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

Sock policy and Good hand/bad hand accounts

(from User talk:Lar) I don't want to add to the AN/I thread because that will keep it out of the bot's hands for another 24 hours, which is not necessary, so I'm explaining here. Will Beback said: "WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here." To which I responded, that the prohibitions were involved, in that they seem to be relevant to the discussion, but as I discussed earlier in the thread, "Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their spotty record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here?" Which is why I said that PM's behaviour was not in breach of WP:SOCK. Hope that makes it clearer. Thanks! Relata refero 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above reasoning about policy (and also with wanting to have this thread archived when discussion isn't over yet). The sock policy is intended to protect longstanding editors (admins or no) that might have good reason to avoid being associated with certain very limited edits in controversial areas, (and I believe the original intent was to protect editors working in ARTICLE space, not policy space). It is NOT intended to give relatively new editors the ability to compartmentalize edits into benign and disruptive ones, or to shield scrutiny of one account. The sock in question here is not, in my view, a valid one, in that the primary editor is not that longstanding, and edits in the same spaces, and the sock is not editing difficult things where shielding from stalkers and exposers is needed. Ironically, it seems to be arguing in favour of exposing the very kinds of accounts it is using. The policy may need to be made more explicit to cut down on ruleslawyering, but I very much doubt it intended to be used this way. In fact, it may need changing completely to disallow socks that are not registered with ArbCom and strictly monitored... ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your proposal, Lar, is that it's only enforcible against alternate accounts which candidly admit their nature. Here, the sock was only "caught" because he was forthcoming in private communication to the wrong people, a lapse of judgment easily remedied by the expedience of silence or a lie.168.103.150.1 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, that's a massive change to WP:SOCK and one which I fancy you will have a hard time implementing as well as enforcing; and I want to add that it will not change WP for the better. As long as some editors persist in incivility to those who edit in their pet areas, I'm afraid people will want to have legitimate alternate accounts. Plus WP is not 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit as long as they haven't edited it before logged in differently.' Relata refero 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem to employ an alternate account to edit in contentious areas. I don't see why so many people seem to feel so strongly about it. I don't do this myself (Disclaimer: This is my main account, and I have several others, usually created on occasions where I forgot my password. I do not violate policy with them). No more bongos 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

Review of Mattisse's Talk page

Mattisse was recently blocked by the admin LessHeardVanU after LessHeardVanU viewed the posting to AN/I I made several days ago about Mattisse's treatment of another user. The block was for 24 hours. However, after viewing the user's Talk page [1], I believe the block should extend further and a review of the user's sockpuppets should be made if technically feasible. Much of the improper conduct is directed toward LessHeardVanU, but extends to other users as well, including myself. Though LessHeardVanU is willing to look the other way, at the same time he is ignoring years of misconduct by this user and her recent insults to other users. The administration should not turn a blind eye to this kind of conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Included is a threat to user Blueboar, who was originally the victim of the subject of the previously stated AN/I posting. [2]

Blueboar, you have no credibility with me. I will cause you endless misery if I am unblocked. Please make sure I am not. You are a hypocrite and I have no respect for you sanctimonious two-faced attitude. I did everything I could to get through to you to no avail. Pleaded with you for help.

Now I am saying, you better make sure I am blocked forever. I will never contribute anything constructive to Wikipedia again. It is in your interest to have me blocked forever. Remember that. So do it. --Mattisse 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyborg Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) neglects to mention that I also blocked their account for violating a warning I gave in regard to harassing User:Mattisse by attempting to create disruption on articles and in user talkpages previously edited or interacted with by Mattisse. Cyborg Ninja also left this message on my talkpage regarding said block - I'm a little confused that I am now being used as an example by Cyborg Ninja in a complaint regarding Mattisse... My review and block of Mattisse, and Mattisse's subsequent posts in relation to it with me and other editors, is nothing to do with Cyborg Ninja; but serves as an indication of the level of obsession this editor seems to demonstrate with the other. Whatever problems I may think that Mattisse has with their interaction with some other contributors I recognise that they produce a lot of good quality content for the encyclopedia. I feel that Cyborg Ninja should be encouraged to turn their attention to help building the encyclopedia and to drop the matter of the edits of Mattisse. LessHeard vanU 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific edit in question is this one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment was made in anger, after I blocked, and was later rescinded and removed with the help of another admin. LessHeard vanU 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me I think, the two most inflammatory things are gone now... I'm not sure how this is all going to play out but I'd advise just waiting and seeing, for a while at least. Cyborg Ninja, if Less is cool, you should be too. Let's just everyone see what happens for now, eh? ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that an administrator such as you, LessHeard, would think that my actions are not in good faith. Anyone, frankly, can see how offensive and disturbing Mattisse's behavior is, and your attempt to claim that I'm somehow "obsessed" is not the type of behavior appropriate of an administrator. You yourself saw that my AN/I posting from several days ago about Mattisse's attack on Blueboar was legitimate, and yet you have never thanked me for notifying the administration it. Instead, you continued with your subsequent block of me to tell me to "use appropriate avenues." Apparently asking for an informal arbitration for Caisson (Asian architecture), and then a formal one, and then creating an AN/I posting after days of attempting to forgive, is evidence of "stalking" and "harassment" to you. You see, I believe that the stronger person ignores insults from others to them, but will not stand idly by when others are insulted and harassed. That is a quality of a strong, personable human being. Not an "obsessed" one. By the way, as for me leaving out how I was blocked, look DIRECTLY ABOVE YOU. - Cyborg Ninja 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this issue is not resolved until other administrators become involved due to your conflict of interest, which you yourself cited in a previous discussion about a week ago. Even if there were none, your judgment seems severely flawed here and I plead to other administrators to review Mattisse's history, including 18 known sockpuppet accounts (and more), multiple conflicts with other users besides myself, and current use of threats and vile insults before considering this matter resolved. Once again, the type of behavior visible on the user's talk page is not at all indicative of a worthy Wikipedian contributor, and bare in mind the majority of the user's edits consist of adding citation tags, up to the amount of 300+ a day. - Cyborg Ninja 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the {{resolved}} tag as neither party appears blocked - nor needs to be. This matter is still open. LessHeard vanU 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that Mattisse could definitely improve the approach taken but what I am seeing is that some attempt to improve things is already underway. Perhaps I'm too optimistic but I'm not sure that Cyborg Ninja's approach is the best way to go, I'd let this abide a while, as I said. Citation tags, if well placed, are helpful, they advance the improvement of the encyclopedia. We all do what we can to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the resolved tag, but I noticed that Mattisse mentioned she didn't know she was blocked originally for the 24-hour block, so maybe there's a bug. I don't really have an "approach" except to review Mattisse's treatment of other people through her contributions page because of the number of times I've seen other people have conflicts with her. There's a policy issue going on here with the administration -- and that problem lies with giving dozens of chances that aren't deserved. I'm all for forgiving people, but this is ridiculous. Mattisse had 18 known sockpuppet accounts, constantly fought with other users, said she'd vandalize and issued threats, was the subject of multiple AN/I's and RFC's, and repeatedly claims she'll leave Wikipedia in order to garner sympathy. It's very disturbing to me that the administration is unwilling to do any research. I have my own life obviously (hell, I just got laid last night), but even I'm willing to do more work and frankly a better job than LessHeard vanU here. I have tried to involve mediation in the Caisson article, which Mattisse rejected both times. I have tried to help on the drapetomania article, but due to Mattisse's pride was ignored. And yet, LessHeard vanU ignores this and believes that asking a question about old people on oil rigs is harassment.

