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

Violation of WP:POINT.

Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previously blocked by User:Johntex, for "Violation of WP:POINT". Certainly the recent nomination of a Featured Article for deletion qualifies as such a disruption. The result was Speedy Keep, clearly there must be some sort of process to take with regards to this user's inappropriate actions?? Thank you for your time. Smee 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Steve Dufour has been a member since May 2006, and has over 4,500 edits. This was clearly not a good faith AFD nomination, but an out and out disruption of the project to make a point. Smee 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, the notability of the article (specifically the primary criterion) was pointed out to him before he added the AFD. AndroidCat 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article I nominated for deletion was Xenu. Xenu is a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard but not featured in any of his stories published for the general public. He is a mythological figure for Scientologists, a very small group of people numbering perhaps 100,000 world-wide. Not all Scientologists, even, believe in his existence since he is only revealed after they reach a higher level of training. As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all. Xenu, unlike other supernatural figures, seems to have had no influence on human culture. To me this does not add up to WP type notability. Having said that, the article itself is well written and well sourced and represents a lot of hard work by the editors. However, the information about him is already featured in other WP articles including Space opera (Scientology). I think that the article specifically about Xenu as an individual should be deleted, while the ones on Scientology beliefs which mention him should be kept. Another article on Xenu as a pop culture fad (South Park and stuff like that) might also be a possibility. I brought up all these points in the discussions before and during the deletion process. Steve Dufour 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of notability is remarkably different from that of Wikipedia. The threshold of notability on Wikipedia is whether it can be sourced via reliable sources as prescribed by WP:RS, not whether the general public knows of this character's existence. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A character in an unpublished story is not notable. But maybe you are right and I don't understand WP at all. Steve Dufour 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that, particularly considering the number of edits you have. I suggest you lay off the trolling; it's not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did expect the discussion to be left open for more than four hours. Steve Dufour 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, it was closed due to the numerous "Speedy keep" votes, a sure sign that editors believed it, as a featured article, and also as an important one that meets the first and other criteria of WP:N, those being that if it can be sourced by reliable sources, it is of value to Wikipedia. The role of editors on Wikipedia is to contribute to a comprehensive resource of human knowledge. Actions taken in potential bad faith, such as nominating a well-sourced (You yourself have admitted on many occasions I could link to that it is well sourced AND well written) article for deletion unilaterally, rather than discussing potential issues with other editors, hamper the whole process.

To quote from the previous link:

I think that the article is well sourced and mostly well written, and represents a lot of hard work. It just does not establish the notability of the subject. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two contentions contradict one another. If it is a lot of hard work, well sourced (Implying an abundance of sources, which are also reliable), and mostly well written (something you could improve by contributing writing instead of AFDs intended to make a point...), then how can notability not be established, being aware of the bolded portion of WP:N listed below?

Xenu IS notable. Your definition of notability seems to differentiate from WP:N. I am willing to cede that some things just are not notable, but contend that Xenu definitely is. I am not going to claim I have a closed mind, though. If you can show me how the Xenu article, as it is, does NOT stand up to the first condition of Notability as stated in WP:N, you will have brought me around to your way of thinking.

The criteria I am thinking of is as follows: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject"

Your view of notability is not the one shared by Wikipedia as a whole, and this editor and others who have expressed their opinion here, in particular. I support consideration of your actions as a violation of WP:POINT, and as a watcher on the sidelines, would like to add that someone with so many edits really ought to know the notability and reliable source criteria, and understand that the vision of Wikipedia as a repository of extensive human knowledge would be harmed by the removal of any substantive subject matter, not helped. There is a difference between meaningless bombast and well-written information on a subject of interest, with myriad web sites referring to it. Xenu is notable, I humbly request you take the outcry over even -considering- deleting it, to be in the vein of deleting any other article about a notable subject:

That vein being abject disbelief that anyone could consider removing something people are bound to desire extensive knowledge about, and which is well-sourced. I posit also: If the article WERE to be deleted, where would we put all of the well-written, well sourced (and therefore also notable and reliable by Wikipedia's standards) information? Delete it and remove it from this repository of knowledge? That seems counter-intuitive to the whole project goal here.

Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The information on the non-notable person Xenu could be put in the article on the notable subject of which he is a part: Space opera (Scientology). ("Xenu" could be redirected there.) Xenu as a pop culture fad, which is how he is known to the world, could have its own article. If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And again, after having it explained to him several times, by several different people, that Xenu does not in any way match Wikipedia's description of "non-notable", Steve does not even acknowledge that anyone has even questioned his assertion of non-notability but instead states it as if it were fact (gratuitously, I might add.) Is such behavior CIVIL or evidence of trolling? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can kick me off of Wikipedia if you like, but that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable. Steve Dufour 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, let's calm down here people. Was this a bad faith nom? Yes, absolutely. Was this a WP:POINT violation? I'm nto exactly sure what point he was trying to make in this case. I've seen him around, and he's generally a good user from what I've seen. Warn him, let it go, and don't provoke him into violating anything. Oh, and Steve, there's plenty of imaginary things on Wikipedia, leave it be. Of course there's not going to be a sentence that says "this is notable because..."--Wizardman 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman. If they want to have an article on Xenu I will not object any more. Steve Dufour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• ChrisO stated above:

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second this recommendation, it would be a fair approach, in light of this user's recent disruptive actions. Smee 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
  • More disruption, violation of WP:POINT: DIFF 1, DIFF 2, AndroidCat thankfully removes, with edit summary: "rv Steve, please stop mucking about with WP:POINT". It may take a bit more than discussion here, for the disruption to cease... Smee 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

My 2cents: Steve is a border case - he has always been very polite and nice and has avoided edit wars. However, many of his edits result in a waste of time for the other editors involved. My argument is somewhat weak, since he isn't disruptive enough for me to keep evidence records. I suggest a symbolic, short block for his AFD of a featured article, whose name has over a million hits on google. I wish Steve would concentrate on topics he knows about, instead of trying to "please" groups or people whom he thinks would appreciate it. --Tilman 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• More disruption, after being warned about WP:POINT by User:AndroidCat - DIFF 1. More disruption DIFF 2. This one is also Asking the other parent, after not getting a satisfactory result from multiple editors at Talk page for Scientology article. Thanks for your time. Smee 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to point out that "polite" and "nice" are not at all the same thing as behaving with actual civility. An important part of WP:CIVIL is "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", yet this is exactly what Steve has done repeatedly. It is pointed out to him that notability of a concept is not measured solely in terms of those who believe in that concept, and a counter-example is provided,[1] yet his response simply asserts once again that if "almost no one believes" it then it is "rather unnotable".[2] He even continues to advance arguments dependent on this already debunked 'only consensus reality is notable' principle on this page: "As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all."[3] "If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article."[4] "... that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable."[5] Trying to shove through a deletion based on premises that other editors have already pointed out is false is not polite, even if the language used is polite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar makes some excellent points above. Here is more evidence of what some would term a veiled personal attack at users who work hard finding sourced citations for this project - DIFF. Smee 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve Dufour I do not mean to pile on here, but this gives me second thoughts about whether I should WP:AGF toward you. I had assumed that the WP:COI issues were based on your friendship with Barbara Schwarz and nothing more, but when I see you nominated Xenu for deletion it put our dealings on Barbara Schwarz in question. I haven't followed the Xenu story closely, but I notice that Scientologists tend to downplay it's importance rather than deny it outright.

