facts straight. The grounds are certainly sound in this case, and as I have said before, when WP:BLP is concerned, urgent action is sometimes required. In future, if Terriers Fan feels the need to semi-protect this article urgently, I hope he will then confirm his decision with other admins. But he certainly has done nothing wrong, as has already been pointed out. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Yes, you're probably correct. I am not making an accusation. I did say there was only a slight possibility, and so there is. Personally I doubt it, but you never know. I mention it only because the three "owners" of the article have very similar views, which verge on the obsessive, as to how the article should develop. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I have removed protection in the interest of starting dialogue and achiving harmony on this article. See the article talk page for more details. Conditions have been placed on this protection removal, and if the conditions cannot be met by the parties involved, the article will be reprotected. I hope this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the protection. I hope it stays unprotected. Harry, you clearly don't like IP editors - big time! Have you ever considered going to an alternative Wiki where they aren't allowed? Alternatively you could start a debate, or go to the current one (which I assume exists) to make Wikipedia a "logged-on user only" project. There are merits in having Wikipedia as such, and I wonder if it might be good thing. My complaint is that since Wikipedia does allow IP editing, you try to undermine the policy. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with IP editors. I only have problems with them (and any editor) when they vandalise and make unhelpful edits, and I definitely do object to IPs like you who hide behind IP addresses to make ludicrous accusations and disparage people without the accountability that you demand of others. Please stop it. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RightGot

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

His style of adding "obvious" but implausible redirects, changing redirects to disambiguations with improbable alternative articles, etc., looks familiar but I can't quite place it. As I don't recall whether the editor I'm recalling was blocked, this really isn't appropriate for WP:SSP, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved manned mission to Mars to human mission to Mars claiming that having "manned" in the title was sexist and User:Andyjsmith reverted it and calls me a troll because I did that. There are many high schools listed on dab pages for three letter acronyms. I've started a discussion about it here Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools. I think we should either include them on a separate dab page, or removed from the dab pages altogether with a note on the dab pages not to add high schools, but they shouldn't be cluttering up the main dab pages if we include them. RightGot (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He reminds me of LukeHoC (talk · contribs), who created 450+ redirects back in December, in the form of 2 October 2008 to redirect to October 2? He was told they were unnecessary and left Wikipedia because of that. It took me days to delete all those redirects. — Edokter • Talk • 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor appeared out of nowhere a few days ago and has done nothing apart from creating utterly pointless redirects and lists disguised as dabs. I find it hard to believe that he has no previous history on WP. Anyway I can't find more than a couple of his edits that can't be described as disruptive. andy (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'm inclined to delete the redirects as CSD R3 and the dab pages as CSD A1. — Edokter • Talk • 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried that but some admins disagreed as they're superficially plausible, so a lot of these articles are now in AFDs. andy (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a tool for tagging the nineteen oh one redirects? I tried AWB on a similar set, and it follows the redirects. (And AWB doesn't work here for me as the IE engine hits a redirect bug of some sort, not specific to Wikipedia, but I can't use it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects like Nineteen ninety-eight "superficially plausible"? They must be joking... Also, pages like 01, 02, 03 etcetera; they just contain "dab" links to Madden and NFL games. No, they need to go. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, redirects are cheap. I'd just leave em alone. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is MHS before the list of high schools was spun out; [29]. I hope we can agree that the current incarnation is better. Taemyr (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambiguate MHS (high schools)? They're not ambiguous in the first place. And if they are, then we need a major project to disambiguate all the other three and four letter acronym high schools - that is, every high school on the planet. Help all those poor people out there who are scratching their heads wondering which school in their neighbourhood could possibly be meant by MHS, NHS or OHS... Come to think of it my daughter goes to an OHS school. We need lots and lots and lots of lists headed AAA (high schools), AAB (high schools), AAC (high schools)... I make that 17,576 so-called dab pages for the three-letter acronyms and 456,976 for the four letter acronyms. Just under half a million dab pages for high schools. But hey, let's do it!

