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

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

User:Whig

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Wikipedia since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a content dispute, then? Whig 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it is but what have you been doing there just a few days after the article ban? Would it be wiser to disengage for a while from the talk page? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I was expressly welcomed to continue editing the talk page by the admin who imposed editing restrictions. Whig 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment here, but I can not at the moment because I'm at work. I ask that before any action be taken, I can comment. I'll be commenting in a few hours. Mercury 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a suggestion, the editors who are bringing this incident report are welcome to pursue RfAr, which several people in the RfC encouraged them to do. Whig 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I draw everyone's attention to this? He evidently made a user copy of the article he's banned from editing just to add a {{POV}} tag. Then decided he liked the {{Balance}} tag better. (Then Fyslee, quite rightly, nowiki'd all the tags so that it wouldn't be category-sorted.) Still, though... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange indeed, especially the discussion page, where Whig describes his user-space homeopathy page by writing "This is the NPOV fork". (link). I hesitated earlier before describing Whig's attitude towards homeopathy as an "obsession", but that now looks like a pretty accurate description. Tim Vickers 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, from Oct 16 (when it was clarified that Whig would be participating in discussion but not editing the article) to Oct 25 (when I put in this comment: "Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over") the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy was generally amicable and productive.

Also, on Oct 25 Phoenix 15 posted this message: "I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good article. I'll promote it to GA status." Wanderer57 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have not really looked into to Homeopathy talk, but I would encourage a request for arbitration at this point. There is no point in tightening and tightening restrictions, I do believe this is more complicated and a community based restriction, may not be appropriately applied if it involves talk space. Send this to arbitration for review. Mercury 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe RfARb is the way to go, given the RfC findings and ongoing issues with talk-page abuse (disclaimer: User:Whig has moved on to Talk:Christine Maggiore where I've encountered him). On another note, it's inappropriate for a user to maintain a copy of a page he's been banned from editing in his userspace for the apparent purpose of creating a POV fork. I've deleted it. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have been an editor on Christine Maggiore since 2005. [1] Whig 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More community sanctions might work better than an arbitration. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have good cause to dispute my user conduct, why not file an RfAr? Whig 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Wikidudeman, if there is a dispute still, RFAR is the way to go... I will oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Mercury 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They take too long and are too much trouble. I see no need for an RFAr, A simple community block from editing the homeopathy talk page should suffice. It can run concurrent with your current 6 month ban from editing the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the common reasons for RfCs and other such actions is to reduce disruption. An RFAr is one of the most disruptive and time consuming procedures around, and thus would be very counterproductive to the purpose of reducing disruption. Other more effective and quick sanctions are available to any admin who has the courage to act immediately. A topic block of all homeopathic subjects - including talk pages - would help, just for starters. If the same long dragged out discussions without productivity continue, then other types of blocks could be considered. While civility issues mustn't be ignored, civil editors who disrupt are often the most disruptive because they are allowed to continue for so long. They have the same effect as 3RR violators (in spirit) who never revert four times, but edit war constantly. Action, not endless and disruptive DR, is what is needed so we can get on with actual editing. -- Fyslee / talk 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury in part. Talk page restrictions should be made much more hesitantly than namespace, and only with confidence that the user has nothing to add. I might support a community ban later, but we haven't had enough experience with this user under the existing block. Maybe revisit this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the discussion closely - although not been involved in editing the article - and I can state quite categorically that this whole discussion would not have occurred if the proponents had not been so closed to disagreeing sentiments. It seemed at times as if a cabal had been formed whereby alternative points - accompanied by reasoned argument - were discounted merely on the basis of "I do not believe it therefore it is not true, therefore we shall oppose this contributor". I found it disagreeable in the extreme and unworthy of Wikipedia. I would call for an experienced and previously uninvolved editor to review ALL the contributions made with a view to assessing the actions of the proponents of action against Whig. docboat 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with docboat's statement. Whig 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "closed to disagreeing sentiments"? Homeopathy is clearly false. Thus, it is reasonable to oppose those who say that it is true, with no reason other than that belief. There's no way to be open to disagreeing sentiments any more than one could be open to sentiments that water is made of cheese. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole issue neatly encapsulated, Amarkov. In your opinion, it is so, but there is plenty of opinion out there - with references and evidence - which would disagree with you. It is right that all opinions - referenced and backed up - should be on display. And FYI, there is plenty of water in cheese. Now Whig may not have the best approach to dealing with the array of editors opposed to him, but the reaction to his editing is disproportionate. All too late now, I suppose, but your comments underline the unfairness of the whole episode. At least, IMHO. docboat 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not clearly false to me. Whig 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the recent discussion that brought us here, that this is much ado about very little. As I mentioned above, from Oct 16 to Oct 25 the homeopathy discussion was generally amicable and productive. It then split over the merits of two papers by Alex Hankey, Ph.D. Isn't there some simple Wikimechanism to get a ruling on these papers, so life can continue? Wanderer57 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a simple mechanism, it's called consensus. The consensus on the talk page was that the Hankey papers were ridiculous and unusable, except to describe Hankey's opinion which itself is not notable. The problem is that Whig continues to agitate for his preferred changes well after consensus has gone against him. Skinwalker 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this pragmatically, since Whig does not seem to have convinced any other editor that it is appropriate to cite the Hankey papers in Homeopathy and since Whig is not editing the article, there is not really a current problem. Wanderer57 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring the content dispute here to ANI. I intend to continue to press that source forward for balance in the present article, however. Whig 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, the inclusion of links to Barrett without balance is an NPOV violation in my opinion. Whig 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I would continue to develop this source to see whether he is notable in his own right, etc. Whig 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit more to say, but not in ANI. Whig 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Press that source forward"? The only way to gain acceptance for the source is to develop a consensus. You've failed to convince any other editor of its appropriateness, regardless of their POV's. Your approach is not only failing to generate consensus, but is actively disruptive (see here or your current RfC). Continuing to "press the source forward" in the face of consensus, using this sort of approach, is textbook tendentious editing and, one would presume, the basis for the calls to ban you from the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of things I have not yet done. How I would press it would be an NPOV dispute. Whig 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that we could settle this matter without the agony of an arbcom proceeding, but it is becoming increasingly clear that will be impossible. The only alternative would be for everyone simply to ignore Whig's tendentious use of the Talk page. In practice, there will always be people who can't resist the temptation to respond. Raymond Arritt 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt puts forward a good alternative. There is already a section on the talk page for discussion of the Hankey papers. If anyone WANTS to continue to discuss those papers there, Wikipedia has lots of storage capacity. (Personally, I have formed a pretty definite opinion of the papers, and likely won't discuss them further.) Wanderer57 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do now? It seems like this is a dead end here. I am willing to have RfAr if that is what some editors want to do to prevent me from continuing to edit in Talk:Homeopathy. If I am not blocked or banned from doing so, I intend to continue as I have been, because I have not seen evidence that I am doing anything wrong here. If some other accommodation can be reached short of RfAr, I would be glad to discuss it. Whig 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another "accomodation ... short of RfAr" can be used. You can already be blocked (without an RfAr) based on decisions in previous RfArs. Advocacy is forbidden here. Your expressed intention (above) to continue to press this issue in spite of a clear consensus against you is POV pushing and disruption. So on at least three counts you can be blocked from editing any article related to homeopathy (and its talk pages): (1) advocacy, (2) POV pushing (3) disruption. Any admin can do it right now at the drop of a hat and they will be thanked for it (I'll give them a double barnstar!). If you carry such editing habits to other subjects, you can end up getting banned indefinitely from all of Wikipedia, and it can be done by any admin without an RfAr (which itself is a very disruptive process and should be reserved for extreme situations). Courageous admins have carried out such blocks many times and have saved Wikipedia and its editors from lots of grief and wasted time. -- Fyslee / talk 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to say anything improper to say in ANI, but no block has been forthcoming in several days of asking for one, and if I am blocked I may request RfAr anyhow to review it. I'm not sure what purpose is being served by continuing here. Whig 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your expressed intentions are keeping this alive. Until you either stop editing or clearly bow to consensus and stop pushing this agenda, you will be under observation and risk getting blocked for disruption. Your intentions are incriminating. -- Fyslee / talk 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to maintain an NPOV dispute until dispute is resolved. Whig 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your "expressed intentions":

• "I intend to continue to press that source forward ..."
• "I intend to continue as I have been,..."

Such intentions against consensus are disruptive and fail to respect your fellow editors. -- Fyslee / talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I propose this

• Whig gets a topic block, including talk pages, from editing any alternative medicine or related subject for say, one month, after which he will be on probation.

Any disagreements? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given his stated intent to continue tendentious editing until he gets his way, and the objection of at least one admin to an outright block, this is the best of several imperfect options. Raymond Arritt 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mercury said he would oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Whig 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this issue is currently about disruption of talk pages, that suggestion is rather impotent and doesn't make much sense. Talk pages are not havens of refuge for disrupters of talk pages. They can be blocked from access to those talk pages. -- Fyslee / talk 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with Mercury, we came up with the possibility of Whig getting one post per talk page per day. Let's try that, and see how it goes.

So, to summarise:

• Whig may not edit any articles related to alternative medicine, for one month, after which he will be on probation, including 1RR. Tendentious editing after the month may result in either an indefinite ban from alternative medicine, or, if necessary, from Wikipedia.
• Whig is encouraged to find non-controversial articles in any other interests he may have to edit.
• In the alternative-medicine related articles Whig is banned from, he is limited to one post per talk page per day.

°Are we agreed? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. First, because you are broadening the ban without cause. If you are going to limit me on Talk:Homeopathy, that does not mean you should limit me elsewhere. Second, it really only defers arbitration in my opinion if editors continue to object to my maintaining an NPOV dispute. Whig 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If you aren't willing to agree to a compromise, and have made very clear that you are unwilling to refrain from tendentious editing, I don't see any choice but a block. Any objections to that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not from me; given the near-unanimity at Whig's user-conduct RfC and a lack of interest in modifying his approach, I think that's a reasonable action at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. It is done. He is blocked for one month, with indef block as the next step up. I did hope we could reach a compromise whereby he could be encouraged to work on non-controversial pages so that he could learn Wikipedia ettiquette, but, well. He's announced intent to continue tendentious editing, and he refuses to admit even the possibility he might be acting wrongly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection. I don’t think the discussion on this page takes into account the underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk, and I find it hard to see this as a neutral forum.

Talk:Homeopathy is largely a discussion with one editor who, on a regular basis, is arguing for a “more balanced” article against six or so strongly anti-homeopathy editors. For that one to address the issues raised by the other six, he may have to contribute six times as often, and address a variety of viewpoints. In this situation, it is easy to label the one as “tendentious” and the other six as “reasonable”, no matter if sometimes they take positions that strongly POV.

Let me be clear. I’m NOT saying the one is always reasonable, or the six are always strongly POV. I’m saying the dynamic favors the six, and disadvantages the one.

The homeopathy discussion sometimes resembles a very lopsided tag-team match. When that happens, the dispute is brought here (or to a RfC) to be adjudicated. I think that the same lopsided approach gets brought here to a significant degree.

- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -

Re suggestion of a limit of one post per day in a discussion. In a discussion like homeopathy where there may be 60 posts in one day, that does not allow for any significant participation. Wanderer57 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not an easy subject, but that just isn't enough to give a free pass to tendentious, disruptive editors who constantly attack all the other editors. If Whig were less of an extreme case, he might get a bye. In this case, no, sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam: I do not think you qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. For example, you took the position in talk:homeopathy that a clearly POV site is preferable to a neutral site that uses a blue font. If that is a neutral position, I am the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Also, I object that between asking if there were objections, and giving a "ruling", you allowed about 80 minutes on a Sunday afternoon. Wanderer57 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And asked the Administrator's IRC channel. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How does asking the administrator’s IRC channel allow participation by interested parties who take part of Sunday off? Wanderer57 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Wikipedia policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell: I do understand and respect that Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference work.