What you've done could be interpreted as either an indirect attack on Scientology, or as a favor to them because the CoS wants to keep Xenu and their higher levels secret. Saying that someone's spiritual beliefs simply don't exist could be accurate, but seems like a double standard if what you believe in is just as unprovable. Ask yourself, if someone made the same argument about the ideas of Sun Myung Moon being fictional and nominating they be deleted you'd probably feel somewhat slighted.

The other option is that you are helping to keep secret information which should not be. People ought to know what they are getting into upfront in any religion, wouldn't you agree?

• To anyone else reading this, Steve Dufour has been informed that some of his past WP:AfD requests and actions are against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Here is a link to a WP:COIN archive of his actions on Barbara Schwarz. He has nominated the article for deletion twice, the logs can be found at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Anynobody 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to point out that the story of Xenu is not "unpublished". It has been published. The mere fact that the COS hasn't itself published it, is not relevant. Other people like Operation Clambake have. Whether or not that in itself is a violation of copyright is not relevant to the question of whether it's been published. Wjhonson 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the side of Barbara against the people who were attacking her. I take the side of Scientologists when they are treated unfairly here. And I take the side of Freezoners when they are attacked by the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

• SummerThunder (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

• He's being very persistent tonight. His latest sock is Tubesmerit (talk · contribs) and is trying to insult me by saying I have OCD. (I might very well have it. He'd be better off insulting my mom.) Is there anything else that can be done to prevent this guy from his juvenile pranks? JuJube 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • He's back as Gainswimgs (talk · contribs) (seriously, what?) and removed this notice from the page. JuJube 08:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything to do with OCD, JuJube or me is probably SummerThunder. – Riana ^talk 08:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make a request at checkuser. Other options might include protecting userspaces, depending on the scale of the attack and/or your preference. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• He's back as Shortvisit (talk · contribs). JuJube 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

       But the cat came back, the very next day;
       The cat came back -- they thought he was a goner, but
       The cat came back -- he just couldn't stay away....
  Honestly, I think I'm seeing the history of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups being recreated here. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked his usual IP ranges for 31 hours. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of libel

Several months ago we rolled back an extensive spamming scheme involving numerous domains owned by Business English Solutions International, LLC. These had been spammed by:

• Teachabroad (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 71.201.181.10 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Besi2008 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

The user then went on a rampage, first deleting the warnings then stating the employee adding the links had been fired, then accusing Wikipedia of libel and demanding the records be deleted.[6][7]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175#User talk:71.201.181.10
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190#Block IP for one week becuase of legal threat

They must have later rehired that rogue employee because earlier this week, that same IP added back a spam link.[8] At this point, all the domains were blacklisted.[9]

Today, 76.16.54.49‎ (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) deleted the warnings from User talk:Teachabroad with the edit summary "ATTORNEY HAUSLAIB REMOVED, RE: LIBEL".[10][11]

I reverted the deletion for now and warned 76.16.54.49.

Because all of the statements that were offensive to 71.201.181.10 et al were statements of fact verifiable by edit histories, I don't think the claim has much merit, however I don't pay the legal bills around here.

Since this involves a claim of libel, I thought it best to make note of it here where high-paid admins would know exactly how to handle this matter. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wikipedia:No legal threats comes to mind. Also... what 'high-paid admins'? :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Courtesy blanking, leaving the history, with a "this page has been left blank". That should satisfy all but the most weaselly lawyer and still send the message we want to send, namely: fuck off you spamming bastards. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done -- thanks for the advice. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some blocks for review

• Kzq9599 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• WPBio (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
  

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599:

• Jpgordon blocked Kzq9599 as a BryanFromPalatine sock
• I blocked WPBio for following in the footsteps, edit warring at WP:BLP, tendentious editing, and because it is inconceivable that this editing pattern and this choice of articles would come from a genuinely new user
• I blocked NeilinOz1 because he is editing using proxies, editing disruptively and again following in the footsteps.

Please review. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse. The checkuser case makes a compelling argument and the three users' focus and prose style are near-identical. Even if they aren't meatpuppets, it's clear that they're here to push a POV with wikilawyering. Good blocks, Guy. A Train^{take the} 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse all of the above blocks. WP:DUCK. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that WPBio was not a sockpuppet. Why was the checkuser case used as evidence to block him? Why are his user and talk pages protected so that he can't even appeal the block? He already stated on his talk page that he isn't a new user. He's edited in the past. Also, he has not edit warred at WP:BLP. Frise 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because his editing pattern is identicval to that of a banned user with a history of ban evasion. Editing from a separae IP is not that hard. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, Guy, BryanFromPalatine isn't on WP:BANNED, he's just indef-blocked. If you could point me toward a reference to verify his banning, I'll add him to the page. Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people aren't listed on WP:BU because the edit sometimes falls through the cracks. In this case see here. Thatcher131 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter SEGA