I can imagine someone being puzzled by a reference to MHS in a medical text and wanting to know it means Malignant hyperthermia syndrome, but schools? Who on earth is likely to confuse Mainland High School, Daytona Beach, Florida with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia? On the other hand if you Google MHS and find yourself trawling through this rubbish are you going to be happy with the performance of WP? I doubt it. andy (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy, if you're going debate RightGot's behavior then do it here. If you're going to debate the dab pages themselves, do it over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I was gonna come back here and do that... silly bot...-- RoninBK _{T C} 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I allowed myself to get irritated with RightGot's behaviour. Don't Feed The Trolls - if he wasn't so prolific it wouldn't be worth talking about blocking, but he is so it is. The only thing that seems to have slowed him down is this debate. I know that WP is a big place but someone who deliberately sets out to clutter it with trivia for whatever reason has to be stopped. Gresham's Law - the bad drives out the good. andy (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Followup on my original comment.) Actually, I was thinking of Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Voortle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I don't think they're quite the same. The question of whether he should be blocked for disruption, though, is still open. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:198.99.32.5

I believe this user is at least one of the IPs used by User:Grawp. See [30], and compare the contributions between User:Centaurioid and this user. They show a very similar style: reversion of some vandalism, some helpful contributions, but mostly vandalism. I was entirely expecting to find out Centaurioid is a sock of someone else, which he is. I ask that someone place a long term hard block on this address, which is still editing of late (Jan 10), has consistent contributions over its life, and appears to be used by no one else (it is only one address). The Evil Spartan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Trekkie assistance re User:Gabby the kitty

New editor Gabby the kitty (talk · contribs) made multiple edits to List_of_Star_Trek:_Voyager_cast_members, then added a bogus movie article. Flagged the bogus movie article, but need to have a Trekkie review the Star Trek related edits; I can't tell if they're valid. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the bogus movie article. The list of cast members looks accurate, but it serves no purpose IMO. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a first warning on the editor's talk page. It now looks like a new user learning Wikipedia, not a vandalism-only account. Unless something else happens, we're done here, I think. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions and image rescue - good faith efforts to help being obstructed?

I'm asking for comments on an issue to do with image deletions (hence asking admins and others dealing with images). The background to this is that there is a backlog of tagged images to be assessed for deletion following two tagging runs by Betacommandbot. See Template:DailyDeletionCategories. There are (or were) 4032 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 and there are 1699 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008. There are very few images in the date categories in between (ie. the image tagging is not being spread out over the dates). Since the first run of tagging, there have been efforts at Wikipedia:Task of the Day to get people involved in adding rationales to images that need them, and various specific lists (of book covers, album covers, logos, and so on) have been produced. I'm not sure how successful those have been, but one of the points made early on was to notify the admins who clear out backlogs like this at bot-like speed, so that they would hold off for a while to allow some work to be done.

Timeline

Selected quotes and comments organised into a timeline regarding the 2 January 2007 backlog (which was at one point over 11,000 images).

• 13:40, 5 January 2008 - "To be honest, I've been inspecting the categories daily, and removing some images. I'm ready to run TWINKLE on it. Just give me a timeline on how much to hold off, and I can do the deleting part very easily." - User:Maxim
• 16:04, 13 January 2008 - "Work on this category has kinda slowed down. Would there be objections if I cleared it out (ie delete)?" - User:Maxim
• 20:46, 13 January 2008"I would object to deletion of the images in this category. There are still images in there that are perfectly justifiable fair-use images. This indicates to me that the category has not yet been properly screened and cleaned out. This is hardly surprising give the volume. How about allowing people one more week before starting work on those images?" - User:Carcharoth
• Today (19 January 2007), I (Carcharoth) start work on grabbing lists from the categories, dumping them into my gallery page (with the gallery turned off) and then previewing them. There are about 5 subcategories to go through. See the page history at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. Some of the images I fixed straight away (I was mainly looking through for the non-album covers and other images of interest to me or where I thought a reasonable rationale could be written). Some I added to a list. See User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. I missed the bits pointed out in the next two bullet points.
• Two people comment at the WP:Task of the Day thread, saying that they had finished with the category.[31] [32]
• 14:49, 19 January 2008"I'm probably going to do it at around midnight (00:00 20 January 2008). I'm probably starting to inspect the categories in maybe 10 minutes." - User:Maxim
• About half an hour ago (17:45 19 January 2007), I noticed that one of the images in my preview screen had been deleted since I hit the preview button (some hours ago). I then found that User:Maxim had already started his deletion run. Regardless of whether he thought 00:01 on Sunday morning, or 23:59 on Sunday night (I meant the latter, giving myself the whole weekend to help out), he appears to have started early and I'm left unable to complete the visual scanning of the categories.