Even though I tend to ignore insults to me by Mattisse and focus on her attacks of other people... One thing that is highly despicable about this entire thing is something she left on her talk page about how stupid she thinks my User page is. My User page describes my extensive, chronic and terminal illnesses. How could you possibly put my behavior, which has been entirely polite and civilized, on the same level? I was blocked for the same amount of time as Mattisse. If I said what she did, do you think I would expect not to be banned? Of course not! The vile words spewed after her block are not from just anger. They're from someone of unsound mind. The irony that she claims to be a psychiatrist is not lost on me. - Cyborg Ninja 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The resolved tag was added in error, which I confirmed with the editor concerned after I removed it, and nobody was indef blocked. LessHeard vanU 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CN- diffs, please, of where she's had a go at your userpage. I think it was some of your other comments (maybe on your talkpage?) she said weren't worth answering. She's not a psychiatrist, but a PhD in psychology. I don't think she picked specifically on your userpage at all, she definitely didn't say anything definite about any details on it. But if someone were to, it certainly wouldn't be for your illnesses;) It is you who was by implication ageist and sexist, making personal comments about Mattisse's age and sex, which is why you were blocked, as the person blocking you explained to you.Merkinsmum 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant comments attacked Mattisse's apparent inconsistency in claims about herself, not her age or sex per se. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They're viewable if you look at the History of Mattisse's Talk page. It's pretty obvious. I haven't looked at the page for several days, but I imagine it would still be up there because she was not reprimanded for her conduct. I'm surprised that you would even ask, considering a comment you made supporting a banning of me about two weeks ago. And the comments I am referring to about her Talk page about me were specifically directed at my User page. Do your own homework, please. - Cyborg Ninja 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user

{{resolved|Indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)}}Struck out pending new addition below. Powers ^T 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs). His/her editing pattern consists of adding phrases using nonsense words beginning with "ba-" to articles. For example, he/she describes the fictional characters of Barney Fife (from The Andy Griffith Show), Jon Arbuckle (Garfield), and Bert (Sesame Street) as "doing ba-limp", with no explanation of what that means and insistent reversions when the information is removed ("leave it here and quit wasting my time").

(For the record, even Urban Dictionary has no idea what "ba-limp" means, so it apparently isn't even a protologism.)

I left a message on his/her talk page but then I discovered the editing pattern was similar to that of blocked user Tip Ipp Ipp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also has similar edits. I have no conclusive proof, but if XusSatyrtn is Tip Ipp Ipp, he's circumventing his/her block and probably vandalizing to boot.

-- Powers ^T 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it seems very likely that the user is a sockpuppet of User:Tip Ipp Ipp. I have idefinitely blocked the account. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: 71.49.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is taking up where XusSatyrtn left off. Powers ^T 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Snakese

I just blocked User:Snakese indef for this edit, which consisted of stalking and harrassment of another wikipedian. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; I don't think it should be permanent, but that was inappropriate. "It's not stalking/trolling/vandalism when I do it. Just when they do." Has someone written an essay/guideline on this? In light of the past few days, especially in RfAs on female candidates, I think it's time to make this much clearer that this sort of thing should not be tolerated.--Thespian 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Last two sentences seem like a threat. Concerns that a person might be vulnerable to stalking should be communicated privately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How nasty. And .. well, generally WTF. Totally unneeded. We don't need people who are going to say things like that around here. I wouldn't want go too far on calling it a threat, or making this into an issue with respect to female candidates on rfa. ... but I don't see why this user should not remain blocked until there is some reason to believe that there will be no further behavior of that sort. --Gmaxwell —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 6 November 2007