My particular concern now is that in my opinion, the administrator who made the ruling on Whig does not qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. I emphasize 'in this particular case'. I am not confident that he, or other people involved in the homeopathy discussion, are able to step back and objectively consider my concerns raised above about the "underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk". Last and least, the 80 minutes allowed to raise objections was not adequate. I would appreciate your feedback on these points. Wanderer57 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Wanderer - the admin who is blocking is most definitely not neutral, and the ruling is suspect. This needs to be addressed at the admin level - leaving aside the merits or lack of them in blocking Whig, this is highly suspect and detracts from the serious nature of Wikipedia. How does one go about getting an admin reviewed for behaviour? docboat 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not leave the merits aside when reviewing an admin on admin actions. I'm neutral here, and Adam made a good call. The decision to block is not suspect, and I do not believe it detracts from the Pedia. With regards, Mercury 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and possible unblocking

• I agree and support Adam here. Please see my talk page and Whig's for what I am willing to do. Regards, Mercury 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And I support Mercury: Whig is a borderline case, but one that has stated extreme reluctance to change. If he becomes willing to change, and acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, we may be able to make a good editor out of him yet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Support this block. If Whig had been willing to listen to the good advice given to him by Seraphimblade two weeks ago - "work on editing in other areas, perhaps ones in which you don't have such strong views." - this could have been avoided. However, Whig's obsession with the homeopathy article, inability to respect consensus, and complete lack of understanding of policy makes him a liability. Tim Vickers 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the interest of disclosure: I plan on unblocking, pending Adam's concurrence on his talk page. Mercury 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed - Mercury has come up with reasonable restrictions, though I honestly expect it's just going to mean Whig ends up indef blocked next week, instead of blocked for a month now. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there something about good faith? Wanderer57 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mercury and Adam are bending over backwards and giving Whig every conceivable opportunity to change his egregious behaviour.

Also, [AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. •Jim62sch• 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim - Thank you for the feedback. Perhaps egregious is too strong a word here. Adam, who is clearly not a fan of Whig, wrote: "Whig is a borderline case".

My point about good faith was that after agreeing with the approach Mercury put forward, it was unnecessary and negative to add: "I honestly expect it's just going to mean Whig ends up indef blocked next week, instead of blocked for a month now." Wanderer57 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review - JohnEMcClure

Two months ago, I left Wikipedia. I have not returned (and I have no intention to). I am merely opening this discussion to try and get things in the air.

I decided to see whether the time was right by experimenting with a new account, User:JohnEMcClure. Before this, I reread WP:SOCK, and I'm quite sure I didn't violate anything. I didn't edit any articles that I did before. As to what happened, you can see. I did, with some deliberation, try and see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary (but I didn't do anything I deemed as a personal attack, as commenting on actions are different from commenting on people). I would request a larger-scale review of what happened, as I feel it reveals some serious problems with how we deal with these things. Perhaps some of you disagree, and I would be interested to see what people think. --Eyrian 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to permit the account to be unblocked, under the condition that you refrain from edits such as this? Although I originally declined your unblock request, I do believe in second chances and I'd be willing to let you have one, through the JohnEMcClure account, or a fresh one. Anthøny 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself. I was making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be.

The issue I feel is significant is that the actions taken regarding the block were, to me, inappropriate, and that it's a problem that needs to be looked at. --Eyrian 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you'd be well-counselled not to unblock your own alternate account. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable showed that it was unwise. Daniel 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But that's really very immaterial; why would I want the account unblocked? It simply doesn't matter to me. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

Maybe I interpreted "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." wrongly. Daniel 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I may not have been clear. The account was designed to be entirely disposable, I have no investment in it whatsoever. Its block status is immaterial. --Eyrian 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what should be discussed here is whether what happened was justified. Anthony has stated that he'd be willing to unblock the other account now. Why? What has changed? The status of the account doesn't matter to me, but what happened to determine that status does. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that this is the correct venue, although I am at a loss to determine which is (Jimbo's talkpage has become deprecated recently), for this meta discussion regarding the communities response to sockpuppets. The matter which might have required admin attention - the tagging of User:JohnEMcLure as a sockpuppet of a banned user (which one has not been indicated) - is either resolved or disregarded. Perhaps Eyrian/JohnEMcClure open an RfC (with input from Anthøny?) to discuss this - interaction with WP might be limited to that one venue. As I said, I don't see any need for admin intervention here. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This was my natural choice for a forum to consider a block, though I suppose I didn't count the fact that it was moot too heavily. I don't know if I want to stick around long enough to go through an RfC. I really just wanted to get the issue on the table, and in sight of the right people, and this seemed like a decent way to do that. --Eyrian 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

For clarification, because simply reviewing the talk page doesn't make it clear, according to the the block log, Durova blocked JohnEMcClure for being a sock of JB196, not for the content disputes necessarily. I have no feeling whether the block was right or wrong at this point, because I am not sure what evidence the sock allegation was made on. Into The Fray ^T/C 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for Durova for the truth, but it seems that the probable beginning was this edit. --Eyrian 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm...if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary..runs along the lines of Creative_trolling I'd think. Eyrian, you continue on your way with your interpretation seemingly of anything later than 1910(?) being trivia and deletable. For some reason you decide to continue incognito (?) and have run into the same trouble. Trouble is where you draw the line in the sand is way past loads of people (which is fine), but you continue to be disruptive about it (which is not), and patronising and antagonistic edit summaries don't help either. You might enjoy yourself more if you did something more creative than working on wiki-pruning so much. C'mon, get an article up to GA or FA even, I'll even help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw what looked like distinctive JB196 methodology. If this is a different disruptive user then I've no objection to renaming the reason for blocking. Go ahead and request a checkuser. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which line he thinks he's testing. The line drawn between real In Pop Culture sections and trivia lists? The line between good sock and bad? It may sound stupid, but I looked at his contribs, and since most mainspace edits removed things like 'Yohgurt in Pop culture', which consisted of a single scene from the Simpsons, I don't see him crossing any particular lines in that regard, and if he really tried to find the tipping point for good sock bad sock, well it's not like that couldn't use some clarifications, we've had a few of those sort of sections here before. ThuranX 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence would be a worthwhile read. I'm also willing to discuss this offsite with any editor in good standing. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

this is one example, though an article which needs cleanup - there is alot of literature etc. written about the subject. Much of what he has deleted is extremely trivial, but he has some very strong views which at the other end are only shared by a few and quite arbitrary and is prepared to really push the point at times. To be fair alot of messy articles that survived deletion were improved but the whole saga was the most unpleasant I've been involved with in my time here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The alternate account also posted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I'm unfamiliar with some of the history. But from what I can tell an admin with an apparent history of contentious edits disappears for two months then upon return creates a fake account as a disposable "experiment" to see what happens if he provokes people by taking things "over the line." The first edit this new account does is take up the WP:POINT work of a contentious editor accused of being the proxy of one of Wikipedia's most notorious sockpuppeteers ever, who has just triggered a massive ArbCom case involving a couple dozen Wikipedians. He then votes to delete an article in a contested AFD. The admin then uses the fake account to commit incivilities, accuse me of stalking him, make vague predictions of prevailing and edit warring against me (which, given that it was actually an admin in disguise, is rather ominous), and deny that it's a sock puppet.

I will hold my tongue here until and unless I learn all the facts. Given that he has hidden the truth and only admitted things once people caught on, how can one be sure one knows everything? The only question is how one interprets it. At best this is strange conduct for an administrator - copy-catting an editor who just caused an arbcom case seems misguided. Administrators are supposed to carry mops and brooms, not carry out elaborate ruses to test the community's response to provocation. At worst it violates fundamental behavior policies.

It seems reasonable to investigate whether Eyrian has sockpuppeted elsewhere, or is a sockpuppet, or is somehow connected with Alkivar, Burntsauce, and/or JB196. A block while we sort it out might make some sense. He claims he has no intention of returning to Wikipedia anyway so surely he won't be inconvenienced. Depending on what we find, some of these accounts may be logical parties to Alkivar's ArbCom case or a new arbitration request, or are simply blockable. You can obviously form up your own opinion and decide what to do. Just letting you know from the peanut gallery as one who is affected when administrative matters get out of hand, this is beyond odd, it's creepy. - Wikidemo 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A desysopping should be considered at this point, at least. Neil ☎ 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Breaching experiments are a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...when you spell it out like that Wikidemo it does indeed get murkier. OK, what now? I was unaware of the other issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a RFCU should be made as we have an account which it admits to have a sock that is acting peculiarly? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. But I'm not sure that is the best venue for a desysopping to be considered. Nor am I certain that one is required. What is the best venue? GRBerry 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'm pretty certain he posted under the IP 68.163.65.119, attempting to blank an articvle where his afd had failed and making several other contensious edits before eventually flaming out again. Artw 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...[2] a fairly busy IP for a while wasn't it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally here was an RfC which didn't go ahead just to give some history. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, only admins will be able to view deleted material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. User:Eyrian left Wikipedia again, deleting (and possibly salting?) various of his and User:JohnEMcClure's pages on his way out here (which he did last time too). Can we just take his word that he's gone and indefinitely block him and his IP? If he ever wants to return we can deal with it then; just no nasty surprises like this one. Also, he probably should return as a non-admin, which can be a condition to unblocking. Yet, something doesn't add up. An admin leaves two months ago abruptly and under a cloud, comes back to conduct a sockpuppet "experiment" to see if the time is right for returning, reveals himself only when exposed, takes up random miscellaneous work as if he never left ([3] [4]), then leaves again in less than a day. Is he still with us or will he return on some other account(s)? Given the suspicious connection with the Alkivar/Burntsauce case, the mention of at least one other sockpuppet, and the possible relation to JB196, is there any possible way to investigate whether he is connected to Alkivar/Burntsauce (and therefore belongs in that case), or other as-yet unknown sockpuppets and meatpuppets? Wikidemo 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Me n Eyrian don't have one another on our best friends lists, so I'll avoid getting too involved here, but I think it's reasonable to say that if Eyrian were to reapply for adminship it wouldn't be likely to pass (for better or for worse). I would just give the account regular editor status for now and maybe put a "user believed to have left" tag on his user page to avoid confusion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK is overdue, admin action requested, here's how

Resolved

On the main page is the "Did you know" column. It is overdue for change as noted by the clock (which is on red alert). The next update page is ready. It just has to be moved to the main page but this needs admin action.

Next update page is here [5]

Thank you. I usually hold off on mentioning this, but it does seem more time urgent than some of the ANI issues. DYK is on the main page, the most viewed page of WP. Archtransit 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought... can't we get a bot to do the page moving... and it would just occur every 24 hours or whatever? I'm not fully into what the tast requires, but there ought to be some way to automate this, instead of having "red alerts". —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since this is moving content to the main page, it has to be checked / done by an admin (well, another "trusted user" would be good as well, but since we only have the distinction editor / admin, it has to be an admin). The chance of vandalism and pranks on the main page would be way too big if this was moved by an adminbot. Fram 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again (NOW), it is about 6 hours late. There is a red alert tag (bot generated). DYK is supposed to be changed every 8 hours so in 2 hours, we would have missed a full cycle. I've already moved the hooks to the "next update" page but need admin help to move it to the main page. I've notified 4 admin who frequent DYK who have edited in the last few hours (but they may be asleep). Other admin who frequent DYK haven't edited in many hours. Thank you for your help. Archtransit 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot...I've never done it before so please check to make sure I didn't screw it up. — Scientizzle 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asleep; I was just in a meeting at work. I think sleeping would have been more satisfying than the meeting, since nobody complains about my crappy software when I'm sleeping. On a more positive note, DYK could use more help with people selecting content for the next update page. I looked at DYK earlier this morning and noticed it was out of date, but the next update page had only one entry selected for it, and I didn't have time to select a number of entries and update the template. Non-admin users can select stuff for the next update, and I'd appreciate the help. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you're like me, people still complain about your crappy software when you're sleeping - you just don't hear it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I updated the next update but needed admin help to transclude it. Thanks. Resolved. Archtransit 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion [6] at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo was referring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Wikipedia should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Wikipedia policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned [7] [8] [9] that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI^T 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows[10][11]. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history"[12][13], but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI^T 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.

LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Wikipedia. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia just as a signature collection

Although they are new users, Eddymania7 (talk · contribs) and Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs) look to be only here to see how big they can make their guestbook, they seem to know eachother, and I assume one has told the other about Wikipedia, and how fun it is. While using guestbooks is not against the rules here at Wikipedia, I believe it should be if the user is only using Wikipedia to make their signature book as big as possible. I have a signature book available for anyone to sign, yet I still edit mainspace. What are people's views on this, and what would be the appropriate action to take? I gave one of the users a self made note/warning [14], and would like others views on this. Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT clearly says that Wikipedia is not for the purposes that these two editors have been pursuing. This is policy. I am familiar with Eddymania7, as I've had to revert a number of "vandal"/test edits. I almost blocked the account as a vandalonly account, but his edits did not seem malicious, just misguided. If the editors are here to contribute, then it is not so much an issue. But if their only edits are for socializing, then there are a lot of other free resources for this purpose. — ERcheck (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both users have also removed my notices I left them about not using Wikipedia for these purposes. This leads me to believe they have not read them.. — jacĸrм (talk)

I suspect it means they read them but don't care. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, but I'm not aware of an actual warning for using Wikipedia in this way. — j</fo{{nt>acĸrм (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{uw-socialnetwork}}. east.718 at 22:00, 10/28/2007

No, I know that exists, but it isn't a warning which can be extended upon, such as vandalism: level 1,2,3,4 etc. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If these users continue like this, they will be blocked, as they are not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Typically this means disruptive users. A total lack of contributions also counts as "not contributing constructively". --Deskana (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to good, old-fashioned personal messages rather than templates? violet/riga (t) 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if they don't stop, block indef. Jbeach ^sup 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, it is possible that we have a case of sockpuppetry. User:Eddymania7 created User:Tony Spencer Hawk's (TSH) talk page here[15]. Then he requested that the page not be deleted, signing it and then unsigning it.[16]. Then TSH signed the same note.[17]. Both have a pattern of deleting talk page messages and have signing user talk pages and getting signatures as their main activities. Blocking is not an unreasonable step if they continue to use Wikipedia as a social site. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the big harm? The user has been on wikipedia only 1 day. It takes time to think of good editorial contributions. Some user have tons of AFD but few mainspace edits. Even their signature page is short. In fact, I'm going to go there and make some suggestions for them to edit, so let's not block now! WP6 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Collecting signatures is not productive but it's not harmful either. Leave them alone unless they start getting in the way of productive users. --bainer (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope they become productive editors. "What's the harm?" It's not a matter of having signature pages, the main issue is the use of Wikipedia solely for the purpose of socializing — which is addressed in in the WP:NOT policy. A welcome message, which included helpful links, as well as other suggestions on productivity were added to Eddymania7's talk page — which he deleted. Perhaps the recent, currently undeleted, suggestions will be read and taken to heart. "Preaching to the choir" — we are here to build an encyclopedia. — ERcheck (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs) isnt it a misleading user name considering Tony Hawk has a son called Spencer. Gnangarra 04:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the account needs to be posted at WP:UAA is the least of the problems here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Another — User:Planet Gran — is a new editor, appearing about the same time, with the same edit pattern. Identified himself as "Eddy"[18]. On the "Tony Hawk" name, I agree it is misleading. With the "Spencer" middle name, it might just be a fan... however, although not the exact given name of the famous Tony Hawk, it gives that appearance. — ERcheck (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I just found this.[19] — User:Tony Spencer Hawk is saying he is "Tony Hawk" and his son's name is Spencer. So, we either have the famous "Tony Hawk" or an imposter. — ERcheck (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the following accounts.

• Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs)
• Planet Gran (talk · contribs)
• Phillip John Fry (talk · contribs)
• Eddymania7 (talk · contribs)
• Psyche 42 Dude (talk · contribs)

All of these accounts were operated by the same person, and as such its clear that they were never here to be used to constructively contribute. --Deskana (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana, I'll keep my eye out for more, and alert you of them asap. — jacĸrм (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He is not the real Tony Hawk. Trust me. I have some of his "fan" mail. The following cites are as shows: [20], [21], and it's obviously that they are all socks because one of the usernames, (I believe it's Phillip John Fry) somehow knew my usernames. Tony Spencer Hawk never really did contribute to his own profile, so, I should have reported him in the first place. But, I chose not to because I thought he was really the real Tony Hawk. So there you have it. -Goodshoped 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And he does have a son named Spencer. Either he got something against Tony Hawk or obsessed with him or something. Either way. -Goodshoped 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'll look for them, too, despite the fact that I'm not a sysop. -Goodshoped 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I just found this. I don't believe that the Tony Hawk is a Tony Alva fan. I doubt it. -Goodshoped 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The lesson is clear: if you don't sign the chipoll, you hate kittens, and puppies, and bunnies, and et cetera! El_C 10:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User is continuing to add messages to his talk page. He seems to be trying to use someone saying "You really tony hawk? You trippin?" as an excuse for his actions. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestinedRemembered

Based on my previous warnings with the user, and for the comments at [22]. I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor. Time period is up to yall. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Sorry I had to do it as your proxy. I'll leave a short note, but you can explain the reasoning more fully. I think that is long enough to give a lesson, but the attempt in the diff has some redeeeming qualities, so I am not willing to go a week. GRBerry 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a problem if someone had to do it as proxy. Based on edit habits, he edits while I am at classes, etc. In future cases, if the user needs to be blocked for any reason whatsoever, all I ask is someone just tell me it occurred. I will not contest it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I resign as his mentor, seeing I am not effective enough in dealing with this user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• cough* I'm sorry to see you go. I had high hopes for you as his mentor. Kyaa the Catlord 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this user is perhaps less reformable than was hoped. I don't think this is a failing on Zscout's part. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentorships rarely succeed, in my experience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree it wasn't a failing on Zscout's side. He's been damn good as mentors go. Kyaa the Catlord 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Zscout has resigned this (and all his other) mentorship positions, there is no point in reinforcing Zscout's mentorship lessons. As such, my block is no longer preventative, and by policy needs to end, so I am undoing it. PR knows that we will attempt to make mentorship work. (Although I'd go further than Will; I'm not aware of any cases where mentorship has worked.)

PR has also emailed me explaining the reasons for the diff pointed out above. As I thought ("some redeeming qualities") the diff had a reasonable purpose - it was intended to move toward dispute resolution. I think Jaakobou and PR are likely to end up in front of ArbComm due to inability to resolve their dispute. As there have been before and continue to now be other similar complaints about J's behavior by editors in good standing, I fully expect him/her to end up sanctioned by ArbComm when that happens. GRBerry 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have no issues with the unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

'User:Dominique Blanc' stealth vandalism

I have warned at his user talk,(Dominique Blanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) but issue seems serious with User:Jeffpw helping him out in his vandalism efforts. Normal vandalism is easy to fight out, rather joy to, but this sock-puppet vandalism(somebody pretending as new user) really hurts/pains. He changes cited urls to 404 links, which is long term agenda of removing perticular sentence. Please give a look at his talk page im helpless only because he is supported by another user User:Jeffpw Lara_bran 10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have accusations of sock puppetry, vandalism and a wiki conspiracy to thwart Lara bran in his or her edits. A quick look at the article history and talk page should show what's really going on. I have already contacted Alison about this situation, as she is the admin most familiar with Lara bran's editing pattern. Jeffpw 11:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, one might want to also check out the revision history of Greek love to see some of Lara's other encyclopedic edits. Jeffpw 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And she has once again reverted on Pederasty to her own version, against the versionm which was achieved with consensus on the talk page. I do not want to even approach a 3rr, so ask that somebosy impartial look at it and revert if they think it's warranted. Jeffpw 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While ignoring the content changes, there is some merit to the claims but whether it's vandalism or careless editing I'd not like to speculate. For example this edit does break links and removes ISBN numbers and on one occasion a page number. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominique Blanc is a new editor who is still learning about formatting. I assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. Lara bran is an editor who has edit warred and wiki-lawyered on more than one article, and thinks s/he has a 3rr quota each day. S/he has a history of reverting incessantly on articles, in defiance of consensus and without discussion. S/he has been warned by many editors and admins alike. This post to ANI is both meritless and meretricious. Why Lara has not been blocked before this is beyond me. Oh, I forgot. S/he has. This is a new account after the last account s/he had was banned. Need I say more? Jeffpw 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say I simply sigh and buckle in for whatever the latest from user Lara Bran. Their language skills seems to change greatly whether seeking an admin to systematically justify whatever is needed ("im helpless") or wikilawyering. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Alice and editors being harrassed. or User:Vinay412. Benjiboi 11:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh look! Here's yet another sock of this user! I wonder how many more socks we will find if we dig hard enough. Jeffpw 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop ad hominem arguments? I will appreciate if you talk to the matter, where clear attempt to vandalize sources of an article.. Lara_bran 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dominique Blanc edits urls not just in this article[23], but also other related articles[24]. It seems nothing but deliberate effort to vandalize. It clearly looks single purpose accounts for pederasty related articles. Dispute is certainly not for content, but vandalism of reliable source urls. Lara_bran 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominique has already replied on the article talk page and on my own page that he has had trouble before when formatting. He is working now to repair the refs. This situation is known to all regular editors on that article, and has been discussed. Nobody but Lara bran (who has contributed nothing but chaos to that article) has any concerns about Dominique's intentions. I will remind Lara once again to reread WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA. S/he seems to have forgotten these key guidelines and policies. Jeffpw 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara bran sock of banned user Vinay412

It should be noted Lara bran is not a "she" - "she" is an account of the indef banned User:Vinay412, himself a sock of indef banned user Kuntan - see User_talk:Lara_bran/Archive_1#Unblock, [25] and [26]. Lara bran/Vinay412/Kuntan was on a final warning already, but I see no reason not to block the Lara bran account given the current activity, and will do so fairly shortly. Neil ☎ 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,. Neil. you have made editors too numerous to mention very happy with your post. Jeffpw 13:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Kuntant/Vinay412/Lara bran was on a final chance, has clearly continued to edit disruptively, and is causing a great deal more harm than good. I have indefinitely blocked Lara bran (talk · contribs), and submit this block for review - please provide feedback. Neil ☎ 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my faith in the system. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect that there will be continued pleading for unblocking of Lara bran (talk · contribs) on the basis that they are not the same person as Kuntan (talk · contribs). Lara bran has admitted repeatedly to being vinay412 (talk · contribs) but denied being Kuntan and I am inclined to believe that. I would request that any admin considering unblocking be aware that, even if they are completely unrelated to Kuntan, they have a disruptive record in their own right. As such, I would urge any admin considering such an unblock to familiarise themselves with the actions of vinay412 and his sock puppets. See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vinay412 & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 (2nd). --AliceJMarkham 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Lara Bran has been phenomenally disruptive and members of Wikiproject LGBT are more than familiar with his tactics by now. 3rr-limit revert warring on the same articles and templates day after day. POV-pushing, a career of sock-puppetry, etc, etc - Alison ^❤ 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

rhetoric page

Resolved

 – User informed of useful links, vandalism reverted --Haemo 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this--sorry but I'm new to this. I was reading the page titled "rhetoric" and I saw that one of the paragraph headings is called "i love him, suck it", which doesn't seem to belong there! Also, the first sentence of that paragraph begins with an exclamation mark and seems to be missing some information, as the sentence doesn't make sense. This is what it says: "! as the medium through which political and judicial decisions were made, and through which philosophical ideas were developed and disseminated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmetimesthree (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple vandalism. Reverted. IrishGuy ^talk 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find out how to deal with vandalism here: Wikipedia:Vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

202.1.164.254 (talk)

Resolved

 – User warned, trolling ceased. --Haemo 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for this user to be banned or some action to be taken. He/ she has not only used offensive language against me but has prior acts of vandalism, which can be seen on his/ her talk page. He/ she left this comment for me on Talk:Bestial Warlust:

"What a sad fuck, do you really check your little claims to fame to make sure that they're still there every day? Piss poor article, I'm hoping that it's by a 15 year old kid, otherwise everyone should be embarrassed. Article should nominated for deletion again, or better yet, I think that I'll rewrite it myself sometime. DSO."