A few months ago, a sockpuppeter was found to be SEGA (talk · contribs) through a RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA) and two more cases since then have led to 40+ sockpuppet bans (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SEGA). I had recently made a third case, but it was declined because there was not ArbComm banning. Since then, there seems to be rampant escalation of sockpuppets again at User talk:Moeron, Marc Daubert, Parlor Tricks, and Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg including, but not limited to, FroBro22 (talk · contribs), Roe.mon (talk · contribs), LipidInterpid (talk · contribs), 68.112.20.9 (talk · contribs) (which is very close to the SEGA IP blocked, 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs)), WomanManWomanMan (talk · contribs). Besides the very similar editing manner, almost all use harsh edit summarys. The recent issues stem from Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg, which I tagged for speedy deletion with the summary "Repost of previously speedy deleted Image:DaubertAlbum.jpg; not an actual cover, but a cropped and doctored version of also deleted Image:Daubs.jpg." This is not the first time this image has been uploaded and deleted though, since it was also called Image:marcdaubert_part2.gif. I also had WP:PRODed Parlor Tricks, which I may send to WP:AFD now, since there is NO information anywhere about this album besides mirrors of Wikipedia information and http://www.marcdaubert.com is pretty bare. What I would like to know is, what should I do or where should I bring this up besides RFC, since it looks like it would be declined again? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could head to WP:CN and see if there's support for making a community ban explicit. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Luna's suggestion. I will also note now my endorsement of a community ban, because this person has far exceeded my patience limits, and I am pretty sure a lot of the community's as well. Daniel Bryant 10:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look into that. As for recently, look at the contributions of MoRonHater (talk · contribs) and EditPolice (talk · contribs), both who have targeted articles I have created with WP:PRODs, perhaps stemming from my PROD of Parlor Tricks. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with rollback or other quick way of reverting can undo the prods by MoRonHater (talk · contribs). Given the prod "reason" and this information, they are pretty clearly bad faith prods. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank, I appreciate it. As per suggestions here and for anyone interested, I start a page at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Community ban on User:SEGA. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at Philosophy of mind

InternetHero aka 63.135.9.214

versus

Lacatosias, Peterdjones, Edhubbard, brian0918

InternetHero repeatedly adds OR unsourced weird content, and blanking other people's complaints on their own talk pages. He's reverted over half a dozen times, and about to break 3RR. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-27 23:02Z

Incidentally, this report should have gone to WP:AN3RR. No technical 3RR violation visible in history, even making the obvious assumption that the IP editor is the named user. However, the behaviour is clearly disruptive, so I've left clear warnings on the user's talk page and the article's talk page. Further reversion without citing a source should lead to a block. GRBerry 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(adding an archive bottom tag because it was making the whole page show up purple ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) )

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

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

This is a good faith user, who was blocked indefinitely for violating 3rr once. I've gone through his contribs, and I can see that he was indeed acting in good faith. So what does he get? An indefinite block on his accounts, and a three month block on his static IP which he has already specified is shared. Granted that his 'for Brian Peppers' edit summaries did not help, but he was just trying to carry out a Jimbonian decision. I'm posting this on his behalf after extensive discussion on IRC. I believe he should be unblocked after a week's cooldown on his main account, his socks should stay blocked,and the IP should be unblocked. He's certainly not a 'YTMND troll' as referred to by David Gerard in the IP's block summary. (That violated WP:NPA even.) Discuss below. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course...he has used a load of sockpuppets which doesn't help his case. IrishGuy ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is because Klinkerhoffen feels the first block was unwarranted, which I agree. He simply violated 3rr once, which on such a new account should be treated as just giving a warning. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While the indef block may have been a bit severe, he was an edit warrior. It also doesn't give him the right to create 14 new accounts and continue the same behavior. I am not the blocking admin on this one so you should probably ask Ryulong his reasoning for the block. IrishGuy ^talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also spoken to the blocked user on IRC; my suggestion to just to wait until his 3 Month block expires and monitor from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too, right now infact. So far I've found him... unconvincing. There are several holes in what he's saying and he's dodging around positive suggestions about what to do about his problem. --Deskana (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave him some other suggestions, but he still claims that the "sockpuppet" accounts were used to get around a block that he considered unfair. Some of the things Ryulong said below (and to me in private) were confirmed by Klinkerhoffen himself, so I feel Ryulong's block was a good one in the context of the situation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said this several times and on each and every one of his talk pages. He was censoring specific articles because of the sexually explicit images used on articles that describe aspects of human sexuality. I was not going to block him at first, but then I saw the two "For Brian Peppers" edit summaries. And this was on the day that we received a shitton of vandalism related to that damn YTMND meme. Since then, he has returned under a dozen sockpuppets, and when he confronted me via IRC, and I asked him why he had done the two edit summaries, he told me (paraphrasing) "that he could not help himself, as Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." Gen von. Klinkerhoffen under any name is not here to contribute to the project constructively, as is evident from his wikilawyering and other forms of rules lawyering to try and get himself unblocked. It was originally just his edit warring, but now it's because he has not let go of this fact. Klinkerhoffen is not necessary for the improvement of this encyclopedia, and he has most certainly become a troll.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble advocating for this individual, and come here because this was pointed out to me. I discussed the issue at hand with Ryulong and Klinkerhoffen in #wikipedia, and felt there may have been a case in his defense. The problem I have after the discussion is that Klinkerhoffen represented the following statements: that he intended to continue removing what he deemed pornography from the website, and that because there was no concensus for the images in question, they should not be placed (contrary, they were placed and given no concensus for removal or replacement). To his defense, "wikilawyering" is about all any blocked user really has to help themselves, and he does seem to have put forth a sincere effort at trying to get back on the right way, post sock-puppeting of course.

In the end, though I'm leery, I don't doubt that he will be watched upon reinstatement, and it is the newest users that tend to make the hardest mistakes. The motivation to sign up and contribute is one that I believe gives users a personal feeling to what they do, and hence the number of 3RR issues, odd entries, etc. we see from new users (and the number of contested speedy deletes, etc.). In my time of wikivigilantiasm, i've seen a lot more concerning users last through more. He's been blocked for some time, knows that when we block, we back it up, and, hey WP:AGF until he proves otherwise. Be nice to the newbies. PS, Steak and a Blowjob day only comes once in a year :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on a conversation that I missed through IRC, it appears that Klinkerhoffen is not here to contribute to the project, but remove what he deems pornographic in nature. He claims he wishes to voice his opinions on what problems Wikipedia has, but it is clear that he is only here to voice what problems he has with the project, which includes photographs (or images) of sexually explicit acts which he feels are pornography, despite the context. I stand firmly in my belief that this user will continue to act as such once the 3 month block on his IP is lifted and he is allowed to edit, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not find out sooner and let him demonstrate intent by action? Though I don't like his statement, the context makes it seem like something that was kneejerk. Just hand him a polite notice saying "you may wish to avoid this topic entirely for a while." If it weren't for the Brian Peppers comment, I presume the block would have been much shorter to begin with, and we'd actually know by means of escalating blocks instead of spending all this time debating the issue. To some extent, now we're just wikilawyering. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were not for the Brian Peppers comments, I would not have performed any block. I would have simply directed him to WP:NOT#CENSOR. But his use of those were a glaring "I'm not here to be productive" sign.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From my admittedly limited interactions with this person, it seems they are intent on imposing their views regarding "pornographic" content in articles and are unwilling to abide by consensus when it does not suit their views. While you could make a case that the original block was overly harsh, I have seen nothing to indicate they will refrain from disruptive behavior. —dgies^t_c 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this person is likely the most prolific sockpuppeteer since PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not believe Wikipedia would be better off with him - it seems that he is treating Wikipedia as a "political platform" of some sorts, and IMO no amount of policy citation will make him change his ways. I recomment applying WP:RBI to him should he resurface. TML 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Frederic Osborn School