I've asked Maxim on his talk page what is going on, and commented at Wikipedia talk:Task of the Day as well. What should be done? I accepted in good faith his statement that he would hold off until midnight on Sunday. If he can delete at bot-like speeds with TWINKLE (see Maxim's deletion log), surely he can undelete at the same speeds? I could visually scan the categories, and then the images could be re-deleted. My volume of image work is not immense (mainly because I don't use scripts), but I would appreciate it if the work I am trying to do is not obstructed in this way. Even if we can't sort out what happened this time, can we sort out something better for the 15 January backlog? Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While I would personally hold off for more time, to be honest, the work on these categories has slowed down to almost nothing. There was an initial rush of images being fixed that tapered off, then one user - Blathnaid - was generous enough to fix all the images in many of my trackers. Since then, nothing's been happening. east.718 at 19:19, January 19, 2008

That will be because I'm selecting only 20 or so images from batches of 400. I've provided you with the evidence of the work I'm trying to do, and the 'agreement' that I'd have this weekend to do it in. Can you please not ignore that with "nothings' been happening". Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being dismissive of your work - rather I'm commenting that 20 images a day is but a drop in the proverbial ocean. What we do need are more editors like you and Blathnaid who care enough to work on unglamorous backlogs like this. east.718 at 19:29, January 19, 2008

Thank you. Would you mind commenting on the specific statement Maxim said that he would wait until a certain time - the idea being to give me the weekend to do some work on this - and then him seemingly completely reneging on this? I will, of course, apologise in full if he can come up with a good explanation. Looking specifically at what you said about nothing being done - have a look at this list from your trackers. I fixed three of the blue links scattered among the redlinks. I'm now going to fix the other ones (where needed), and try and calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Maxim should hold off. It's not like the backlog is running away. east.718 at 19:40, January 19, 2008

Do you think you could say that on his talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The depressing thing is cases like this. A perfectly good image. Lots of work done. Permissions obtained (though that wasn't strictly necessary). But the response was "rv - still has no use rationale". If someone hadn't removed that category, I'd be undeleting the image, instead of just adding the rationale. No, sorry, I forgot, Maxim would have taken that one off his deletion list in the six seconds he would have taken to check it. I appreciate the "you are doing good work here" stuff, but what I want to see is some admin action based on what I've reported here - or at least (until Maxim turns up) opinions on what should happen about the 1111 images already deleted? How can I review these images? My work depends on being able to visually scan the categories - a list of redlinks is next to useless. I was relying on being able to carry out my visual checks this weekend, and Maxim's deletions have pulled the rug from under my feet. What is wrong with undeleting at bot-like speed, allowing me the agreed time to do a visual spotcheck, and then redeleting? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record 1111 images - TWINKLE deletion run took 53 minutes. From the timeline above, about 1 hour and 50 minutes spent checking those images before doing the TWINKLE run. That is around 20 images a minute during the TWINKLE run and about 10 images a minute during the pre-TWINKLE checking phase. My rate is a bit slower... :-) Over about 4 hours I scanned around 490 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 2, and fixed around 15 images and noted another 6 for more detailed rescue work (ie. needing to write detailed rationales). 20 images fixed (or tried to fix), over 1000 deleted. Please can we arrange things so someone neutral organises the workflow rate, rather than spurts of thousands of images tagged whenever the bot-operators feel like it? Getting the balance between deletion and fixing rates shouldn't be that difficult, as long as both sides communicate and don't work sporadically and in large batches. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing problem and it's largely due to communication problems between the people who are willing to screen the category and the admin who deletes the images. I think that's fairly clear from this episode. Is it usually possible to sort through the categories before their time is due? I realize it's hard when Betacommand does a tagging spree, but his work is necessary due to the massive assload of copyrighted material here in violation of policy. I think the best solution is to propose a communication process for active categories screeners to use when a category is ready to be nuked. Maybe we can just place an "in-work" template at the top of the category when a screener is actively sorting through it and adding rationales? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An "in-work" tag sounds like a great idea! (Though sometimes image backlog clearers work from slightly out-of-date lists). But can we please not lose sight of the fact that Maxim was told that the category was "in-work" and still went ahead and deleted anyway? What can be done about the 1111 images that I was intending to screen this weekend? Normally, when someone makes a mistake like this, we just ask them to revert it. Is there a good reason why Maxim (or someone else) can't undelete them, allow me to screen them, and then (by a set time - preferably with some time added to make up for the 'confusion') redelete them? Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to comment on Maxim's action before we get a response from him. Unfortunately I can also say that I don't know of any way to undelete images as fast as they can be deleted with TWINKLE. The only thing I can offer is what I have done in the past. One time an admin deleted about 3000+ images from a category and many of them were in error. I and two other admins had to make a list on a subpage and just click through each one, look to see if the deletion was proper, and restore if necessary. Giant pain in the ass, took several days. Let's see if Maxim is willing to help resolve the situation. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait until Maxim turns up. Hopefully he will be amenable to helping to fix things. Someone mentioned that the backlog is not going anywhere. Similarly, the deletion logs aren't going anywhere. Going through and previewing and then undeleting and fixing images may be a pain, but if that's what is needed, that is what's needed. In general though, it is a bad idea to carry out actions faster than they can be undone. Using automated tools is fine, but they should work both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rettetast is also deleting images, faster than my bot can track and sort them. :O east.718 at 20:57, January 19, 2008