(UTC)

I can understand that; but the attempt to rattle me started out with an oily comment that my name was pretty, and this issue with LaraLove is starts out bringing up that she should spend more time with her children. I just spent some time looking over RfAs for editors whose gender is unknown, or who are known to be male, and this sort of thing isn't happening in them. Perhaps it has in the past, but right now, it's happened twice in a couple days in the RfAs of known females, and it should be watched for. --Thespian 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Appears to be a sock of Professional Deletionist (whose user talk redirects to Snakese's, actually). This kind of behavior is absolutely uncalled for. --Coredesat 04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sockmaster User:The_Negotiator as well, per a private checkuser with Raul. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Snakese was actually a rename of Professional Deletionist after it was decided that the name was inappropriate under WP:USERNAME. It's not a sock, though that has nothing to do with other sock issues that might surround the account. --Thespian 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody think it is a reincarnation of that vandal whose name I won't mention, the one that's so bad he got banned from Wikipedia and WR? east.;718 at 05:12, 11/6/2007

No, it's not him. Snakese's comments were stupid, not evil. Neil ☎ 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, myself, when I read those comments and Thespian's, remember that He Who Shall Not Be Named has also been known to make inappropriate comments to female editors. Corvus cornix 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Yes, I restored his vote on Thespian's RfA (for technnical reasons), but even then I had my suspicions about this user. Sad to see they were accurate. -- llywrch 07:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. This kind of disruption cannot be tolerated continually. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Not an admin but) I think it's a good idea to stamp pretty hard on any kind of harassment of female RfA candidates. RfA is not supposed to be a trial by ordeal, and these two recent cases are worrying. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Randy Blackamoor

Mr. Blackamoor used, what I interpreted, to be a slur in response to an edit that I was involved in on the National Academic Championship article (Talk: National Academic Championship). I deleted the statement, and issued a warning on his talk page (User Talk: Randy Blackamoor). Mr. Blackamoor responded on my talk page (User Talk: LonelyBeacon) with a personal attack, a questioning of my sexual orientation, and finally vulgar language. LonelyBeacon 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty messed up, especially after a polite personal message to cease incivility. 24 hour timeout. east.718 at 07:08, 11/6/2007

I don't know if folks are aware, but "blackamore" is also an old-fashioned term for black person as well as a name. So if this is the case here...? ---- WebHamster 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note also, for those in the USA, that in much of the English speaking world "Randy" is an adjective meaning "horny" [3]. Reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Pete.Hurd 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, HBC AIV helperbot4 removed the posting to UAA (presumably because the user is blocked for editing offences) and so there seems no way to complain about the offensive username until the block has expired. Pete.Hurd 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:24.225.88.99

Resolved

This user has made a habit of deleting large blocks of test or removing cited statements or adding untrue information to articles such as Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia and Anna Anderson and has continued to do so despite receiving three warnings. I think this address should be blocked. --Bookworm857158367 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. I see you've given them 3 last warnings in less than an hour. In the future you can report a user to WP:AIV if they vandalize after only one last warning. AIV is a better place for reports like this and will get a faster result. Natalie 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Savignac‎

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

Has been making racist and anti-semitic personal attacks on my userpage, and the talk page of African_diaspora. I have tried to understand what this user wants to change, by he/she will not respond to my questions. It has been really disruptive to the talk pages of these and other articles. Please look at this users contribs to see what I mean. futurebird 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I expressed my concerns about the racism here. But, the user moved my comments to the talk page of the African Diaspora article and seems to be trying to draw editors from others articles in to some kind of flame war? I have no idea. futurebird 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff and one more where the user is linking to other talk pages that have nothing to do with the African Diaspora article. futurebird 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cautioned Savignac‎ several times [4] [5] that his personal attacks and disruptive editing were unacceptable. He ignored my warnings; in fact, his behavior has become much worse. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue on the main page - immediate attention required

Resolved

 – related discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#BLP GRBerry 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking someone to remove immediately from DYK:

..that when Icelandic pop singer and D.J. Paul Oscar was in college he played Frank-N-Furter in a production of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and appeared in drag shows at a Reykjavík nightclub?

The sourcing in the article is clearly inadequate for the mainpage to carry it. Please take this off pending discussion. I've already removed BLP violations from the article Paul Oscar.

I really think we need to ban controversial statements about individuals from DKY.--Doc^g 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this type of thing might be adequately sourced for an article, the mainpage needs even higher criteria. Are DYK updaters thoroughly checking for BLP?--Doc^g 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed for now. I will readd it if A) someone can suggest a better sourced factoid from the article or B) someone can improve the sourcing for this one. As Doc glasgow says, the sourcing right now seems to be 2 random webpages. By the way it's DYK, not DKY... and this is the second time there's been a BLP issue in a week. --W.marsh 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that NO factoids about living people should ever be on DYK, especially ones that might be controversial unless at a minimum they've been passed by more than one senior editor. An outright ban might be better. By its nature we have here a recent article, which may not have been subject to proper scrutiny, nominated by one user (often its creator) and then listed by another - and suddenly it becomes VERY prominent. It is just an open goal for bad things to happen. Now, it may turn out that this allegation will check out, but let's not wait until real shit happens to put a safeguard in place.--Doc^g 15:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The place for this proposal is WT:DYK. But noms are screened for 5 days on T:TDYK already... a reasonable objection, including one on BLP grounds, will almost always keep a nom from appearing on the main page. --W.marsh 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the third one that's had to be removed in a number of days. Whilst I think generally speaking the process runs well, and I trust the admins that do the work and comment on the hooks, I think it's time to make it clear that when putting a DYK nom on the main page, it should never portray a person in a negative manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The current screening is obviously insufficient. It isn't enough to say "no one objected" we need to be able to say "checked thoroughly, and we have no doubts here". This issue is of concern to more than the DYK crowd.--Doc^g 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but this conversation should be moved to WT:DYK to try to reach a longer-term solution... the immediate problem needing admin attention is resolved, no? I'll start a thread on that talk page. --W.marsh 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) " when putting a DYK nom on the main page, it should portray a person in a negative manner" I know that's just a wording goof, but that's a really funny proposal you're making there, Mr. Postlewaite. --W.marsh 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