Sir Frederic Osborn School The users sparrowpaul (a repeat offender) and n8talie are deleting and abusing the topic above. I strongly advise that this topic is protected from edit as it seems to be constantly abused. Richardson1975 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They seem to have deleted some rather controversial uncited allegations. If you want to restore them, please find some reliable sources for those allegations, and add them to article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD

Resolved

 – Honk (well, the buses are gone) – Riana ^talk 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has quite suddenly jumped to nearly 800 candidates(!!!) Please help if possible. I'll be there in a little bit... Grandmasterka 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. Going there now. Natalie 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddle up, lock and load. -- Merope 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to put a damper on people heading over to C:CSD, but most of those appear to be hundreds of pictures from one website (all of buses; apparently someone decided to take hundreds of pictures of buses, then take the time to upload them all to wikipedia. wtf?) Hopefully those can be dealt with quickly. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that where all those bus pictures came from? I'll second that wtf then. Natalie 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just Murphy's Law in action? Just waiting at the curb, and then suddenly a whole bunch of buses show up at once... --Calton | Talk 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the delete reason for the bus images is: WP:CSD#G12 - blatant copyright infringement ? WjBscribe 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion would appear to be at the uploading user's talk page: here. Kuru ^talk 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears any permission was insufficient (prob Wiki-only). We should go ahead and delete.... WjBscribe 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So yes, delete as G12? Natalie 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and remove the pictures from each of the bus route articles... The first number in the image title is the bus route. I've already deleted routes 1-15 I think. WjBscribe 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the resolution of the discussion was the addition of the db-tag to the template used by all of the images by the actual uploader. So it would certainly appear to be the go sign. Kuru ^talk 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Jkelly confirmed it on my talkpage. I guess they are also CSD G7s... WjBscribe 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, well 200 bus images later and I'm up to route 53... If anyone cares to join the party- the theme is red London buses, the dress code is casual and the venue is CAT:CSD. Bring your own flamethrower. WjBscribe 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Locked, cocked, ready to rock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit, that's a lot of buses. Thank you, Captain Obvious! – Riana ^talk 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The buses are gone.... Thanks to everyone who helped out! WjBscribe 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That was fun. I got 85 busses... no idea where the hell I'm gonna park them all, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to everyone for the big cleanup job! Jkelly 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:British Commonwealth Numismatics

Resolved

I believe that this is User:Aidan Work who is banned. My reasons are that he just created Postal Orders of the British Field Post Office in Kosovo. Aidan Work had created a series of Postal Order articles, most of which are now in Category:Postal Orders. I recently requested deletion for several of them which had no real information in them. The ones that remain needed a lot of work and are still generally not great articles. He also had a pattern of using "British Commonwealth" instead of "Commonwealth of Nations". Ingrid 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Highly unlikely to be anyone else. WP:RBI applies, blocked, now reverting. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again I find an indef-block but no WP:BANNED entry for Aidan Work. When and where was the ban declared? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AN/I troll?

I vaguely remember the existence of what was known as the AN/I troll. I do not know the exact details, but, IIRC, they were new accounts that sprung up on AN and AN/I. Not assuming any bad faith, but this fella popped up today and his only edits have been to or about AN/I. Are the patterns similar or am I wayyyy off? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The same, IMO. He's been around a bunch today. Here's some others:

• SantAnnaOOPS (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• CharlieLump (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kelly'll (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Hear ye! Hear ye! (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

And I'm sure there will be more. Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked him then. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Add Hoolp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that list--VectorPotential^Talk 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007, again (!)

Parker007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user has exhausted the community's patience, and most certainly my own. I'd like to know if there is a good reason not to block him again, possibly indefinitely. I happened to notice that he moved his talk page to User:Parker007/article then blanked it and tagged it as {{db-userreq}}, and successfully duped the CSD folks into deleting it. I've restored his talk page history and moved it back to the correct location, as it will likely be referenced in future discussions. —freak(talk) 06:27, Mar. 28, 2007 (UTC)

The guy doesn't seem to stop his bot editing, despite many warnings. Maybe a block in accordance with the Bot policy? --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to have stopped using a bot...for now. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the problem that the bot is bad, or just that it's unauthorised? Unless it's uncorrectably bad, I suggest we should be encouraging him to improve it and seek authorisation. Carrot and stick, as it were.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Parker007_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_trolling.3F_WP:POINT.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Endgame1 Regards, Ben Aveling 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

Banned User:Scottfisher appears to have another sock puppet User:71.80.39.237; possibly a second: User:216.193.137.98 (based on contributions). Andy Mabbett 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nudge Andy Mabbett 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Asahi Shimbun

The article Asahi Shimbun, which was canvassed on comment in a popular Japanese blog [12], has since that comment, which suggested that to let people know of the "Asahi problem" (which in turn supposedly would help the situation on the Comfort women article, which was canvassed in the actual blog post), this article too should be edited. I have not removed the poorly written English, because I know Asahi Shimbun actually have been involved in some controversies, but when I tag the article as "disputed neutrality" and the controversies section as "not properly referenced" and "totally disputed", my edits get reverted by the same user every time, User:DDRG. He is a single purpose account who has only edited any article beside Asahi Shimbun (or its talkapge) once - and that was to participate in a revert war (Japan-Korea relations). I would like to see this user warned, his behaviour is not acceptable. Mackan 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are doing personal attack with false reason. Those were written at least in last year in Japanese wikipedia. Stop parsonal attacking. You are faffing my translation tasks. It's a holding action for Wikipedia community. Please warn Mackan for his parsonal attacking. DDRG 11:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, so can't check the sources myself, but the section of the article does seem to be disputed. I'll restore the tag at least until there is some genuine effort to reach consensus or compromise. By the way, please focus on the content of the article, not whether the other party is "behaving childishly" or performing "criminal act"s. The language issue is probably adding to the confusion here, so if you think the other person is writing something that attacks you personally, please assume that it's a language problem, and don't respond in kind. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Although I think Mackan is a rather combative and rude as they said here[[13]]. I have completed all citations though they were in Japanese. But there isn't any published translation of the newspaper. So I do best efforts. And if you can use translator, please read here [[14]]. What I did is only making a translation of some paragraphes of Japanse wiki. Those facts are very famous in Japan, and I think Mackan also knows them because he opposed only about citations manner. But those manner is same as The New York Times. What I can do next? And he did again the revert in antagonism to Administrators' arbitration. I think he has reached the end of our tether. DDRG 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Iwazaki

User Iwazaki has launched what is essentially a tyrade against me, accusing me, out of many things, of being racist, and deeply mis-representing me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_Sri_Lanka#Bias_editing_by_a_user_who_hates_anything_Sinhalese

The title of his post is quiet enough, but checking through his edit summaries, they all have a similar theme, and this is not the first time I have been met with such advent hostility from said User, however, this new posting tips it. --Sharz 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S, If one of the more wikipedians who reads this could please advice me whether his message is liable to be deleted for breach of WP:NPA, I would apreciate that.