Well, I've changed the notice at the top of Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 to try and stop that happening again. I'll drop a note off to Rettetast. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making it more prominent. Could you put that same warning on the large 15 January backlog, and put some suitable date, such as 23:59 Sunday 3rd February? Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

At the beginning of the day, there were 4032 images left in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008, from about 11,000 when the category was initially populated. There are now about 2400. I had been under the impression that I had the weekend to do a visual check of these images (Maxim definitely agreed to this). I was in the middle of doing this work when Maxim and Rettetast (and maybe others) starting clearing out the backlog. Hopefully the prominent notice will prevent this sort of breakdown in communications. Any ideas on what to do about the images that I could have checked? I know there are others I can check instead, but it doesn't feel like a collaborative working environment when this sort of thing happens. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And others are also asking for more time. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny

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

Despite several warnings, and a very clear final warning that I gave, this user continues to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia (see this reversion). Obviously the user does not care about warnings, and needs a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not editing now, and haven't since your last warning, so I don't see how a block may be preventative at the moment. If they start over report it again then, either here or at AIV. It appears that they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, but aren't too bothered in abiding by the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I gave a warning on the 18th and they created a new page, with copy and pasted items on the 19th. Of course blocks are preventitive, and this user has been warned over and over again to stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So you did. My bad, I looked at times and not dates. Hang on a sec. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) We should have no tolerance for repeated copyright violations, and that editor has had ample warnings. Blocked for 55 hours with an explanatory notice that, hopefully, will wake them up. — Coren ^(talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bless those admins that use a calender... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't think I was completely crazy ;). Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

insulting comments about article subject.

Endlessdan (talk · contribs) [ started] a thread enquiring about the age of Missy Hyatt, however for reasons known only to himself, he refers to her as "skeletor" in the title and makes reference to her being a 'shrew'. I alter the title to her correct name which he then reverts] and tells me not be to a such a nerd. I alter it back and leave him a message to remove the disparaging comment about this living person, so his response is to change it back and leave this message on my talkpage - check out the linkage between "shrew" and the article between Missy Hyatt

Is this a major thing? no, but wikipedia should not be a place when people feel they can take potshots at living figures unchallenged - we don't allow it in the article, so why would we allow it on the talk pages? I'd rather not get into an edit war to uphold what should be the most basis standards that we expect from editors in regards to supporting our BLP policies. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a polite request that they remain civil, and only include referenced content in BLP articles, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I make a comment on a talk page and this spaz cries about it? I understand that making disparaging comments is not permitted on article pages, but the comments I made were on a talk page. So I stand by my comments... don't be such a nerd.--EndlessDan 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a WP:DICK. BLP covers article talkpages too -I am dropping the link at your talkpage. Any admin want to deal with the spaz/nerd comments? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning on user's talk page. Lara❤Love 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt

MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a user who is unhappy with the work being done on his namesake article who has gone on a rampage over the past day or so blasting me on other user's talk pages. He has berated me on my own talk page for removing text from his article, for which I warned him against, to which he responded by accusing me of violating 3RR. I have previously requested help in dealing with this user, but the thread was archived without action. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call that a rampage, but I did leave a message on the users talk page inviting him to look over the adoption program and to avoid posting such messages on others talk pages. We'll see where it goes from here. Lara❤Love 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is only the latest in a series of ongoing personal attacks that date back from the creation of the account. He's left screeds on Alison's talk page, IFD and on the talk page of another user calling me a liar and a fool. I'm fine with just warning him for now, but I may file a request in the future if it continues. Thank you for your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a "screed"? A lengthy response from someone not versed in the ways of Wiki? From someone trying his best to be understood? From someone under repeated attack at a professional and very personal level? (specific event removed by Oversite at my request) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've adopted the user. How about you two just not talk to each other anymore, k? Lara❤Love 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JackQPR

• QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be User:JackQPR trying (for the third time) to evade a block by opening a new account and using an IP address to edit whilst blocked.

• JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked temporily for edit warring. They tried to get round that block by opening a new account here -
• QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was then blocked indefinitly for being a sockpuppet of JackQPR. And JackQPRs block was then extended to one month.

QPRsteve has today made exactly the same edit on the same article, List of hooligan firms as JackQPR and QPRben and is clearly the same person trying to evade a block.

In addition the same user seems to have have again used an IP address to try and evade the block, something which they also did before and for which the IP user was temporarily blocked here -

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look into this please, both the IP user and QPRsteve? thank you♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the majority of edits to the article are by registered accounts, would semi-protecting the article deter new accounts and ip's continuing the above vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help yes, in addition of course to dealing with the above user evading their block. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked JackQPR to 3 months for block evasion/socking. I will sprotect the article now, and then indef block the above socks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I am unfamiliar with this process, and have been dragged into one, so I would apologise if I am a little incoherent!

The RFC was set up statements made, certified and responded to, as I would have expeced. The initiator has now altered their statement diff, following this alteration I now believe that it appears that the certification and the responses were to the new remit/statements, and not to the original statement as they were intended.

Is an alteration of this type normal practice? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes (although it gets a bit sticky if you have already responded to the original comments). However, this is not a ANI matter - it is something to be bought up on the RfC talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put a note on the talk page Fasach Nua (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul Tillich

• Paul Tillich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saul Tillich (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a glance? Problems with newish editor who doesn't seem to grasp Wikipedia formats and etiquette. Given username, maybe COI too. 86.141.82.38 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been around since April 2007. Is there any particular diff you feel warrants attention, since admins don't always have time to review histories? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a content dispute, and is fairly well natured despite being almost entirely in edit summaries. No need for admin input. ps. People who share the same surname with notable people are often interested in the subject without falling foul of COI. AGF requires us to believe the same for the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User: M[5-14]@wikipedia.org = spammer

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe this to be a violation of your terms of use. If I knew how to forward the letter using this page, I'd do so. Instead, here is a copy of the header and text -- please contact me with an email address to send to and I will be happy to forward the email to prove authenticity, should you desire.

Thank you for your attention to this matter! (Spammers suck!) ___________________________________

[header -- ed.]

This message is in the Spam Folder because it was identified as spam by AOL's Advanced Spam Filters. Subject: canadian online pharmacies Date: 1/17/2008 6:39:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From: M[5-14]@wikipedia.org Reply To: To: CC: BCC: Sent on:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

______________

[text -- ed.]

Save your money, buy pills immediately!

Purchase the most drive popular ED Pills from the privacy and comfort of your home

Enjoy our prices and save with us.

http://www.abirvalgetus.com/

______________________________ --209.247.5.99 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no user by the name of User:M[5-14]. Its likely that its just some junk mailer which uses the wikipedia suffix to get people to open the emails, i can assure you it was not sent by anyone representative of wikipedia or the wikipedia foundation. Its just junk, delete it and forget it.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)