I would appreciate swift justice.Navnløs 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the IP who left that comment was actually 202.1.168.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not 202.1.164.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user shows some definite trollish tendencies, but I don't think s/he qualifies for a block, at least not yet. I'll leave a warning against personal attacks on the IP's userpage, and if the problem behavior continues, then a better decision can be made as to whether or not a block should be issued. I've left a 4im-level warning, as this seems to be the user's primary mode of communicating even useful things on Talk pages, and that kind of bullshit should be nipped in the bud. A second opinion is welcome. [EDIT:] The two IPs seem to be the same person in the Solomon Islands; the first is his or her current IP, the second seems to no longer be assigned to the user. --Dynaflow babble 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Run of the mill trolling from the looks of it. They've been warned. If it continues, report it to WP:AIV. Otherwise, just ignore the individual.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your decisive and quick actions. If it continues I will speak with one of you again. Navnløs 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam Only Account

Special:Contributions/Sarah_stallwood. Looks like this user only contribs have been trying to get her company their own page. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems she is working through the New Article Creation page. I see no harm at this point as she has not actually created a mainspace article yet. It is unclear to me that the article would be spam if properly written although that remains to be seen. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

People with a COI are encouraged to use the New-Article-Request page to have an article written. It's better to be able to work with them then try to fight them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be nice if somebody actually told her on her Talk page what the problem is. Corvus cornix 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see that User:Bfigura has done that. Corvus cornix 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be especially nice to COI editors who try to comply with policy by disclosing their interest and working with the community via talk pages, WikiProjects and the new article request page. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Hopefully the autobio warning wasn't too bitey. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue I'd have with the template warning is that it doesn't quite "fit". It essentially urges this user to not do something they're already not doing, and to do something they are already doing... some hand crafted text afterwards acknowledging that they are indeed complying with the guidelines and thanking them for that might have been a good add on. As for the article decline... I don't know that page's norms very well but the topic seems notable enough. The material this user provided would form a good basis for research into the topic, but there was enough there already for a stub. Is the way that page works that we expect requestors to write fully and correctly formed articles, or just to request that a volunteer do so? I thought the latter although WP:AFC isn't precise on the point. That's not to say that if no volunteer wants to that someone has a right to an article. I strongly agree with Jehochman about this, let's encourage good behaviour so over time we get more of it, and this user's behaviour is far better than most SPAs... ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Penn State Professors

It looks like we've got a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations. They've been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days. I don't think it's appropriate to delete them out of hand, but I'm wondering, should I list them in a single AfD or nominate them individually? Asterisk indicates already nominated(*) by me or others. Other editors have flagged some of these for notability. Here's the list:

• Christopher Hoadley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Society of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian K. Smith‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Conference of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prasenjit Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John W. Bagby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steve B. Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guoray Cai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John M. Carroll (information scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dongwon Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carleen Maitland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Madhu Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frank Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary Beth Rosson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James Z. Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John Yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rklawton 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added additional links that may be useful. --Ali'i 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd list them individually and note possible COI and votestacking as it occurs (and reviewing the existing AFDs I think it will).--Isotope23 ^talk 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree; professors at the same university could very easily have wildly varying merits towards notability. Unlike, say, several people whose only possible claim to such is being in the same band. Someguy1221 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the others, but Jack Carroll (John M. Carroll (information scientist)) is very well known and widely cited in the related fields of HCI and technical writing (would that he was paid more attention), an article for whom was on my to-do list. The user who contributed that (Bobdoyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) did a bunch of work in technical-writing related articles (not Carroll-centric, as far as I can see) and I don't think had anything to do with the other Penn profs. So, to the extent that there is or may be the pro-Penn-push you describe, I don't believe the Carroll article is related. So to answer your actual question - nominate individually. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On checking the contrib histories of many of the very recently submitted articles most (not Carroll or John Yen) were submitted by users who only worked on that one article. This looks like a classic class assignment scenario. Rklawton: do you have any actual evidence, bar your own supposition, that this isn't over-eager students but rather "a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations" as you claim? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some. If you check Mitra's AfD page, you'll see one of his peers defending his article. He also created the Society article. However, you raise a good point. Some of the newly created accounts look more like student accounts. I didn't check to see if any of these were copy/paste jobs from the PSU website, but they might be. Rklawton 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The wild assertion that PSU professors have "been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days" clearly lacks any sound evidence (beyond the single case) as McWalter accurately points out. Regarding the multiple entries: as a commenter noted on the James Z. Wang board "Articles should not be removed because they were created by interested parties, they should be deleted because they are non-notable, and I think this guy is notable enough". I wrote the initial draft of the John Bagby article and am merely an interested student in his work - the claim of a rampant self-serving wikipedia rush by PSU professors is a bit premature. treypsu 00:06, 30 October (UTC)

I have examined many of the articles, --not all--and the ones I have examined are clearly written to a formula. A paragraph about their prior degrees and schools, which is fine, a rather gushy paragraph about their work, which needs removal of adjectives, a list of the most important journal titles they have contributed to, which is not customary content here, references to some important papers and books, which would certainly be fine if it a/did not contain too many papers, b/ was not repeated several times in the article, a mention of some that are very highly cited, also fine, except they do not give a source for this (the usual one of course is web of Science) then a list of usually non-notable awards, and finally some external links miscalled references. The wording is very similar in detail for at least some of the articles. I assume it is a specific project. I assume this in particular because they are not PSU profs in general, but rather all or almost all from the school of information science --Some of them have made comments to me, and I have replied as you can see by my comments on my talk page. I decline to judge whether it is one person editing under multiple names, or a coordinated effort.

As mentioned above, some are unquestionably notable , and even the associate professors are some of them very probably notable, so I don't think immediate AFDs are in order. There is after all no rule against COI--though when it occurs to this extent it is certainly a nuisance straightening it out. I have the name of the public relations people at the College there, and I intend to speak to them tomorrow directly to explain why this approach was not a good idea. I have done this for several academic departments and schools within universities already, and gotten good results about 2/3 of the time. (I think I know how to get their attention effectively) My approach to this is based on Durova's, as taught to me by her splendid WP:BFAQ. Perhaps we should try doing a somewhat more specialized one, as this sort of situation recurrs every month or two. . I'll report back here after I speak to people at the college tomorrow. DGG (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very useful approach. Rklawton 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ is indeed fine (mentioned again so it's linked :) ... Say DGG, would you consider writing up your approach, and what you do that seems to work well? Possibly with some sample letters? We have boilerplate letters for other things (notably asking for permissions) which are helpful.. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Where these are coming from: Just found this page. The posts are all students in my class--I asked them to find notable people in information sciences and write them up, with links to relevant disciplines, theories, concepts, and key software (such as citeseer) and was planning to assign additional posts to work on key theories and concepts in information sciences. There is no marketing agenda here, and the students are selecting the topics of their bios. They were due Monday, and students are required to make comments on each others' postings and try to improve them. I'm open to whatever people think will improve the situation, but honestly I have to say I'm pretty floored by this discussion. The intent was to get students involved in building out what is a weak area in wikipedia, try to do substantive linking among the theories and disciplines that constitute ischools where they would have to learn something, and to get feedback from the world and not just me or one or two peers. Personally, I don't think all their pages are particularly good but they seem like honest first attempts and was looking forward to improving them. Instead, I get the impression that some people think COI means you can never write about institutions, people, or ideas you know well, or else you're presumed to have an agenda, that people assume the worst possible motives, and that recruiting people to contribute to wikipedia and debate each others' articles is likely to be labelled votestacking. I had all of them read the About, the Contributing to Wikipedia article, First steps article, New contributors help page article, and What wikipedia is not, plus three articles I thought would be useful models: Barry Wellman, Don Norman, and Bonnie Nardi (i.e., dozens of pages of material as prepwork.) I'm not a wikipedia longtimer or regular contributor, and so perhaps these were not the ideal pages to suggest, but if the goal is to recruit content creators, things have to be simpler (or at least more cordial). I'm late for class now, and may not be able to log in until tomorrow, but suggestions are welcomed. Worst case, I'll have them blank all the pages and we'll take our coursework elsewhere, but I thought this was going to be win-win. So much for 'be bold'. Cmhoadley 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone meant to accuse you or your students of anything; the sudden appearance of so many articles, all from Penn State and all about PSU-related topics, just seemed like a sudden attempt at self-promotion from members of the faculty. While I'm not an admin, nor do I even claim to be anywhere NEAR fully up to date on Wiki policies, I don't believe there's a major problem here. However, perhaps you should recommend that your students create Wikipedia accounts (if they don't already have them) and that each one should create and edit his article in his account's User: space instead of Wikipedia mainspace? From what I've seen, developing a prototype of a new article and getting it up to the basic Wiki standards is considered an appropriate use of User: space. (It also, if you give a similar assignment to another class in the future, probably result in far less chance of overreaction on the part of other Wiki users who see the sudden arrival of all the new pages.) Rdfox 76 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more visibility is needed for Wikipedia:School and university projects. There also is a template for marking articles. (SEWilco 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

If these are to be nominated, I strongly discourage a mass nomination; some of these guys may prove out to be notable despite the formulaic drafts now there. Mass nominations usually end with no consensus because those who comment do not often differentiate among the various articles at issue. Try them separately if you're inclined to go that route. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Need semiprotection

Resolved

There are several vandals going after the Cro-Magnon article this afternoon, from different IP addresses. Seems like a coordinated attack -- a group of kids having a good time. Would be great if it could be semiprotected. I don't have time to watch over the article. Thanks! TimidGuy 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - main culprit now blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over user name

Resolved

 – Crisis averted. --Haemo 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an editor wants to delete a user account that is using his real name per WP:VANISH, but others are objecting to it (see here). Thanks Taprobanus 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we keep it in the category, but remove the notice? Would that work? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is the rationale for removing the notice. That account was a confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinetely. So that notice, in all relevance, must stay there. WP:VANISH doesn't support removing indef block templates.

Please refer Right_to_vanish meta wiki page. It clearly states,

In particular, if a user abuses their Right to Vanish, then it may be declined on a future occasion. In some cases (typically when a person with a history of misconduct or blocks also has a legitimate request), a connection may remain back to the old name, for administrative use only.

I hope this clarifies. Moreover, unless the user discloses that is real name, no one would know that fact. User:Wiki Raja did not have to disclose this information. It was unnecessary, and using that as the route to remove his sockpuppet page is not acceptable. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense now, cheers - on second thoughts, the policy is quite clear on the matter - all the same, I'd bring it here rather than reverting any more, just to make it legit and final. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to fix to; one can just delete the talk page, and the user page, then re-create the userpage with the template. His identity is protected, but everyone still knows which sockpuppet he used. --Haemo 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can some admin bring this into action? Already an IP has started again the reverting the user page. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP was me. I was using IE instead of Firefox and did not see that it was not signed on. Though it automatically logs in. Watchdogb 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, looks like this dispute is fini. --Haemo 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this dispute is not finished. This is a breech on my privacy by having my name floating around Wikipedia for other editors to abuse! Wiki Raja 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about policy

Resolved

 – User banninated. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is protected so that it can only be edited by admins, the template {{editprotected}} signals a request for an edit to be made. I made such a request at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Attribution, and my request is extremely simple: it requests that some editorial comments be attributed so as not to be confused with the views of the subject, as it says at WP:RS -- "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." However, two editors are resisting the attribution for what I believe can only be called POV reasons.

My question is this: can one admin simply say, sorry, no edit, and then remove the template? This was done by AuburnPilot [27]. Particularly when it has to do with a Wikipedia policy (and we might as well add BLP to the mix in this case,) I think that the template should remain so that other admins can have a look at it. --Masai warrior 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected due to four years of edit warring. Unless there's an uncontested formatting or linking error we should avoid making changes to it. In this case, you proposed a contentious change that had been the topic of lengthy discussion and edit warring. An uninvolved admin looked over the proposal and turned it down. This request is a case of forum shopping. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When commenting, Will, you ought to identify yourself as one of the two editors who is disputing the attribution, i.e., one of the edit warriors. The other one being Dking/Dennis King, who is citing himself (without attribution) and pushing his POV. --Masai warrior 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will has been protecting Wikipedia from long-term abuse by LaRouche fanatics and antifanatics alike. Your contribution history has fewer than 100 mainspace contributions and is pretty much restricted to LaRouche subjects. Single purpose LaRouche accounts may be banned on sight. I have resolved this issue using the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have experience with User:Neutralizer?