hehe, I think it's best if I just go back to bed! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We should definitely be careful about BLP concerns in DYK, since it's one of the most-seen aspects of the site. But this particular discussion is bothering me a little -- everyone's acting like this statement says something inherently negative about its subject, which seems a bit judgmental! Pinball22 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But BLP has assume that we don't say things that are potentially negative or embarrassing if they turn out to be not true. To give an example - many people are out and proud to be gay. Wikipedia would certainly not wish to reflect a POV that said gay is negative. But the fact is that many people would find it insulting, or indeed damaging or even culturally life-threatening, to be called gay. Thus we require cast-iron sourcing before including any such allegation - without prejudice to the views of the subject. --Doc^g 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue is now being debated at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#BLP. Please opine there. --Doc^g 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ForeignerFromTheEast

First of all, I apologize for not knowing how to link to the user's contributions or the (diff) list. However, this user's editing consists overwhelmingly of adding Bulgarian to articles related to Macedonia as well as adding Bulgarian and Albanian names to those articles and removing foreign language names from Bulgarian articles. He is very antagonistic and his edits and reverts are often criticised heavily on article talk pages and his own talk page (he deletes most criticism left on his talk page, however). He has a history of being involved in edit and revert warring for which he was blocked in September. Would it be possible to issue a stern warning or block him for a couple of days just to get him to calm down? Thanks.SWik78 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPA. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. I'm criticizing the content of your edits and your persistance in adhering to a practice of antagonizing other editors. I'm not criticizing you personally, if that's what you're implying.SWik78 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I delete comments from my talk which I find offensive, and this is perfectly fine. About the rest of the mud-smearing, I am clueless. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Any appearence of "mud-smearing" is completely unintentional, I promise. I'm referring to your recent edits on articles such as: Struga, Tose Proeski, Skopje, Grebenac, Razlog, Gotse Delchev (town), Petrich, Blagoevgrad, Taga za Jug etc. So far, I've been under the impression that these kinds of edits do not sit well with certain editors, mostly ones of Macedonian origin, and yet you keep editing them in such a manner that can be seen by another editor as disrespectful. User:Dzole explained this to you in a tone that was somewhat aggravated but still respectful on your talk page but you deleted it. SWik78 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to motivate my edits, and I really do not understand what you are insinuating. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything, I am explicitly stating a fact that most of your edits consist of nothing more than changes to or addition of nationally identifying pieces of information that have been historically proven to be not welcome by many of your fellow editors. In other words, if you look at the history pages and talk pages of the articles I mentioned above, you will notice that most of your changes contributed only in the form of identifying someone nationally, or adding the name of a place in one language or deleting the name of a place in another language. My issue is that you should be able to clearly see that there are people who are not OK with these changes you make and, as a responsible Wikipedia editor, you should not ignore someone else's frustration when they are not able to contribute to an article like Skopje that was protected to editors several times because of edit warring in which, I might add, you were involved and you were blocked from Wikipedia because of it. In other words, simply adding Bulgarian in front of Konstantin Miladinov's name in Struga Poetry Evenings, repetitive adding of SR in front of Macedonia and SFRJ after it in Tose Proeski, as well as repetitive adding of Albanian language as an official language in Skopje is not seen welcome by some of the other editors on these articles. In an explicit conclusion, these kinds of edits are fueling nationallistically motivated edit and revert warring incidents. I hope this explains things a little better. SWik78 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are still insinuating, as you are using terms such as someone being OK and not OK. Whatever. I have sources and/or relevant policies and guidelines to support my contributions and I will discuss whenever possible. Everything else is speculation. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing you don't understand what I'm trying to say and you're not fooling anyone by just using the word insinuate, as though I'm not explaining myself properly. Either way, keep doing the things that I insinuate you're doing and I will keep informing the proper authorities of any future disruptions by you. By the way, if you have anything else to say, you're welcome say it on my talk page so we don't disrupt this noticeboard. SWik78 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad this is sorted out. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SWik78. ForeignerFromTheEast (formerly known as Mr. Neutron) together with several other Bulgarian editors, who also frequently change their usernames (example: Wickedpedian=GriefForTheSouth=Jackanapes), is indeed involved in a blatant POV pushing and meatpuppeteering. Also, they try to sneak-in questionable sources such as private blogs or personal nationalist websites (kroraina.com), thus damaging the reliability of Wikipedia. Several times such behaviour led to protests from the editors from Republic of Macedonia, and in some cases also third party editors became involved. All that led to high tensions followed by admin interventions, vandal retaliations and finally page protections. I already publicized this issue with a detailed explanation on one of the appropriate pages for solving such problems. I will follow the steps suggested by Wikipedia guidelines and as part of that maybe I'll move the problem to this page too (if its not solved before that elsewhere). --Dzole 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:24.62.241.203