More from Mad kemist/Curious Gregor/Tim.Boyle

Mad kemist, a banned sockpuppet of Curious Gregor has replaced his talk page with a copy of my userpage, complete with commented-out blocks of biographical material [15]. This is not as flattering as Tim.Boyle & Curious Gregor's copying the commented-out material (e.g. the "ceci n'est pas un userbox" joke) from my page onto theirs (Tim.Boyle 16:07, 25 March 2007, Curious Gregor 18:16, 27 March 2007, Mad kemist is clearly just harassment. Note: I do not claim that the User:Curious Gregor/User:Tim.Boyle code copying is in anyway inappropriate. Tim.Boyle has explained that his userpage was created with code contributed by Mad kemist, a student that had been impersonating him on Wikipedia 12:25, 26 March 2007. I'd be more than angry if a grad student was banned from Wikipedia while impersonating me, Tim.Boyle makes friendly userbox change edits to Mad kemist's userpage 10:21, 26 March 2007. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete I found I liked your layout and realising you knew how to write wikicode I used your page as a basis of mine. I had not realised there were editted out bits, but as they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS does anyone else find this Curious Gregor userbox to be unnecessarily inflammatory? [16]:

This user despises people who use American spellings.

Pete.Hurd 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact, I am from England and the corruption of our language by America is a massive bugbear of mine that induces great fury. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes should not be used to promote hate, or dispising. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Off main subject But can they be used for humour without everyone getting upset?

NO!	This user is proud NOT to be an American...They'll kill us all!

as seen on my user pagePedro |  Talk  15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

YES!	This user is proud to be an American...We'll kill you all! Muuuuaaaaaahahahaha!

WAS 4.250 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last one could be funny, depending on who uses it, but all three are divisive and inflammatory. An MfD would probably be best. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You see, I find the recreation of that box by WAS 4.250 to be very funny. I think we spend too long looking at what may offend certain groups and not enough time building an encyclopedia. If you find any of the above divisive and inflammatory I might sugest Wikipedia isn't the place for you (not a personal comment to Deskana - a general one). There's far more mud and rocks slung around this place in edit wars that really is inflamatory. I seem to remember a lovely war between User:Jeffpw and User:Zoe (now retired) when she (as an admin!) removed content from his user page. Anyhow, I guess one persons humour is another ones insult and this is off subject. Just shoving in my 2 cents (or pence!!!)

2843 fair use images on 4247 userpages

I have scanned every fair use images and found all of them that are being displayed on a user page. There are 2843 fair use images on 4247 user pages. The full list of such images and the userpages they are on can be found here: User:HighInBC/FU_in_userspace. It is complete as of today. Images in Category:Fair use images used with permission have been filtered out already. So if you are bored, that is something to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get cracking on those. Is there any way that we could get a public service message in the Signpost reminding editors that fair use images are a no go for userspace? Failing that, HIB, do you want to post a reminder at the Village Pump about this? A Train^talk 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats the beef with this? Can we just go removing the pictures from userpages, or do we ask the user first? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can remove the images immediately - after all, it's copyright law we are dealing with. Of course, I think we should tell the user when we remove the images why we did so. x42bn6 Talk 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals last year. But prepared to be flamed regardless. --Iamunknown 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a template, Template:FUUser to leave on talk pages of users who have images removed. Any input and improvements are welcomed. A Train^talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think userspace should be in there somewhere, because the images might be on subpages which technically aren't their user page. But I think this could be confusing because not all newcomers know about namespaces. x42bn6 Talk 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thought. A Train^talk 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also: If you're going through HiBC's list, don't forget to remove images and users from the list once you've purged the images. A Train^talk 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot 3. Picaroon 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a list of all fair use images in all namespaces except the main (minus the exceptions)? --Iamunknown 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The query.php interface lets you specify a single namespace or all of them. I can alter my script later to list all namespaces other than the main space, but there will be many more false positives. I thought I would start with the user space as that is where most of them seem to be. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User HighInBC put this not on his report page "Important note: some templates such as {{Money}} put an image in the fair use category even if it may be appropriately licensed or in the public domain. I will be attempting to screen out these categories as best I can but please check to be sure an image is only fair use before removing them from a page." And yet when I logged in someone removed a PD image tagged with the money template from my userspace (I uploaded, which is why it is in my gallery.) If people are going to take this task on as busy-work, don't do it as a bot, ok? SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shock site

Could some independent parties please take a look at the recent activity here? (And while we're at it, could more people please add this to their watchlist?) See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mangojuice. Short summary: after thorough research, many "shock sites" have been removed from the list as having absolutely no reliable sources. People constantly re-add sites without the sources, and they are then removed with a request for sources usually by me. Recently a user named User:Aftli, apparently a shock site owner, showed up claiming that all those people who made a single edit supporting the inclusion of information without sources represents overwhelming community support to ignore Wikipedia policies. Aftli also, I suspect, edits from User:167.206.107.110. Lots of personal attacks, threats of edit warring, disregarding of policy, WP:COI, et cetera. I've tried hard to avoid using my admin tools in this conflict, but that means I need someone else to be willing to do so. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semi protected this for now, and will upgrade it to full protection if I see more unsourced edits being introduced under "WP:IAR", but if I have to fully protect this I expect Mangojuice (talk · contribs) to voluntarily refrain from editing the article (in light of the RFC) even though it would be possible to do so with admin access.--Isotope23 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are any of them listed? If the website isn't notable enough for its own article, why list it there? --Born2x 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to report a vandalous user!