Resolved

It looks like there might be quite a backstory with User:Neutralizer. If there's anybody around who knows that story, could you take a quick look at User talk:Rayne870, and let me know whether I'm trying to help an innocent newbie who's caught in an autoblock and can't figure out their way out, or if my chain is being yanked? Thanks. --barneca (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. Neutralizer is a banned vandal fixated on smearing Michael Ignatieff and harassing me, User:Strothra and anyone else who gets in his way by trying to stop him vandalising the Michael Ignatieff article. Last year, under the agreement that we would not report him to his ISP for abuse, he agreed to stop evading his ban and go away quietly. In July, after Daniel and I were renamed, Neutralizer thought that we had actually left, and he decided that meant he could now return and he began editing the MI article again, leading to this AN complaint. I posted on the talk page that we were still here, only renamed and that he was still bound by the community ban, he seemed to disappear again. But he returned recently, using a European IP for a short while and when he was very quickly identified and the "but I can't Neutralizer, my IP is in Europe" defence didn't work, he resumed using his own ISP (Bell Sympatico). After using a variety of socks to troll AFD and DRV and recommencing his trolling, harassment and stalking, I reblocked the ranges that Essjay had previously identified and blocked as the Bell Sympatico IPs he has recently used all fell within the same ranges. It's hard to tell from those few edits on his talk page, but I don't think Rayne fellow is Neutralizer. If he is, though, he will be very easy to pick very quickly. I'll keep an eye on this fellow but I don't think you're being trolled there or having your chain yanked. There is an old SSP here but unfortunately it is very incomplete and out-of-date. Cheers, Sarah 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sarah. Looks like you've talked to them after I called it a night, and they're able to edit. --barneca (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics rule (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I've just blocked Politics rule for a week for abusive sockpuppetry. He opposed Hdt83's RfA at 15.21, 29 October 2007, shortly followed by Hi264 [28] - and now they are caught in the same autoblock. Seems clear cut to me.... Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And after being caught out, he's just left [29] which makes it even more clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User block was changed to indefinite by John Reaves for the same reason. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:55, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

So MSJapan was on the right track in suspecting disruption at his RfA after all. Too bad it didn't get caught sooner. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it my block of Hi264 that set up the autoblock? I had a feeling something weird would happen if I made that block... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was actually. I'm just a little shocked that Politics rules was silly enough to actually post the autoblock unblock request. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MOASPN‎

Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked MOASPN (talk · contribs) indef for abusive sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser. She beat me by a few seconds by blocking. The main issue is that he said that he was an altenive account of someone, and some of the IPs in the checkuser were shared. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Throwawayarb for the confirmed socks. Thanks Jbeach ^sup 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who is Throwawayarb a puppet of? SchmuckyTheCat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, October 30, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no checkuser connection was found to any earlier accounts; ThrowawayArb was the earliest the CUs were able to trace back (likely due to checkuser data going stale after 30 days). While it seems very clear that Throwawayarb is a repeat offender, unfortunately we're not quite sure who at this point. :/ --krimpet⟲ 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What was the nature of the abuse? The user didn't hide that he was User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What they didn't mention, however, is that they trolled the Attack sites RfAR as CManW and Throwawayarb, not to mention any prior accounts they may have used before the checkuser data went stale. --krimpet⟲ 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the diffs you listed what MOASPN was blocked for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that these usernames were kind of intended to mimic / mock / annoy me, El_C previously blocked User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings on this basis. Privatemusings 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad usernames are a reason to block the usernames, not the user. Regarding the diffs that Krimpet lists, in one the user quotes a site that everyone insists is not an attack site,[30] and in the other he admits to using a sock account in order to make what might be a controversial proposal. Are quoting a non-attack site or using a sock to make a proposal sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban without warning? If so I don't think those standards are properly reflected in the current policy pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, I suspect the fundamental reason was "user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia". This has precedent of course. Privatemusings 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good reason but I'm not sure that all editors know that using a sock puppet to make controversial proposals and link to non-attacks sites without making useful mainspace edits is considered sufficient cause for an indefinite block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Making edits to a heated arbitration case followed by a trollish comment about being a "throwaway account" on a "stolen wide-open hotspot that is miles from where I live. Block me forever!" is fairly clearly trolling behavior. And comments like this — where the sockpuppet actually addressed one of the participants in the dispute by their full name, and POINTedly linked to one of the alleged attack sites, all on the same RfAR — would never have been tolerated on a user's main account. It seems clear that the person behind these sockpuppets has been using them to troll discussions they were already involved in while avoiding flak on their good-hand main account. --krimpet⟲ 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) There are ways and means of doing this. If someone is open with the arbs about who they are and why they don't want to drag their main account into a cesspit RFAR then I think that's perfectly fair. I don't think that's what happened here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"shoot on sight" comment by IP

Resolved

Regarding the "shoot on sight" comment added by User talk:76.215.211.136, is there a way of tracking this IP to see if it maps to a named-user account? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that CheckUser or something? --wj32 ^t/c 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU Mercury 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But to be honest I don't think that is concerning enough to warrant a RFCU. (if he continues, just ask for the IP to be hardblocked since it doesn't seem to be shared) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Publishing of IP address and possible stalking.

Resolved

 – Generic rouge admin abuse, user was caught bang to rights. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I am here to report One Nighht In Hackney. This is a serious issue as the IP address used by myslef has been publishe don a talk page. This is what I cponsider stalking as the user just seems to like to have a dig and cause undue stress to myself. I have not in the instance provoked the user in anyway. Pl;ease could something be done as the publishing of an IP address of a user is serious in my opinion.The comments can be sen near the bottom [31].--Lucy-marie 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not much to see here, except me pointing out the abusive sockpuppetry by Lucy-marie on discussions on the page in question, something she has been recently blocked for. I was asked here to see if there were any more socks in her drawer, so the stalking claim is without merit. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its your own fault if you log out to edit and pretend its not you, then someone puts two and two together and gets four, Lucy. --Deskana (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer the issue this is a form of stalking. It is not that the user puiblished the IP address it is where the user published the address. If you read where it is published then it is highly inapropriate. just take a look at where it is published.[32]--Lucy-marie 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page which you logged out to try to influence? Like I said, if you choose to log out to edit abusively, then this will happen. --Deskana (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you now accusing me of malitiously editing a page? I have not edited that page for a long time the last edit I made was in the meditaion section. The publishing of the IP address in a completly unrelated section of the talk page is inapropriate and unecessary and is in my opinion a form of stalking. If i had continuosly edited using just an IP which I do not use and deny using an IP to edit on that page. It would be justified but this is just a way of the user scoring points because they have nothing better to do. Also could you please pass an interpritation on the Talk:The Cool Wall talk page. --Lucy-marie 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs aren't secret. If you use yours to try to avoid taking responsibility for your contributions, this will happen. Maybe you should take full responsibility for your edits in the future. It isn't stalking for users to object to your presenting yourself as two people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the evidence, by the way, from ONIH's talk. All circumstantial, but good enough for a working hypothesis and certainly good enough to see of any claim of abuse.

similar arguments on the BNP talk page, such as this, this, this, this and this. The IPs limited contributions also overlap with Lucy-marie on various articles as well - Lancing College, Template:G8 nations‎, Rounders, Declaration and forfeiture, Eurozone, Murder of Amanda Dowler - can you hear quacking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those edits aren't mine and a check user on my current IP will confirm that.--Lucy-marie 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, while it's not your current IP, it obviously was your IP at the time of those contributions. You do have a distressing habit of logging out to say things you don't want to have definitively linked to you. Kindly cease. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Refiling

Resolved

 – As Guy said above, user was caught using an IP to further an argument (very close to sockpuppeting), and there's no case to be answered here. SirFozzie 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Issue not resolved the Issue still stands that ONIH is stalking me and the evidence is based upon the inapropriate place at which a supposed IP that I use was placed. It was placed on the British national party talk page. In a section I had not edited and the talk page which I had not edited for some time. I would like some action taken to remove this harassing and abusive stalker from me. The section can be found here [33].--Lucy-marie 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring by Hxseek

Hxseek for the past month or so has been edit warring against consensus on the following articles: Macedonians (ethnic group) (12 reverts in the last week) and Macedonia naming dispute (7 reverts in the last week). Nationalist language has generally been used. When dialog was attempted on the talk page the user responded with personal attacks. ForeignerFromTheEast 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected early this morning. --Chris (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in a number of attempts to reduce Hxseek's habits of edit warring and making personal attacks, going back to his account creation. While his behavior has improved in that he is no longer using sockpuppets to edit-war, little else has changed. I see very little improvement in his behavior. I don't see article protection as a solution to these long-running problems. --Ronz 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation involving Hxseek will most likely have to be investigated in the context of the next big ethnic-warfare Arbcom case, which I see soon ahead, and which most certainly will also take a deep look at ForeignerFromTheEast and several others. As for you, Ronz, you have done absolutely nothing constructive with respect to the dispute in question; all I can see in your involvement with Hxseek is a stalking campaign, for which I am quite willing to block you the next time I see you jumping on a bandwagon like you did here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the sockpuppetry allegation against Hxseek mentioned by Ronz above is bogus, and Ronz ought to know better. He once managed to get Hxseek blocked through a spurious SSP report; explanations here and here. Repeating this old canard here now is little more than a devious attempt at character assassination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you indeed FuturePerf for you just actions, and I have to admit I was getting rather annoying with his continuous 'warnings' against me, reverting even most straight-forward and uncontroversial contributions. But that matters not

The new issue I have been concerned with is the Ethnic Macedonians article, and Macedonia dispute.

I have attempted several times to reach the editors of the article about mediating and moderating their contributions. THe editors I am referring to are Jingiby, Laveol, and ForeignerFromThe east. Now I don;t want to offent these chaps, are accuse them of abnything, but I cannot suspect that they seem to be 'hijacking' the Ethnic macedonians articl, especially the history and Identities section. They seem intent on useing the 'identities' section on venting their ideas that 'Macedonians are Bulgarians'. I did not delete these notions, in fact I validated their opinions. Its just that they literally are occupying the entire article with this obsession of theirs. I have tried reasoning with them that, yes , it is worth mentioning that historically many considered Macedonians as Bulgarians, the 'identities' section should focus on what makes Macedonians Macedonian. Instead they clutter the article with endless 'facts' , quotes, etc etc trying to prove their point, often very poorly written as obviously they are non-English natives. My plea to curb their agenda seems to be falling on deaf ears. In fact, they accuse me of being a nationalist ? ? Makes no sense to me. Hxseek 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Yiwentang

Resolved

Last night during new page patrolling I issued a CSD notice on article Drakecircus. It's author then set off on a campaign of deleting CSD tags, deleting page content on The Hamsters, Spudulike leaving fake CSD notices on User talk:Bhadani/Contributions?, The Hamsters, replacing links on Almas Jewellers with a link to a different company. He's also made a legal threat in response to an image he uploaded being deleted. After the Drakecircus page was finally redirected to an existing article he proceeded to delete virtuall a whole article of the original deletion of Drake Circus Shopping Centre article. I've chosen to produce the evidence here as the case is more one of disruption than out an out vandalism. Incidentally I have placed a series of warnings on his talk page. Additionally some of these edits were done under his anon IP of 81.132.100.115

I've cleaned up most of the mess he's left but as he's just come back online I don't know how long the clean-up will last.I'd like to recommend that administrative action be taken sooner rather than later to stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. ---- WebHamster 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoary has applied a 24-hour block and I've left a message for the user. --Chris (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did miss a second legal threat he'd left on the Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre page, but as he's getting a cool down period I don't think it matters. Cheers. It makes new page patrolling so worthwhile :) ---- WebHamster 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He certainly is tired and emotional, isn't he? His IP number has won itself a matching vacation. -- Hoary 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<poltergeist>He's baaaaacccckkkk </poltergeist> - This time as User:84.45.220.163 wreaking more havoc on the Drake Circus Shopping Centre. I've reverted it, but he doesn't seem to want to calm down! ---- WebHamster 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this may not be resolved. There's either a sock or meat puppet on the scene now, to whit User:Curatorpccgovuk, who's making similar but non-destructive edits. Presumably it's too early in the scenario to put a semi-protect on it but could an administrator please monitor the going's on in this obviously controversial shopping centre?! ---- WebHamster 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also there's the IP 86.136.168.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who seems to have an axe to grind about this. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading between the lines it's looking like half of Plymouth Uni are going to get in on the action. It would appear that there may been some stirring up of trouble off-wiki. Maybe it should be semi-protected for a week or so just till the novelty wears off? ---- WebHamster 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems to have tapered off for now, it doesn't seem an issue. If it picks up it'll be a good idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Requested. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More User:Grawp fun

Moved to WP:AN#More User:Grawp fun, which is a more appropriate place and where I meant to post it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious vandalism over Shane Ruttle Martinez

Resolved

 – WP:SPA blocked Guy (Help!) 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted an advisory about the article Shane Ruttle Martinez on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. User:UnionPride who, along with User:Frank Pais and User:SuperVideoGameKid "own" the article vandalized my entry int he following manner [34] by rewriting my post so that it was about a completely different article! These three users have been working in tandem to revert any changes to the article Shane Ruttle Martinez even though the article is filled with vanity phrases and unsourced or poorly sourced claims. UnionPride has also attacked me by accusing me of being a "fascist" because I've edited his article. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez. Cheap Laffs 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Main page talk page

Resolved

 – - Trolling removed. User warned.