This seems to be a vandalism account only. There have been several hundred unconstructive edits (several today) from this user and he's been handed out 9 blocks so far.SWik78 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Handled, please consider reporting these things to WP:AIV in the future. east.718 at 17:51, 11/6/2007

Will do. Thank you.SWik78 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved. How does a 24 hour block help in circumstances where this same IP has been blocked multiple times, for up to 2 months and 5 fortnights? Corvus cornix 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comcast uses swiftly rotating IPs... chances are that a new person will have this within a couple days. If you want to go ahead and slap a lengthy softblock on it, that's up to you. east.718 at 18:58, 11/6/2007

No, since I'm not an admin, I can't slap a lengthy block on anybody. But it's obvious from the edit and block histories of this account, that there is a serial vandal here, 24 hours is like a slap on the wrist. Why even bother blocking? Corvus cornix 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Corvus cornix. Vandalism from that particular IP goes back to January 2005 without a single positive contribution that I could find. I think that the risks of banning a potential new user at this IP is worth the benefit of relief of an immense amount of vandalism. We're talking literally hundreds of instances of vandalism over almost 3 years. Just look at all the warnings on User talk:24.62.241.203. SWik78 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this IP is assigned to different people in rapid succession... if we're going go down this route, we should be discussing the merits of a rangeblock on Comcast, because it will have the same effect. east.718 at 20:19, 11/6/2007

Something seems wrong here; either (a) this IP is not rapidly reassigned to different people, or (b) all the contributions are not vandalism, or (c) every WP editor ever assigned that IP by Comcast is a vandal. Is everyone sure of their facts? Because (c) is the only possibility if Corvus and East718 are both correct, and it just seems the most unlikely of the three possibilities. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(d) only one user that was ever assigned that IP has decided to edit Wikipedia SWik78 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) When I had Comcast as my ISP (up till about five months ago), my IP was very stable, and I could treat it as a de facto static IP. I was in one of their not-yet-modernized areas, so the fast-switching may be only happening in areas covered by their newer infrastructure. I agree that this IP is problematic and probably should be presumed stable for the purposes of preventative blocking. --Dynaflow babble 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

East is correct here. If you actually look at the contributions, you'll see that each "vandalism session" lasts a day or two; any further vandalism comes on completely dissimilar articles, and in most cases, months apart. That's the model of a dynamic IP that should not have a lengthy block applied. Just because the few customers that have been assigned that IP that have edited WP have done so to vandalize does not mean that future IP holders will do the same. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So then in between those day or two long sessions of vandalism, have there been any positive contributions from anyone else that was ever assigned that IP? SWik78 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but that doesn't mean there couldn't possibly be... I do however agree with your sentiments about persistent vandalism. If anybody doesn't object, I'm going to put a long softblock on it. east.718 at 21:05, 11/6/2007

The "months apart" was because this IP was blocked months at a time. east.718 at 21:05, 11/6/2007

(e.c., again) I actually believe East is incorrect on this count. The IP's vandalism binges seem to start at random times, but their ends are always coincident with the block. What I'm seeing is a user who occasionally gets bored and decides to stir shit up on Wikipedia, "edits" via the Random Article button until he or she gets blocked, and then ... I dunno ... goes out and throws rocks at cars or something. When boredom strikes again x period of time later, the pattern repeats. Comcast IPs can be stable. For example, this is me before I got a username (and occasionally afterwards); there are months of edits from my one IP, which even survived multiple modem restarts. My WHOIS page reads exactly the same way as this IP's. --Dynaflow babble 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I also was initially fooled by the long breaks in between vandalism, and the wide variety of articles. I also did a little research and found out that Comcast does in fact assign IP addresses for a long period of time. I've extended the block on this account, thank you all for the help provided. east.718 at 21:09, 11/6/2007

You're welcome. --Dynaflow babble 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From the contributions I would say that this is undoubtedly a static school IP. The mentions of billy, katie, tyler, kyle, and adam, and the fixation with sex is unmistakeable. (Billy appears in April and October). These crop up frequently at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks East. SWik78 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, east. Corvus cornix 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP

Resolved

 – schoolblocked for 1 month - Alison ^❤ 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is vandalising again after a long history of warnings and a block. It's not current, so reporting on AIV is inappropriate. The vandalism is increasingly taking the course of subtle factual inaccuracies that are difficult to disprove and hence, are being left in articles. [6] -- John 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick snoop shows that it belongs to the University of Plymouth, which explains the mix of edits. Given the block history and their current run, I've blocked the address, anon only, for one month - Alison ^❤ 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:MellowVoltorb

Resolved

 – User blocked by admin

I've given this user a vandalism warning for their antics at Chelsea F.C. today. However, looking at the abusive language on the user page User:MellowVoltorb, the fact that the edit history [7] contains no good faith edits and how this user has abused another editor on their talk page [8], I wonder whether administrative action should be considered.--Peter cohen 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely by an admin. For future reference, the place where this will get the most and quickest attention is WP:AIV. Cheers, Qst 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

210.54.245.44/Rabidly Placid: edit warring

User:210.54.245.44 seems to have created the user name Rabidly Placid in order to evade the 3RR rule on The X-Files. (I am uninvolved in the content dispute. I merely note that it is taking place and made one reversion on the basis of the attempted evasion of WP:3RR.) --Pleasantville 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you file a report on WP:AN3, just note that s/he's the IP address too. --Haemo 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else please step in here?