Click [HERE]and weep. Hoolp 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with; in the future, please leave a note at WP:AIV. --Golbez 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Corvus Cornix

Was doing an edit on the Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat page because it didn't make sense. When I checked the edit history it appeared Corvus Cornix removed some info that resulted in the flow of paragraphs not making sense so I was just going to revert it, but then I noticed that Corvus Cornix's edit history showed they were going through and deleting info from all sorts of sites based on their like or dislike of the individuals rather than based on facts (seems to have a big hate for the Travoltas). I'm a bit concerned by the user's actions. On their own page they admit a bad history and having to start over. I'm all for giving second chances but this behavior is looking somewhat stalker like from my outside prospective. Admin may want to watch if any more patterns like this develop. 66.99.121.245 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Just happened to note that it isn't making sense. See my comments above about "Rikki Lee Travolta". I will continue to remove the link until such time as someone provides proof that gueststarcasting.com is a reliable source. I have no feeling one way or the other about "the Travoltas", only about the hoaxer who claims that he is one without any proof whatsoever. Corvus cornix 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My representative will talk to him.Hoolp 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and who is your representative? Corvus cornix 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoolp appears to be the ANI troll. Corvus cornix 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an OTRS message from one of the Travoltas about this. Sorry, can't remember which one. Until Rikki Lee contacts the Foundation with proof of his claims, we should stick to verifiability and reliable source guidelines. Particularly related to the claims at gueststarcasting.com that Rikki is a top draw in "Joseph and the Amazing...", I did a Lexis-Nexis search last year and could not find a single review of any theater production in any major newspaper of his performance, except for a small community theater in a Chicago suburb. Thatcher131 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I am requesting confirmation/discussion from my fellow administrators regarding my actions in relation with user:Asucena. The user keeps on editing in what appears to be violations of WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:POINT. Most recently, the user re-added POV edits to the article Move America Forward four times in 24 hours. The user is well aware of 3RR. Further, the user is returning AfD tags on an article closed as keep. Please note the edit summary. Lastly, I think I am trying my best to be respectful and cordial, and the user decides to remove explanations of policies that they are actually well aware of, calling it censorship. The last is not much of an issue, for there is a record of them having seen it.

I have placed a 48 hour block for the combination of violations.

With the user a self-professed employee of the PNA, I am bringing this up here for a more thorough discussion. Thank you. -- Avi 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The block looks like a good call. I'm concerned about the surrounding dynamics. Has anyone checked the bona fides on this editor? Note the links from this Signpost tipline:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Wikipedia:_target_for_jihadists.2C_source_for_U.S._Government_intelligence Also, Grace Note's persistent and aggressive refusal to WP:AGF has been fanning the flames. I've already asked that editor to tone things down with no success. More eyes and more opinions would be helpful here. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on your talkpage, Avi, an admin blocking a user they are involved in a content dispute with is not a good idea. You don't seem to accept that, which is a worry. I believe the block was entirely justified, although 24 hours would have been sufficient, but I think you should have noted the problem here and allowed someone else to make the block. Allowing yourself to be painted as abusive is not a good idea when dealing with a troll.

Durova, I have left you a note on your talkpage. Your comment is entirely unacceptable. People have to be permitted to disagree with each other without then finding that the people they disagreed with mischaracterise them and attack them in other places. Grace Note 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to Grace Note at my user talk page and have no apologies for the comment above, which I believe is merited by that user's actions. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter

Paul venter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a personal attack against User:Berks105 and User:Proteus describing them as idiots (see also [17]). Although he was asked about it, he has, till now, not apologized but rather confirmed his statement (see [18]). Perhaps someboy might take a look on it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Block

Not sure, can we request blocks here? Artaxiad 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Who? Why? --Deskana (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me, I reverted, with no explanation my parole, please block me, see Karabakh. Artaxiad 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is proposed to be banned for one year as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Artaxiad, if you have decided to leave voluntarily in advance of the decision becoming final, it would be better if you do so in a dignified fashion rather than disruptively. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Artaxiad 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

Today's DYK featured article William Tecumseh Sherman has been under continious attack! Needs at least semi-protection. -- Camptown 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected until 23:59 UTC today. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Elastic_Input_Rascer appears to be on some kind of rampage

See contributions [19] - Basically He's making no-hoper deletion nominations, being uncivil when called on it, and generally exhibiuting weird or trollish behaviour. A block or (more likely) ban would probably be a good idea. Artw 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the signature and the first edit summary ("I'M BACK!")[20], it's possibly indef-blocked Mike Garcia - or someone pretending to be him. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged by User:Mike 7 two minutes before my note. Bonus points for speedy response. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the User page? If he is Mike Garcia, he doesn't need multiple User pages. If he isn't, he doesn't need to copy somebody else's User page. Corvus cornix 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw setting up an offensive userpage

I'm not sure if this is really against some policy, but I somehow feel this is surely against the project spirit.

user Jeffpw has settup an (IMHO) offensive message on his user page[21] (using an equally offensive edit summary), where he equates "well meaning wikipedians'" to an anus.

I have edited his page to something else, and left him a message explaining that the previous version of the page was not a good thing.

He removed my comment, and some others, classifying them as "useless garbage" in the edit summary[22]. and reverted his user page to the (IMHO) offensive version[23].

I proffered to ask for some intervention here instead of edit-warring over this user's own userpage. As I said, I don't know for sure if some policy was violated, but his page simply doesn't seem ok.

(User:Jeffpw's last edit summaries seems to show that he's not in a good mood lately. )

--Abu badali ^(talk) 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, while you were probably typing this, Jeff changed his userpage as a compromise. Your description is no longer accurate nor is his userpage now offensive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He just moved the attack elsewhere, now directly targeting me.

I no longer have the guts to deal with this kink of behavior. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) 3 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup. See this edit summary. Corvus cornix 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm he seems very agitated. I've reverted and protected for the duration of the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The message at the top of his talk page doesn't give me the confidence he'll make any attempts at cooperative editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check for yourself and assume good faith. Jeffpw 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need is some hope. --218.186.8.10 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that is probably the most astute observation made yet in this fiasco. Thank you, anon IP. And my apologies to the community for being offensive. I have shared with a few people what is going on with me, and wil try not to take my own problems out on anyone else again. This is my last comment on the subject. Jeffpw 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you never took Spanish. Now, if you excuse me, I have to investigate a cookie problem. --218.186.8.10 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Last comment by me mysteriously has disapeared and been salted???? Hmmm...WP:CABAL.. User:Jeffpw is a very solid editor, and although the block was justified (IMHO), the current state of his user page is way calmer than a lot of user pages round here. Isn't this debate now flogging the deceased equine? Pedro |  Talk  13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Brandt