Can someone monitor the person who put the "inappropriate" message at the bottom of the above today? Jackiespeel 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main page gets a lot of vandalism - could you provide a diff or a username/IP so we know who specifically? Mr.Z-man 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops...I forgot to come back and leave a note. I'm assuming he was talking about this edit by Jheckman51 (talk · contribs). I removed the section and left a vandal1 template on his page. Don't think there's anything here that requires more special treatment of any kind. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given a little stronger warning for that, but I agree, nothing out of the ordinary has to be done. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture

Resolved

Things are getting a bit hot over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture There is an individual, User:WAS 4.250, who started quite a discussion over there, and is now threatening me and claiming that my addition of a link to Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls was a personal attack. Judging by the talk page of this individual, as well as their edits to this discussion page, there is a need for a babysitter for a bit. Now, having reported, I am going to take my own advice. Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• WAS is right, nobody owns that page. Nor do I see any actual trolling there. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Furthermore, you shouldn't throw a policy, especially trolling policies, towards users who have shown no reason not to assume good faith with. 68.143.88.2 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you do have a tendency to try and own articles. Especially horse related ones. 68.143.88.2 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking simply that administrators begin to babysit the discussion over there. I think it's needed. The work in that project was started by Doug, and I do not tnink Doug is guilty of "ownership." Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an admin "babysitter" is going to be helpful there, and really that isn't part of the job description. What is needed is for everyone there to take a deep breath, assume a little good faith, and check up dispute resolution if you can't all work together calmly.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Both of you guys need to calm down. There was no original personal attack, and WAS seemed to overreact. The report to AIV by montana was taking that too far though, another overreaction. It's a semi-petty dispute that was blown way out of proportion. Montanabw, whether it was a personal attack, just stop posting everywhere about it. WAS, the mass-reverting of him isn't helping matters either. Wizardman 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  On second thought, now that I see montana's been browsing through admins and complaining in the past hour, whereas WAS has stopped editing and not been a bother, the overreaction is leaning a lot more towards his corner now, I ask him especially to calm down and stop. Wizardman 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will just calm down now because there are people monitoring the situation, but do note This, not my edit, someone else's. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That particular blanking is acceptable under Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I know it's only an essay but it's generally accepted. So long as he doesn't blank anything else and you're calm, then this will solve itself. Wizardman 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Montanabw recruted User:Warlordjohncarter who did the actual templating which only made the situation worse. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I just want out of this. It all started here Please, this is all that I originally did. I didn't even name the person, and if that was a problem, I do apologize, but heavens, I have never been attacked like this or so seriously misunderstood! Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there was a very minor dispute that was badly blown out of proportion by multiple editors. I trust you Montanabw have learned something about forum shopping and making mountains out of molehills, John Carter has hopefully learned not to template the regulars and warn over removals, and maybe WAS 4.250 will be a bit less sensitive about these sorts of accusations. I'd suggest you all put this behind you and move on to article editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Montanabw, also please be aware that regular contributors will tend to come across comments on user pages. Sections like User_talk:Warlordjohncarter#We have a troll are inflammatory. You do not have a troll, you have someone who was working on across a set of articles, which this project has sought to take ownership of and WAS has responded with some (minor) observations. You have presumed that an edit is uncivil, when normal Wikipedia policy is that everything, including policy pages, are up for anyone to edit. In that context, perhaps it is the project that should be accused of incivility. WAS is likely to be a great ally to the project, but not if he is ostracised before the project even makes any progress. In short, deal with the content, not the people. Spenny 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, montanabw. The original edit shouldn't have been removed, keep in mind though that that may have been a missed edit conflict by the system. (I've done that before and had people ask why I reverted them when I didn't) It shouldn't have Snowball'd as far as it did. Just stop asking around for help, it's being taken care of. Warlordjohncarter adding the template did make this more of a problem though. I'll keep on eye on your guys' edits for a little while, it should be diffused now. Wizardman 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved as there is nothing further requiring admin attention at this time.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

posting scams on wikipedia

i don't know if this is the right place to report this but some editor posted this - a chain-letter scam. isn't this illegal? what do we do about this kind of thing? can someone report him to the authorities? Law & Disorder 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for our purposes, it's just vandalism, and since we don't even know who or where the editor is, I'm not sure which 'authorities' we could contact. But there were home addresses included, so I deleted the revisions that contained the information. I don't know if this is the sort of thing that needs to be oversighted or not. I'll also put a warning on his talk page, just in case he ever comes back. -- Vary | Talk 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, User:Michaelbusch beat me to the talk page warning. -- Vary | Talk 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a flashback... "Post this on at least 200 Newsgroups" I can't believe that same post is still going around. I have not seen that in probably 10-15 years.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think oversighting the addresses are necessary; these "Make Money Fast" things have been floating around the 'Net for years with addresses attached (some of which may even be real), & nothing has ever come of those attachments -- just some potential humiliation over a scam that doesn't work. (See Ponzi, recent Albanian history, Dave Rhodes, etc.) -- llywrch 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives

The house has been doing some COI edits to Blue Dog Coalition lately, see Special:Contributions/143.231.249.141. As this is an relatively sensitive ip-address, actions against this ip can have major implications, so I need more input on what should be done. Warnings seems to be without result, but would a block be better or worse? _→AzaToth 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The workday there is over. Let's see if problems continue tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing Wikipedia and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Wikipedia. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?

With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not. A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests. Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article. It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point. I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected. He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author. The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC [[35]]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki[[36]]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave [[37]]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism [[38]], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking[[39]]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.

I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil. The ArbCom knows. I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do. So, would you be willing to change your editing style? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator [[40]]group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.

As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA [[41]]. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.

So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture [[42]]. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam [[43]]. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki [[44]]. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.[[45]] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass copyvio deletion needed

It appears that all the images uploaded by Roadcrusher3 are copyvios, some with incorrect licenses. Please deal with this; thank you. --NE2 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and deleted the blatant copyvios and incorrectly licensed images, the rest are tagged for lack of sourcing. A couple were properly tagged though, so I think the uploader has a rudimentary understanding of image policy and could contribute productively with a little guidance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

__NOTOC__

I'm just looking for a few thoughts, on several Family Guy articles, the __NOTOC__ is on the article, upon removal of this during an expansion I'm performing to Mother Tucker and the now finished Blind Ambition, it is being repeatedly readded, would it be possible to get some opinions on whether it is worth removing it just to re-add it again as they user says he will if the article becomes long enough? I've discussed it with the user, but we can't reach an agreement. I intentionally have not named names. Qst 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article should always have a Table of Content. A ToC is there to provide in-article navigation and gives you a quick overview of what is in the article. NOTOC should only be used when a ToC is really in the way, or when a customized ToC template is being used. The ToC only appears on articles automatically if there are three or more sections, so having NOTOC on a short page is pointless anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am part of this situation and the TOC on these pages seems unneccessary. It shouldn't just be a general decision to use TOC or not, but instead really needs to be a case by case basis. Most of the pages are small enough that they would fit on one screen for an average size monitor. Adding the TOC just adds clutter from everything thats already visable, plus it actual requires more work to see the whole page. Also, most of these shows currently don't have more than two or so categories so the TOC isn't really warranted in those cases either. Im all for adding a TOC when the page becomes complex and having the TOC in place is efficient and time saving. In those particular situations the TOC could be added, I just dont think it should be made standard for all these articles from the get go. the NOTOC option helps keep the presentation simple and helps present the information often in a more appealing matter. So it should be a case by case basis if it should be inserted or not, but in most cases with these small articles its currently unnecessary and actually makes the page more work to read and navigate. Grande13

im saying that most of the articles that are in question here either have things that could be combined in multiple categories to keep it under the 3 min to prevent the TOC, or that a majority of the sections, such as references, only contain one link or so, and take up only a small fraction of the page. Grande13 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason why the NOTOC word should ever be used on an article. In this case, both articles mentioned above are 7 or 8 pages long on my laptop monitor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

thats because those two are the first in a long process of being redone. The majority of the other articles are much smaller in sizeGrande13 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sysop protection: Jess Margera