Special:Contributions/137.99.117.114 (also Special:Contributions/137.99.155.80) definitely has made constructive edits but on Don't ask, don't tell (Gays in the US military policy) has removed LGBT and Gay Rights templates here and here. I left a note on User talk:137.99.117.114 and the reply was Suck my nuts man. There is absolutely no connection between the article and the group. You can plug you gay agenda elsewhere. Who the fuck are you? I'd prefer someone else step in rather than me being personally involved at this point. Benjiboi 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the attack on their talk page with an npa warning. We'll see what happens. Natalie 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Benjiboi 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Someone just AFD'ed yesterday's featured article. Most of the user's contributions have been reverted and IMHO vandalism for the most part. Would someone tell me I am not smoking crack here to think this is bad faith? spryde | talk 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably someone who doesn't like the subject. It's going to be snowing today. --Haemo 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What a waste of time, I've gone ahead and closed it. east.718 at 20:16, 11/6/2007

David Vitter edit warring

User:Anothersliceofhistory edited the David Vitter article with statements that are POV and unsourced. [9] After I reverted, User:Araphel then made the identical change [10]. Then, after reverting a second time, Anothersliceofhistory blanked out the entire section.[11] After reverting that, User Araphel blanked out the section a second time.[12] I've run out of reverts and the section stands deleted. This is a solidly sourced section that was noteworthy. So, if I could get another editor to revert it back, I'd appreciate it. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

KoshVorlon reverted it. I thought about applying a semi-protect, but both users have been around a while with occcasional edits but no user pages. -- llywrch 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-empting the inevitable complaint

I've semi-protected the spam & OR magnet that is Rating sites due to repeated insertion of a spam link by 216.153.172.78 (talk · contribs). Usually I'd block the IP rather than protect the page, but in this case - since the IP seems to be making valid edits elsewhere & no-one's edited Rating sites recently - I've (briefly) protected the page instead. Can someone else confirm if I'm acting wildly against some policy I'm unaware of here, as I'm aware the whole thing's a bit irregular. For the record I explicitly won't consider anyone reversing any of this to be wheel-warring. As I've reverted the spammer three times, could I ask anyone who does unprotect it to watchlist it. — iridescent 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone feels the urge to clean up some of the ever-expanding linkfarm on this page, do feel free... I long ago gave up on my increasingly desultory attempt to keep Rating sites and Hot or Not in any kind of stable state. — iridescent 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say unprotect and give the user his last warning, if he does it again, block--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, 2 days of semi-protection is no big deal and probably the way to go. It looks like the vast majority, if not all, IP edits going back 6 months or so were non-constructive and/or vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On a closer look at the contribs I agree - what I thought were valid contribs which made me reluctant to block were in fact made in June. The 1-2-3-4 warnings have already been given (you need to look in the history as the IP's blanked the talk page); I'll leave it semi'd for 48 hours unless anyone feels otherwise. Can someone watchlist the page so I don't break 3RR (although given the amount of spammy links already there, not sure it matters — www.douchebag.com, anyone?) — iridescent 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad you finished that. I had no clue where you were going with that last part... :) spryde | talk 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should have left it, really... — iridescent 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this permitted?

Just stumbled across this - [13] while googling for a copyvio on the recently created Mark Pharis article. While he acknowledges the source as wikipedia there's no sign of a GFDL license and we have "Copyright 2006 Mark W. Savoca" at the bottom of the page. Can we/should we block this use? Exxolon 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, isn't it just syndicating this feed? east.718 at 21:37, 11/6/2007

Okay, I'll ask, who do you want to block? The info on the site you linked says: What is Feedage? Feedage is a free fully categorized and searchable RSS directory. More... MyFeedage allows users to create and manage groups of RSS feeds. Join or login to Myfeedage today and start your social feeding. Who exactly are you going to block and what did they violate? RSS feeds are everywhere. IrishLass0128 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely NOT a copyvio (at least not one stealing from feedage.com). That page is as stated above simply showing an RSS feed of special:newpages. The copyright information page on that site also states that feedage does not claim copyright to material on preview pages such as the one you linked to. FunPika 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was worried that the site might be attempting to claim copyright on our content. If they disclaim it, fine. A GFDL notice on the feed might be an idea tho. Exxolon 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Clicking on that led me to Seanblashe.  :) Corvus cornix 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unblock of 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs)

This Ip 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs) is the Ip address that is registered to the entire nation of Quatar (Population: 800,000) as backed by thousands of sources, and it states on the talkpage that this Ip should not be blocked for long periods of time, 31 hours at the most, Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked this Ip for six months, and when other admins have blocked the Ip for this amount of time the block has been shortened. I am objecting towards this because that is causing problems for the whole country. For the nations sake I would be grateful if this Ip address would be unblocked, as we've been through this before and it certainly isn't right to block a whole nation, and even Jimbo said that. The sunder king 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I've reduced this to a 4-hour AO block until we can get this sorted out. east.718 at 22:06, 11/6/2007

Thank you for your consideration. The sunder king 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, the block lasted for nearly a week before we noticed. Hopefully the Communications Committee has been notified at least. FunPika 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done it already. east.718 at 22:27, 11/6/2007

Though in the same vein, the fact it lasted for a week before anyone complained suggests that either Qatari usage is very low, or the IP doesn't service as wide a range as suspected. ELIMINATORJR 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still pretty serious. Remember this fun bit of publicity? east.718 at 22:50, 11/6/2007

Indeed; I was just pointing out the slight discrepancy. ELIMINATORJR 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

cough - 82.148.96.68 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the other Quatar IP? FunPika 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At least it wasn't me this time. Caknuck 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block of 209.175.168.14 (talk · contribs)

This ip has repeatedly and blatantly vandalized random subjects. Please investigate and impose a block.