Revisiting this thread, Daniel Brandt is again posting to Talk:Daniel Brandt; some editors have tried to remove his comments while others have reverted them [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Once and for all, does "banned" mean banned (in which case several editors need a trout slap), or does "banned" mean banned (unless you are Daniel Brandt). Thatcher131 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think that banned users shouldn't be allowed to edit , at all, for any reason. If he has something to say he can email the office. Allowing banned users to enter into discussions sends entirely the wrong message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Venus Envoi and user:Kangaroo Courtier are SPAs, probably Brandt. Don't know about User:Weena Eloi ... Corvus cornix 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the talk page for two weeks and posted a request that Mr. Brandt submit WP:BIO issues via the Foundation. Any living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia biography article has a legitimate right to raise that type of issue. The proper venue for a banned editor is via the Wikimedia Foundation. Let's choose our words carefully and avoid making a bad situation even more confrontational. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa and Durova completely. Brandt does not become an exception to the rules just because he makes more of a fuss than anyone else- posts by banned users should be reverted on sight. He is free to email his concerns... WjBscribe 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned means banned. If he wants to correct factual inaccuracies he should use back channels. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the bad blood that already circulates here let's express that diplomatically. The article talk thread about this started on a sour note. Mr. Brandt has as much right as anyone to express his BLP concerns. Let's point him in the appropriate direction for his circumstances. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He knows already. This has been ongoing for ever! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

I don't see what the big deal is, if he's only editing the talk page of his own article, and only doing so to correct inaccuracy or point out unreliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He should be allowed to point out problems with his article on the talk page, banned or not. The letter of policy doesn't matter; we aren't robots, we are able to think and adapt as the situation requires. If we are going to insist on having an article against his wishes, we should at least have the common courtesy of allowing him to edit the talk page. There is no reason to remove his comments just to be vindictive, while claiming "Oh, it's policy, I have no choice." You do have a choice. Just let it go. Frise 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned == not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. Should he have concerns, there are e-mail addresses he can contact. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Thatcher, Theresa, JzG, and Deskana, and I'm finding it hard to understand why people keep restoring his posts instead of just accepting that as a banned user he can e-mail his concerns to any admin and/or to the Foundation. It's not as if upholding the rule against letting banned users edit has to lead to inaccuracies in the article. There's a certain procedure he can follow if he wants to report a problem. Let him follow it. ElinorD (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple: If it is so absolutely imperative that he be allowed to edit, then figure out some way to get him officially unbanned by arbcom/the foundation, either from just his talk page or from Wikipedia as a whole. Until then, stop violating policy and common sense by letting the banned troll post. --tjstrf talk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is he only needs to post and then to a large extent whether or not his posts are removed is irrelevant because as long as they remain in the history anyone can look at them and decide whether his BLP concerns are worth investigating and/or acting upon. If the wikimedia office are willing to present his BLP concerns to the editors on the talk page (removing legal threats, personal attacks on third parties etc) that would be great but if not then I would rather see his edits on the talk page though I dont support the restoring of these edits iof another user removes them, SqueakBox 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am aware that Mr. Brandt has already been informed of the site's banning policy and I see no need to either carve out an exception for him or to wring our hands about it. There is nothing special going on here; people get sitebanned all the time and people who are the subject of Wikipedia biographies contact the Foundation all the time. A calm and evenhanded approach is best here. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Banned means someone isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia. This doesn't affect their ability to report BLP or accuracy issues which can still be sent in through email. He's still able to share his concerns if he's banned without posting to the wiki, so I don't see a reason to compromise the ban to allow for something he can already do while banned. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article talk page is not the same as editing an article. AFAIK, the talk page of his article is the only place he edits. How far are you people willing to go to continue to persecute this individual. Killa Kitty 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the word persecute. I have had no involvement in this issue other than to semiprotect the talk page. That certainly doesn't count as persecution. Durova^Charge! 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt policy

User:Veesicle has made a proposal on this talk page suggesting that the banning policy should be amended to allow people to comment on articles about themselves. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed (talk · contribs)

I find 3RR kinda confusing, so could someone explain to me whether Ed has violated it at Wikipedia:Esperanza? He's made 4 edits in about thirty minutes but one wasn't technically reverting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article has now been fully protected at Ed's non-consensus version and it is unlikely such protection will be taken off again, can it be put back to Steve Block's version of February 28? That's the "stable version" which was originally written in January after the MfD. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means revert back if necessary, as I protected the page it's not right for me to do so, so I'm passing the buck Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, I reprotected the page for edit warring for 3 hours until Majorly has time to review it as he unprotected an hour ago, by all means unprotect it, or extend the protection if it's desired (You might wish to check the current version as well) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in violation of 3RR. The first edit was made to implement a compromise, the other 3 were reversions. The problem here is that YOU keep reverting without valid arguements. YOU revert because you claim that the essay was approved by a consensus established 3 months ago! I'M reverting because I firmly believe that the essay is biased.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate and ironic that a project dedicated to peace and understanding is causing conflict four months after it's death. The parties should move off user talk pages in favor of the Esperanza talk page, where the debate can be more "in the open". PTO 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh...it's not my fault. Back in December, there were talks both on WP and IRC to just let Esperanza naturally die down. It's too bad that an MfD had to be posted!

I ask that all admins dealing with this situation actually read my compromise attempt and judge for themselves whether my edits are harming the encyclopedia in any way.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise between what exactly? Every single person besides Ed is cool with the orginal version. Why should something have to harm the encyclopedia to be stupid? Why won't you realise that no-one's interested in any more changes to the essay? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Dev920. You need to pick your battles wisely, Ed. This really isn't something worth edit warring over. PTO 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just offered a truce to Dev. PTO, I'm sorry, but I just was never raised up to back down in fights. It's a Filipino-American thing: we always fight and compete; deal with it. To back down is a sign of weakness.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please restore orig version of Wikipedia:Esperanza and fully protect per truce offered on User talk:Dev920 and acceptance at User talk:Ed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which version, the version which Majorly originally protected? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By that I mean this version Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That one will do. If anyone has a problem, take it up with me on my talk page. However I belive this resolves the dispute. (If there is any problems with this I will revert to the version before I touched it) Viridae^Talk 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Viridae for sorting it, to everyone else, please don't edit war once the protection expires Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith, anonymous, incomplete AfDs

An anon user 68.236.21.101 (talk · contribs · logs) just added AfD templates to several clearly notable Penn State-related articles but has not created appropriate deletion discussion pages. Process would dictate I must leave the templates on these articles but if the nomination is incomplete or clearly in bad faith can they be removed as vandalism? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Vandalism that identifies bad-faith {{afd}} tagging as vandalism. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, anons can't complete AfD nominations, they have no way to create a discussion page, oddly though, there is nothing in policy that bans anons from creating AfD pages, they just have to be creative about it. All I'm saying is don't discount an anon AfD as vandalism just because they can't create a discussion page, that's a technical limitation, not policy based--VectorPotential^Talk 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Account

This user has reverted/deleted/re-worded TechCrunch#Criticism 17 times. In fact, that is his entire contribution to Wikipedia. His reverts are in direct violation of the agreed terms of this Mediation cabal, which he declined to participate in. The purpose of the mediation cabal was to determine the wording of TechCrunch#Criticism, largely for his benefit.