Can someone please correct this? I removed unsourced WP:BLP information from the Jess Margera article today. Someone reverted and reinserted the content. THAT SAME PERSON then proceeded to fully protect the article from changes. Content disputes aside, I'm pretty sure that's a problem. Burntsauce 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what the admin did. Yes the content needs referencing , but it is entirely mundane content.BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [should be removed]" A quick look at the internet movie database confirmed that the content was likely accurate. I don't know why you removed it in the first place! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb has been proven not to be a reliable source Theresa. It is contributed by users, just like Wikipedia, and generally not vetted by a third party. I thought this was common knowledge. The material is very much contentious and remains to be WITHOUT A FUCKING RELIABLE SOURCE. Burntsauce 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like you're making it contentious by getting all hot and bothered by it. Is he not related to the people it says he's related to? Did he not announce something about a side project? This is not exactly an Armenian Genocide level of contentiousness - it's a band member. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) You do know that BLP policy was formed to prevent harm to living people! I am aware that the IMDB is not a reliable source. Hence the world "likely" but contentios does not mean something that you disagree with, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Theresa sums up my position. Nothing to see here. A quick look at this user's talk page shows a tendency to cause disruptions to make a point. — Ocatecir^T 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! what drama. I suppose the issue is resolved now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd time to quit, he's currently a party in an arbitration case. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud! I mean, seriously, WP:BLP clearly doesn't apply here, however this is still bad behavior on the part of the admin in question. We shouldn't we editing articles and them protecting them immediately afterward. This make good-faith editors who don't happen to be admins REALLY PISSED OFF, and rightly so. It's clearly against policy and for good reason. This is not what article protection is for. Someone should ask User:Ocatecir to unprotect; I would, but I'm at work and my break is over. ➪HiDrNick! 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone ought to remind User:Kscottbailey to not troll in situations like this. That's an experienced editor throwing acetone on the Mapp torch, that ought to be an autoblock for 24 to prevent him from agitating more. He knows better, and removed Theresa's apology note. ThuranX 22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DoneTheresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Kscottbailey for 24 hours for disruption and trolling. He had been blocked for harassment only 2 weeks ago. Crum375 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Reasons on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the parties involved, the irony on this one is so thick you couldn't cut it with a machete. SirFozzie 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the removals, I agree that the admin should not have protected the page. I suspect that Burntsauce is upset because he and his friend Alkivar is getting criticized over similar behavior at ArbCom. We should be consistent. You do not use admin tools to get your way in a content dispute. -Chunky Rice 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the irony part I was referring to above. Agreed that this is.. well.. not a bad use of the tools, but at least a pretty grey area. SirFozzie 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a content dispute. Burntsauce was trying to use BLP to remove most of an article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many interpertations, and although Burntsauce and I have had a run in about this, I will try to hunt down the last time this happened, where he was told that he was exactly right in his interpertation, especially as it pertained to BLP. In this, he may be acting in good faith. More later when I find it. SirFozzie 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section I can find after a quick search. The policy, as interpreted by the folks who post at The Biography of Living People's Talk Page seemed to be quite clear.. that if it's an article about a living person, and a statement that is unsourced is removed, then before it's re-added, it needs to be sourced. I'm not sure 100% I agree with it (It is better then trying to get a definition of what's "contentious"), but there it is. Burntsauce is working on the policy as it's been explained to him. SirFozzie 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and given the history, I kind of agree. However, this is also the main argument being presented at ArbCom - It wasn't a content dispute, I was just enforcing policy regarding content. To me that's a pretty thin line to walk. -Chunky Rice 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, it's best that an administrator not edit a page then immediately protect it, or in fact take any administrative actions regarding a content dispute they're involved in - even if the content dispute is as simple as reverting what looks like a contentious deletion. That is indeed one of the claims involved in the Alkivar arbitration, in which Burntsauce is heavily involved. I was actually blocked on a 1RR for restoring similar content that Burntsauce had deleted by an administrator who took Burntsauce's side, hence my restoring the content and not Burntsauce's deletion was a behavior issue. If it's a content issue, it's a content issue on both sides, both the deletion and the restoring. If we turn it into a behavior issue (other than edit warring), we behavioralize every edit someone wants to make if they can point to a content policy on the subject. Anyway, to avoid these grey areas and claims of irony/hypocrisy it's best to: (1) Warn Burntsauce for contentious editing, (2) ask another uninvolved admin to look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, and/or (3) be patient and work it out on the talk page. Burntsauce indeed said he quit [46] and is up for indefinite blocking in the Alkivar case here. For what it's worth, I think User:Kscottbailey is making a personal attack on Burntsauce more than trolling, but that's a technical distinction and either way it's inappropriate. Even so, blocking Kscottbailey without notice seems quite harsh, except that the admin who did so apparently has seen some history with this user's misbehavior so I trust his/her judgment. Wikidemo 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No Burntsauce, you've just been caught. I'm so glad I submitted evidence against u and Alkivar privately for this arbitration case. You've been doing this nonsense blanking citing WP:BLP since April and you befriended an administrator willing to do the bidding of a banned editor. Guess what, it didn't work this time, did it? 68.218.183.106 (Moe Epsilon) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth the issue is raised, and I just commented, on the Arbitration workshop page. Moe, what's with the anonymous account, retiring from Wikipedia and gratuitous use of "u"? Wikidemo 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you mind your own business WikiDemo. 68.218.183.106 (Moe Epsilon) 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that in a friendly and collegial way, Moe E, but if it's a sensitive topic, sorry.Wikidemo 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

True, it is. Apology not needed, thank you anyways. 68.218.183.106 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are or are not Moe Epsilon, civility is expected of all editors. Corvus cornix 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil Corvus. 68.218.183.106 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah you were. HalfShadow 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was uncivil. ThuranX 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, like you can do anything anyways. Bug off. 68.218.183.106 04:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/201.227.214.243

This user just made a huge edit to thrash metal, removing whole sections with no reason. This contitutes vandalism and I would appreciate swift action. Navnløs 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to him. Edits look like good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I can't talk to the person since they're not there any more, apparently. And NO, the other edits that user did seem fine, but on the thrash metal page he removed WHOLE sections with no reason. Those sections happened to be backed up by fact and were correct. Navnløs 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he had a reason but didn't say what it was? Anyway if he has gone there is nothing we can do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It very well could have been unintentional. The wiki interface can be a bit confusing at first. I left a delete-caution notice (del-1) on his talk page just to be careful. If this keeps happening, then we can look at it as vandalism, but for now, assume good faith until proven otherwise. Arakunem^Talk 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will, but I can assure you that that editor knew what they were doing and did it out of bad faith. They specifically erased a few sentences talking about Megadeth, among other sections. Those people who know something about thrash will tell you that editor was obviously trying to take out important sections in thrash histoy and he was specifically targeting certain things. But nothing can be done now and it's been reverted so no harm done I guess. Navnløs 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Aliasgarengineer

This user made a complete rewrite of the Asghar Ali Engineer article. It's hard to tell if their edits were pro or anti the subject of the edits, but the claims that Mr. Engineer is anti-violence in the article prior to the edits were changed to claims that he is pro-violence. Either this really is Mr. Engineer, in which case somebody needs to make sure he understands WP:COI, or else he's using the name inappropriately, in which case he should be made to understand that he needs to choose a new User name. I have reverted the article to the way it stood prior to this User's edits, as none of the edits was sourced. Corvus cornix 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting personal attacks on user talk

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

---

Giano and Tony Sidaway are always bickering. Today, after another insult[47] by Tony, Giano called Tony a name on his talk page, which Tony had every right to remove as a personal attack. Giano keeps reverting the removal and piling on more insults. I'm not about to snitch on Giano on the 3RR because I don't want to make him more upset (plus I'm too fat and lazy to put a complaint together with all the diffs). But it's really not cool for him to keep prodding at the wound. Friday and myself already tried to de-escalate things, but I'm dealing with some really stubborn people. Can someone help? I know I shouldn't care, but sometimes I fear all this vitriol will degenerate into something worse; I actually admire both the editors involved, when they're not behaving like children. Most of the drama is contained in Tony's user talk page history.[48]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to de-escalate this is avoid getting involved especially with patronizing messages at the talk pages of the involved users. Tony have set it off [49] in his usual offensive style and he knew what he was doing. Offended editor overreacted to the provocation and if this is allowed to settle down without eager involvement of the usual crowd of Giano-bashers, it would be best for all of us. --Irpen 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Irpen. You're not going to "snitch" (while in the act of doing so)? Dear me, what sort of age are you? Bishonen | talk 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Don't be cross with me. Apart from Tony, I haven't encountered any Giano-bashers, and I hope you don't count me among their real or imagined numbers. I'm sure the virtues of not getting involved are manifold, but I dislike the unspoken message that's okay to restore insults on somebody's talk page, regardless of whether you think the insults are deserved.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, "snitch" was a Brooklyn joke ("no snitches" culture is big here); it wasn't meant as a serious remark.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left Giano a note, hopefully it'll help him cool off, but I imagine he's so riled up right now that nothing may work. ThuranX 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Giano has not edited for quite a while, and is in fact going to bed as we speak. Why do americans have to call people "Dudes" - I shall never understand that race if I live to be 100. Giano 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to call people dudes, but life would be all the less rich if they were made to stop. I was, btw, put in my place earlier today for calling someone on Wikipedia a bloke.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and could someone lease tell Rockpocket to stop stirring the shit on my page. He's almost as tiresome as Tony. Good night all! Giano 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly anyone that doesn't agree with Giano's take on his issue du jour gets the Giano treatment - which usually involves some personal attacks, accusations of bias or, a particular favorite, admin abuse. I'm so tired of people excusing rank incivility and needless disruption from editors that should know better with "he contributes to the encyclopaedia", as if writing occasional articles permits one to act like a child when the mood suits. Guess what, thousands of people contribute to the encyclopaedia and manage to behave like adults. It really is pathetic and about time we stopped pandering to such people. Rockpocket 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

...and I am tired of reading sanctimonious claptrap from people like Rockpocket who patrol the encyclopedia picking up half a story and then feeling equipped to comment. Rockpocket is making these comments because he is unhappy with the outcome of the "Troubles RFArb" quite what he feels this has to do with this case or Tony Sidaway is beyond me but obviously he will be stalking me for some time looking for a little excitement. Well he will probably find it. Giano 07:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I love these resolve tags; who added that resolve tag?(!) Own up to your resolve tags(!) p.s. Boating prohibited. El_C 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact i was the one who archived it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Far from resolved. Rockpocket has to learn that stalking can work two ways, and what I find totally unacceptable is that while Rockpocket's friends are telling him how marvellous he is (do note that he "finds interacting with you gentlemen a civil and altogether pleasant experience") and giving him awards [50] others in the quartette to which they belong can openly refer to non-Christians and atheists as scum [51] (13 hours later after grudgingly modified [52] However, such language amongst his friends is something which does not seem top bother Rockpocket too much calling someone a "twit" is far worse in his book. It is odd that Rockpocket normally so hot on gentility and civility does not appear concerned by that. Perhaps I should start giving him awards too. Giano 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My so-called "friend" and I have exchanged words of any significance on exactly one occasion in over almost 2 years of editing (and that was in disagreement!) If thats what you consider friendship, then you and I must be best buddies. I did find that single discussion with Major Bonkers (talk · contribs) perfectly civil and I have received a few perfectly pleasant emails from Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) regarding an administrative matter too, hence my comment. I fail to see how an unsolicited message on my talk page from one editor means I am somehow responsible for not policing discussion on the talk page of someone altogether different (who I don't believe I have ever interacted with, since his talk page is not on my watch list). It is very far from odd that I am unconcerned by something I am entirely unaware of. So when you are done with the straw man arguments, and are willing to engage in discussion without resorting to name calling, I'll be happy to listen to your complaints about the behaviour of others. Towards that I suggest you A) consider your own record of incivility, B) re-read WP:3RR and C) stop casting hysterical aspersions around to cover your own policy violations. Rockpocket 08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear you do seem rather cross. Edit summaries such as this [53] "what sort of fantasy world do you live in?" are less than helpful. If you find calling a huge section of global society with non-controversial beliefs "scum" is less serious than referring to Tony Sidaway as a "twit" - then that is a matter for your own conscience. I merely point out to you that we are all less than perfect, so please stop following me around the encyclopedia offering pearls of wisdom because it is deeply irritating - go and find something more serious to stress yourself over. Giano 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try addressing the points others make, rather than the point you'd like them to make. I have made no comment on the opinion of User:Counter-revolutionary, therefore the seriousness or otherwise of his comments is but a non sequitur. I am not cross, but I do note your record of persistent incivility and edit warring [54] and am concerned that this incident demonstrates you are content to flaunt our policies at will, despite having been blocked for the same thing numerous times in the past. Please consider this a warning that such incivility will not continue to be tolerated, especially from an editor who is experienced enough to know better. Time to start playing by the rules, Giano, and not just when it suits you. I'll let you have the last word now, as I must retire for the night. Rockpocket 09:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, you are clearly very tired and overwrought. Come back tomorrow, refreshed, bright eyed and bushy tailed. Giano 09:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by initials

Resolved

 – page deleted, Tiptoety 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD has been open for over eight days and no one has added anything new in the last 48 hours - would someone mind closing it? It invlolves four different pages and having the AfD banners all over Wikipedia seems unneccessary at this stage. Sorry for the trouble. [[Guest9999 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)]]

• I have closed it. I daresay my discerning of consensus may be challenged. Sam Blacketer 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. [[Guest9999 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)]]

You split the baby! It was a well-considered decision. Wikidemo 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosprings

I have just blocked Cosprings (talk · contribs) for 24 hours after he had been warned about, being uncivil adding unreferenced material and the making personal attacks in edit summaries against editors who removed the content requesting that "he" discusses the matter on the talk pagediff. I came to the article after Sarah (talk · contribs) requested my thoughts on the issues, it while reviewing the situation that user:Cosprings blanked the article diff to make a point. I'd appreciate a review of the events by another uninvolved admin. Gnangarra 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Material that he wanted in the article was deleted as unsourced. His reaction was to delete the rest of the article. That's disruption to make a point. The length of the block seems reasonable for the behavior. Hopefully the user will return and avoid future disruptions. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user made harmful comments to myself and Sarah. He was asked to discuss the issue in the article's talk page and he refused. He said he will not hide his anger toward us if he needs to do that, incase some information of the article gets removed.--Tasc0 03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AWeidman / DPeterson - block and proposed ban

I have blocked AWeidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef and reset the ban on DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to a year (original arb ban length from Aug 30 2007), the former as a reactivated sock of a banned user, the latter as customary for ban evasion.