Additional Admin Help Please - Copyright violations

I was patrolling CAT:G12 when I noticed several copyright violating pages created by a single user. I've User talk:Soulofrock#Blocked the user for an hour - should it be a longer block?

All are coming from the Marvel Wiki. While the Marvel Wiki is a wiki, it is not a GFDL wiki; Marvel's contributions remain under Marvel's copyright and anybody else's are not releases under a suitable license, see paragraphs 1 and 6 of their terms.

I don't have time to clean them all up. They are all in his contribution history of today. I've noticed that just prior to each article, he has uploaded an image that is a copyright violation of the same source. Can I get some administrator help in cleaning up the copyright violations. I suspect this user's contributions from prior days also need to be reviewed. GRBerry 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I slightly overreacted on the scope of work. I've gotten the blatant ones from today done. The situation does need a more full investigation as to whether any of the older edits are also copyright problems. I'm off for a while. GRBerry 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/edit war on George Mason University

Resolved

 – Problem user blocked

User:Gmu1987, a single purpose, borderline vandal editor has been consistently adding content to George Mason University which simply demeans the school, or indicates most people confuse it with James Madison University. The content was originally added to the article by an anon editor who specializes in tending to the JMU article. As a frequent contributor to the GMU article, and as a graduate of GMU, I believe my hands are pretty tied in dealing with this. Rather than simply block Gmu1987, I took to the matter to the article's talk page, and with the help of three other editors gained consensus on what content should remain or be removed. Gmu1987 has ignored the consensus, and regularly accused myself and others of vandalism while reverting in bad faith. Because I am involved in the edit conflict itself (which has progressed very slowly all the way back to August), I just wanted someone else to take a look at this, and decide on how to deal with this editor. Personally, I think a block is in order. Likewise, if this is an instance where I can make the block on my own, just let me know. Thanks! Hiberniantears 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left Gmu1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a warning about 3RR and edit warring. I will caution you here, though, that you should not be edit warring either, and you would face the same sanctions if you broke the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. As I found out fairly early in my Wikipedia career, "enforcing" consensus is not a legitimate excuse for edit warring, so I will pass this advice along to you: If you have a consensus on the page, then let the others with whom you've built consensus do their share of reverting this user's problematic edits. Have you gone through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution fully yet? [EDIT:] I just realized who you are; I actually thought I was addressing Bvjrm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some reason, probably because I was looking through the page history when I was writing my reply. I see that you have already warned the user, though he or she has since removed the warning from his or her Talk page. Since the user has continued to edit war despite being warned, I would support a block for 3RR under the clause that allows blocks for persistent edit warring even if the 3RR electric fence isn't technically touched. --Dynaflow babble 01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong has issued the block. --Dynaflow babble 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third party assistance! Hiberniantears 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, without knowing that any warnings had been issued to User:Gmu1987, I just added content to the Talk:George Mason University page on this issue, supporting User:Bvjrm's efforts. I then went to User:Gmu1987's talk page to request he engage in the discussion rather than keep reverting. Only after I saved my comment to his talk page did I realize that someone had already started a noticeboard/incident report on it. FWIW, I have not, to my knowledge, been involved in any of the reverts of the recurring information; but I have weighed in on the GMU talk page with my opinion. Hope that clarifies my (limited) involvement. N2e 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Range block on New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

As a disruptive sockpuppeter utilizing many ip's in that range, I've blocked that range (129.138.0.0/16) for 24 hours, not anon only as he/she had sleeper acocunts. _→AzaToth 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

personal insults and racial comments by User:202.10.89.28

123.176.40.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started by calling me this and I was about to let it go when he went ahead and repeated himself. The fact is I don't like being called neither a stupid asshole, nor a tatar and explained it to the other contributor. The fact is he insisted on calling me a such. Adding this to his generlly disruptive behaviour. --Laveol ^T 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a friendly note warning him about his behavior. Hopefully he'll cut it out. --Haemo 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Although I already tried to explain to him he's insulting me and it's obvious he really understands it --Laveol ^T 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Socky puppet (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked for username, auto-block enabled due to disruption. TigerShark 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been repeatedly re-adding fair use images (I got that right I hope) of television shows to his userpage. He has been warned, but continues to do so. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account for username violation and left the auto-block on, due to the attempted disruption by an individual who is obviously well versed in Wikipedia. TigerShark 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the assessment of username violation, I must agree with the indefinite block for disruption. –Crazytales talk/desk 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What am I seeing?