The user has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage, and every effort has been made to engage him in reasoned discussion. I submit this account only exists to vandalize TechCrunch#Criticism and suggest that it be deleted.

Any response is appreciated, we have been trying to deal with this since January 23, and we are exhausted. Thank you, Jonathan Stokes 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I notified him about it, hope he takes it to heart. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr eisenburg

Can someone terminate this CSD ASAP as it contains seriously offensive libel. exolon 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. exolon 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal

User has been warned against involvement in the case of Natural History of South Asia mailing list (with which they have a WP:COI) and their disruptive edits to associated articles, talk pages and deletion debates. Despite this, the user continues to troll the article talk page. Chris cheese whine 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Horrorfiend138

• Horrorfiend138 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User has had nothing but unhelpful edits since registering. Does anyone else think an indefinite block is appropriate here? Been given many warnings to change his behavior and has already been blocked twice. VegaDark 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support it. I don't see anything productive about his edits. IrishGuy ^talk 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Frise

Resolved

 – Invalid request to block. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is not for this purpose.

Frise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used her first edit in nearly a month (of an already sporadic editing history) on an admin's talk page regarding a new editor's block.[29] As a non-regular contributor and a person who is also interested in changing BLP (as the others sock puppets related to that block) it is strange for a non-interested person to make his first edit in a while back on an admin's page citing that checkuser. Her first ever edit was removing material citing BLP, which is pretty good for a new account to know for their first edit.[30] Her second ever edit was the redirect of his talk.[31] User was asked if he had any other accounts, but declined to reply.[32] A check user did not show any connection IP to the other sock puppets.

I find this user's editing interest in a blocked sock puppet, advancing editing skills, and refusal to reply if she has another account to be troublesome. WP:SOCK is not forbidden, but for the sake of transparency it would be nice if a temporary block on the account would force some accountability (meaning telling what her other wiki account is). Arbustoo 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me get this straight: You have already had me checkusered, but it turned up nothing. So now what you want to do is have someone block me until I cough up some username that doesn't exist, so you will know if I'm doing something that's not forbidden. And all of this is because I have advanced editing skills and defended a guy who I feel was improperly blocked. That's... something. Frise 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Frise, a check user means the IP doesn't show a connection. That's all it means. Feel free to explain why your first edit in a long time concerned the banned account and why you cited policy in your first ever edit. Arbustoo 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Frise here. The argument seems to be "He is doing something acceptable, and a checkuser result confirmed that it wasn't abusive, but we should force him to stop doing it anyway". That is very strange. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of openess, when inquiring about a sock puppet block you should admit your other accounts. WP:SOCK allows role accounts in certain instances. While it is not explicitly forbidden, in this case the edits/socks are tied to User:BryanFromPalatine, a perm. banned/disruptive sock puppet, and Frise is arguing to unblock another BryanFromPalatine tied account, which admitted to having, but did not give the name of the previous accounts.[33]. Arbustoo 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this extremely strange... If the user doesn't want to admit his previous account, (if he has one), and has all legitimate edits on the current one, I don't see any reason why you are bothering him. Im pretty sure it is covered under Right to vanish. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by user

Resolved

 – User informed of legal threat policy, and article properly attributed to prevent copyright violation

[34] by User:Chacie DGG 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Put a warning on the user talk page. If he continues to do this, after final warning, report him here again. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

However the user was correct that he page was a direct copyvio. I will inform the user. -- Avi 06:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS by User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (posted here as requested by User:Jersey Devil)

I believe that User:Smee's tendentious editing crossed a clear line into harassment just before I went on a wikibreak last week. Before I left I reported the escalation of the harassment to wikistalking to an admin, User:Jersey Devil (JD), that had previously warned Smee about this selfsame activity. Smee disregarded that warning (below) and continued to follow me around to a degree that eventually reached the level of stalking:

Do not come to my talk page to continue your fight with Justanother. Do not follow the user around wikipedia to begin fights, it is disruption and your fights have already taken up large amounts of space on AN/I. I suggest you avoid the user because if you follow him around to start fights as you did on my talk page I will enforce policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I returned yesterday and saw that JD had asked me to take this complaint here so here it is. My desired outcome is that User:Smee respect me as an editor and respect my edits. I have in the past allowed myself to take an inappropriate tone with tendecious and harassing editors when their offensive activity was directed at me. That is a fault that I: 1) took a 24-hour block for from JD (while User:Smee saw no censure of her disruptive editing) and 2) prior to that had vowed to address. I specifically addressed the issue with User:Smee immediately prior to her wiki-stalking me so that shows me that simple discussion of the issue is to avail. I suggest an appropriate block to ensure that User:Smee "gets it". Thank you. Below are the particulars (mostly copied from User talk:Jersey Devil):

18 March - Smee is warned by JD to not follow me "around wikipedia to begin fights".

20 March - Smee votes to delete a category I just created that I had put up for suggestions on a rename: Diff

21 March - Smee warns me of WP:BITE for my replying in a pretty friendly sarcasm to a sarcastic remark by someone that, despite being a little new, is clearly a mature editor. Diff

The two above did not really set off my radar that Smee had no intention of following JD's advice but it got worse.

21 March - I respond to the BITE "warning" and then I remember that Smee has been warned against picking fights and I mention that. Smee deletes that bit of news, claiming "personal attack". Diff

21 March - Smee follows me to User:Sm1969's talk page to try to sow discord between us, IMO while outrightly accusing us if conspiring. Talk about picking fights!. Diff

23 March - I will just copy my posts from JD's page.

It gets worse - WP:STALK

Please see the edit history of these two articles [35] and [36] starting with my edits today March 23 and my comment below as posted in article talk which sums up my problem. And it is a problem. Now I cannot even go to a completely uninvolved article and make good edits without instant reversion and subsequent edit-warring by Smee. And this is just after I thought that Smee and I had come to some sort of agreement with Smee promising to reform. Just more of the usual smoke and mirrors on her part, I guess.

Ms. Smee. I am obviously angry that you followed me over to these articles to edit-war and fight with me. I think that it would have shown good grace and good faith on your part had you simply let my edits stand. You should have just waited; not raced over here because I made an edit. That is abusive. I do not care how many articles you have on your watchlist. The point is that these two are not articles that you have any real history in; I made an edits; you raced over to revert them. This is about you, Ms. Smee, not me and I think I have done an admirable job of controlling my anger and simply stating the offenses in the edit summaries for ease of locating them later. --Justanother 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help. Thanks. --Justanother 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)