However based on the conduct and evidence below I would like to also test the waters on changing the ban to an indefinite one, as a community ban. If after reading the details below, anyone disagrees with this, then please feel free to discuss.

Action taken to date:

1. Both blocks double-checked and endorsed by uninvolved arb clerk Picaroon, due to own prior involvement in arb case
2. AWeidman indef blocked (sock of banned user)
3. DPeterson ban reset to 1 year (evasion)
4. Blocks noted on Arb list of blocks and bans
5. Notes left (or will be left) on AWeidman and DPeterson talk pages - done
6. This post to ANI.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The case presentation seems thoroughly researched and well documented. I've watchlisted the puppetmaster's talk page in case they post a comment. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I had hoped that Weidman would take his chance to walk away without forcing us to block the Aweidman, so we didn't have to connect his real name to the despicable activity he was engaging in via sockpuppets while that account was inactive. But, it seems he's wasted his chance. His main account, DPeterson, should be reblocked indefinitely for ban evasion. Picaroon (t) 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would oppose such a change of ban, a re-set year should be enough, SqueakBox 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  He sockpuppeted to evade a ban that should have been indefinite in the first place, 'cept the committee has decided not to do those any more. And these were not your normal sockpuppet edits; he was harassing other users he is engaged in some sort of real-world disagreement with about their taxes on Wikipedia. What part of this suggests a user who will ever be a useful, good-faith presence on Wikipedia? Picaroon (t) 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree that he should have been indef banned in the first place. He did some constructive work on the pedophilia articles and almost certainly did not use socks there (there were none there that would have been likely to be him) and I think it a shame he wasn't just banned from the attachment therapy articles where he is clearly being an agenda-driven user, SqueakBox 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  So this suggests that it is still problematic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox - he edit warred on the pedophilia articles..... using accounts RalphLender, MarkWood, DPeterson, JonesRD, and SamDavidson as abusive socks. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Scale_of_activity_elsewhere. And about 50 other articles..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fail to see why Wikipedia would need such an editor. We need to crack down on things like this, not give second chances, even if it is for more than a full year. Mr.Z-man 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Tolerance is one thing but this behaviour is persistent and documented over a long period. I'd say yes to indefinite block. Pigman^what?/trail 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Some constructive work does not justify egregious trolling or personal attacks. Almost every troll makes a few good edits, by accident, or as cover for their bad actions. If somebody is substantially disruptive, and it becomes clear that their primary purpose is disruptive, we need to ban them. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IP range block of User:Mariam83's socks?

For your information, the ip who has been disrupting a few minutes ago this noticeboard and following my edits is (are) the IPs used by indef blocked User:Mariam83 who was blocked after a long story of racist behaviour. This is the report which was done on July 2007. The socks are still disrupting. I of course use the 'deny' strategy but i cannot be sure if articles she disrupts would be immediately reverted as i am not a 24/24 guardian. Do you have any other idea on how to deal w/ this IPs? I alerady sent an abuse complaint to their ISP back on August but got no reply. This category of her socks is not really updated because she has been harassing many other users and admins as well but it is still alarming. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I support a range block, although there will be a lot of collateral damage. As someone who was targeted by Mariam83 back in July, I can attest to the vindictiveness of this vandal. Locking half of Texas may seem drastic, but Mariam83 is persistent and if the ISP will do nothing, well perhaps a range block is required. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would not be reasonable to block half of a place just because of one person. Are you sure about the scope? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm exaggerating a bit. I just recall that the IPs all resolve to one or two cities there. I haven't checked recently. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking half of Texas(two cities, edit conflict) would seam a bit heavy because of one person, is it possible to semi protect articles instead. Gnangarra 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

that's because she has a dear meatpuppet friend somewhere else apart from Houston. But that happened so rarely. Maybe they are not friends anymore. Do you still think that it deals w/ the whole city instead of a limited scope? Because it is still not reasonable to block a whole city as per Gnangarra. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats

here and here SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week. Feel free to review and adjust as you see fit. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm just wondering how this person found my autograph book. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm suspecting through the 'sign!' note in your signature. I am absolutely not supporting any threat, but you *may* also wish to consider that autograph books have nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia, and are frequently nominated for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE.--Thespian 05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the two posts. And I think Thespian's probabaly right about how he found it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• My money is on it being 65.247.55.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (compare the WHOIS for 65. to the location 12. gave in the second deleted comment). SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Completely different state (NJ for 12.xxx vs VA). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Thespian re the signature subpage. The simple obvious reason is this "would've-beeen-avoided" incident. I had doubts to whether support or be neutral at Thespian RfA but i've just taken my decision now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

So far, SqueakBox has, out of an abundance of passion and good intentions:

• Proposed the article at AfD. Result: No consensus.
• Challenged the AfD at DRV. Result: No consensus.

He then proposed merging the article into child sexual abuse, an action that the admin closing the AfD found no consensus for. After less than 24 hours, he carried out the merge & redirect. I've reverted him & attempted to dialogue with him about this on Talk:Adult-child sex. Can the article content be kept where it is, as the AfD & DRV decisions both allowed, whilee a meaningful discussion takes place? --Ssbohio 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And why does this need admin intervention? The strong consensus was to merge as a look at the adult-child sex talk page, the afd and the drv all reveal. There was nothing controversial here and a number of editors had participated in the merge, not just me, I merely initiated it. I cannot imageine why SSbohio thinks admin intervention is required, except that he appears angry and here, SqueakBox 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to argue this, but, in short: consensus couldn't be reached in AFD or DRV, yet you found a consensus among five editors in under 24 hours that coincidentally supports your long-standing proposal for the article. You appear willing to edit your way to the article you want, and the only tool I can think of to stabilize the edit history is administrator intervention. --Ssbohio 03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that misrepresents how things have been and the clear consensus almost everywhere, for merging including here, the afd, the drv and the current tlak page whic includes a lot of strong support for this and, until you came, no opposition, so why is admin intervention needed? SqueakBox 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear from comments such as this that I was not alone in believing consensus had and has been achieved, SqueakBox 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up here because you continued to redelete the content of the article when the AfD closed as keep (no consensus) & the DRV endorsed the AfD. The consensus you claim consists of you & five others. It formed over less than 24 hours and perfectly supports your preselected course of action. Other admins and users don't see the "strong support" you assert, or the AFD would have closed a merge, to name an example. I won't reply further here. Please continue the discussion at Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge. --Ssbohio 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place. Bring it up at the talk page although it is clear that many people disagree with your perception. There is no question, as reflected by the drv, that the afd closure left room open for a merge, and your lone opposition, especially here, isn't likely to change that consensus, and if the consensus is for merge that is what will likely happen. And admin votes don't count for more on afd than non-admin votes as you appear to imply. Please use the talk page to say why you oppose the merge, and please don't base it on what you perceive of my behaviour, SqueakBox 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least we agree that this is the wrong place, as I said twice. I equated admins and users. I didn't set one higher than the other. You attempt to tar me with words I never said. I've opposed your actions in this, but I mostly agree with you & respect you. This isn't personal. It's about consensus & avoiding conflict. --Ssbohio 04:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are having difficult communications, Wikiquette alerts can help. If you are arguing about the substance of the article, please select from our menu of dispute resolution options. It doesn't seem like blocking or protection is needed here. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a revert war; I've page protected while a discussion can be built on the talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

César Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

Can some one look at semi-protecting this page due to vandalism and edit warring, made a request at WP:RFPP, but have not gotten results (request made 3 hours ago). thank you, Tiptoety 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by ThuranX

Resolved

This series of insults, Where ThuranX refers to TonySidaway as acting like a "jerk" and states "Many wikieditors know what kind of guy Tony Sidaway is, so you don't need to do anything, he shows it himself."...seems rather insulting and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I left ThuranX a reminder to not make such comments, yet he immediately removed it. As a point, what is fair is fair and if I can be threatened with a block for such a comment, as was done here, then there is no reason that ThuranX should be allowed to violate our policies.--MONGO 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO's got it in for me. He can't let go of a LONG past AN/I where I really let my opinion of him be known, he's said since that he won't rest until I'm blocked, and on and on. Any time I speak out against his rampant Wikilawyering and incivility, he brings up that diff. He'll bring it up here quite soon and demand justice for that too. Further, I specifically stated in the diff he lists that that was my thoughts about Tony's actions, and was an opinion shared by others, just read up on that thread above. If Tony doesn't like it, he can speak up, but does he really need MONGO fighting his battles for him? Finally, I note that this was in an effort to de-escalate another AN/I thread, which only cranks up the irony meter. ThuranX 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)ThuranX calling TonySidaway a jerk is highly innappropriate. However, i believe that the issue was resolved (see thread above) where all Tony, Giano and Thuranx heard what they don't like. Also, bringing a warning you got 3 months ago as a parallel is unnecessary. So whether all the involved of tonight story would be blocked for disruption or none of them. It is not name calling which is the problem but the lame, childish behavior and unnecessary drama. I see that you already informed ThuranX about this thread so it would be better to let him come here to hear that he's asked to not do it again. Can we process this way w/o drama MONGO? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack, barely, inappropriate, kind of. What should I be done about it, well "ThuranX, please don't call people jerks, even in the passive tense, thank you". Problem solved. 1 != 2 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup...so long as he refrains from that line of conversation, he'll be fine.--MONGO 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe he got and accepted my message and that would be sufficient for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But this is not correct at all...if anything, it is definitely the other way around[63], [64], [65], and this...what was that all about?...anyway...thanks.--MONGO 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But he was warned just after that MONGO. An hour or so ago. He did nothing after that! Also. Do you think someone can be blocked for inappropriate comments made on Oct. 24 and 26?! Blocks are not punitive and disputes are resolved through the DR process. What do you want admins to do? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You did all that was needed, I was just clarifying that his edit summary was not accurate and that if anything, it is the other way around...the problem now seems to be resolved...thanks.--MONGO 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Milk-maid

Resolved

Hello,

There is an issue with the Milk-maid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in regards to multiple unproductive edits to several articles including:

• Fruit preserves
• Gelatin dessert
• Jam
• Jelly
• Justin Timberlake
• Pederasty

She has been given several warnings by both users and admins in regards to these edits and has continued to do so. Currently she is on a charge to undo a consensus move/merge discussion dealing with international variations of the English language in regards to the first four items. By moving them to the Commonwealth variation of English naming scheme she has undone hours of work ensuring that these articles were neutral in their global point of view. When the discussion was pointed out to she simply dismissed it and moved the pages again.

She appears to be ignoring her talk page about this particular issue.

I would like someone to please take a look at this issue before it gets out of hand, I do not want to violate the 3RR rule undoing her repeated moves.

Jeremy (Jerem43 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Too many warnings since a month now. Blocked for 31h for disruptive editing after many warnings. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ararat_arev

Resolved

Ararat_arev, an indef banned user, has been IP hoping and making POV edits on various historic Armenian articles. He pretty much copy-pastes the same text[66] into the articles. A handful of articles got semi-protected and I just requested 4 more to be protected as well. User:Haverj88 was created yesterday and since then the account was used to harass User:Dbachmann and insertion of the same copy-pasted text. VartanM 05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The account was block, no further action is necessary at the moment, Thanks. --VartanM 06:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done (ec) I just blocked this rather obvious sock as part of WP:RPP work. The four target articles are now semi-protected, too - Alison ^❤ 06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Wikipedia. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
  • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links. ELIMINATORJR 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User attacks informal mediator volunteer

Mattisse insulted an informal mediator, Blueboar, by insinuating that Blueboar purposely sided with another user in a dispute for ulterior reasons and willingly neglected to warn another user for supposed personal attacks, and called Blueboar a hypocrite, incompetent, and "not very nice." The insults mentioned previously can be seen here: [67]. More information can be found on the rest of the article's talk page, Mattisse's talk page [68], and Blueboar's talk page [69]. - Cyborg Ninja 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)