Look at this and tell me what's going on [14]. I already blocked one... are these compromised accounts? Hiberniantears 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... appears I have my hands full then! thanks! Hiberniantears 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The socks are blocked for now, right? It's just a typical move vandal. Block and revert, repeat as needed. Who wants to write a GrawpBlockingBot? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on the reverts... I blocked the wrong editor (since unblocked and apologized to). Too many question marks in that title to see straight. Hiberniantears 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All/Specialadmin/monobook.js may help you next time, it includes a button to pseudoautomagically revert all moves by an editor. east.718 at 04:10, 11/7/2007

User:Steven Andrew Miller

Steven Andrew Miller has created pages Don Draper and Roger Sterling, which are now in AFD. He created two subpages, User:Steven Andrew Miller/Don Draper and User:Steven Andrew Miller/Roger Sterling, which contain fair use images. I remove them, and he is persistently re adding them, saying "rvv". I have warned him, but all he does is remove the notices. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to potential copyright issues, we don't play games. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he also removed BetacommandBot's tags. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did remove BetacommandBot's tags. The errors that BetacommandBot alerted me to, I fixed. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If a legitimate article draft is in user space, and a fair use image is eventually intended for that article, the right way to fix the draft is to switch the call from an image call to an image link by prepending the ":" character, as is done in this image link: :Image:Example.jpg. Then the fair use image isn't displayed in user space, but it is a trivial edit to switch back to a link when the article goes to main space. GRBerry 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD assistance required

Please see this TfD. I have closed it as delete, but the link template does not transclude the same in each article, so I cannot figure out how to get AWB to easily replace it. The template is linked over 900 times and they all need to be removed. Please feel free either to inform me when the de-linking is complete or simply delete it yourself. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[^]\*? *\{\{nndb name.*\}\} *[\n$] as regex maybe? I don't remember if AWB supports regexes though... east.718 at 04:35, 11/7/2007

It does support regexes... let me try this one. (I never could have thought of that on my own.) RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Nice try though, thanks. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've actually tested this one and it does work: \*? ?\{\{nndb name.*\}\} It does leave a dangling newline though. east.718 at 04:53, 11/7/2007

Yes! That's perfect. Thanks so much. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, because of that, I made my 11,000th and 12,000th edits within three hours of each other... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cody Finke

Cody Finke, a banned user and know sock puppet is back again.

Current alias:
codyfinke2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned aliases:
codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is just problematic at best, he has been banned twice and is back again and up to his old tricks.

Could some one please take a look at this issue. Again.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Make sure you get them all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - blocked about 3 more of them. All socks of User:MascotGuy - Alison ^❤ 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Champlain College rangeblocked

Hi all. I've rangeblocked the reasonably narrow 216.93.144.0/20 range associated with Champlain College, anon-only, and sent a courtesy note to their NOC. Block is for seven days due to rampant vandalism across multiple articles using multiple IP addresses over the space of a week or more. Just so's you know :) - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater

I would like somebody to please review ^demon's closing of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats as "delete". This discussion involves nearly 700 categories, and as they haven't yet been deleted, I do not believe deletion review is the proper venue. If I'm wrong, please say so, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read this discussion (4 delete/2 rename/25 keep) as a consensus for deletion. I've left a note for ^demon, but he seems to be out for the night, so I'm asking for a review here. Note that I strongly supported keeping these categories during the discussion, so if I'm simply blinded by my own bias, feel free to point that out as well. The main reasons I do not believe ^demon's close to be appropriate is that 1) the discussion in no way favored deletion, and 2) ^demon nominated all of these categories for deletion just 5 months ago (COI, anyone?)- auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't have closed it given that he himself previously nominated them and there are quite a number of these so it's not a simple close but reading through the keeps there are an awful lot of WP:USEFUL arguments backed up by "Keep per some other WP:USEFUL !vote". If he shouldn't have closed it to begin with then his talk page and ultimately DRV is a better venue for this. EconomicsGuy 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that nobody tries to go through and delete/depopulate 700 categories before this is straightened out. As far as WP:USEFUL arguments go, the only purpose of a category is to be useful...WP:USEFUL even says so. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it depends on the nature of the WP:USEFUL argument. The closer is right that the concerns regarding the nature of the usefulness of these categories were not properly adressed. In that sense the WP:USEFUL arguments are just as invalid as they would otherwise be. EconomicsGuy 07:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, several editors noted that the categories had been appropriately useful in the past, and that's just of the handful that chose to comment. No one provided detailed, comprehensive evidence to back up the usefulness claims, but it doesn't make sense to give one side of the debate an arbitrary burden of digging up a thousand old diffs and emails. The "concern" was "these categories are probably not very useful"; the response was "these categories have been and are useful." In these cases where there is no binary correctness on either side, the issue degenerates into varying standards and speculations of similar quality. There's really nothing particular about demon's standards and expectations to set his opinion apart from those of the other **bignumber** of editors who disagreed, apart from the fact that the former are notoriously outlandish. To argue that deletion might be justified by consensus would really be ludicrous. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record he didn't argue that consensus was in favor of deletion so your last point is moot. He closed it based on policy which is also what the closer is supposed to do. Also, who asked for "a thousand old diffs and emails"? EconomicsGuy 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken. It's frequented only by a small core group of—dare I say it—deletionists, and once they kill off a small category nobody cares about, it is used as precedent to delete plenty of other ones with colloborative potential. I have seen lots of strife caused, damage done, and at least one excellent contributor driven away. Perhaps a centralized deletion discussion is in order? east.718 at 07:23, 11/7/2007

All three of your assumptions are unfounded. First, the controverisal action of one editor does not imply anything about the state of the process on the whole. Second, UCFD is not a breeding ground for members of the deletionist cabal. For instance, the editor responsible for most nominations in recent weeks self-identifies as an inclusionist. I comment on most UCFD discussions and I am not a deletionist (I didn't even suggest deletion in this case). Third, what happened to WP:AGF? The argument of precedent is generally applied only in cases of clear similarity. I personally am not convinced that this was one of those cases, but that's no reason to paint the closer, and UCFD participants more generally, with that brush. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think any neutral and moderate editor (not that I am one) would consider jc37 an inclusionist, at least based on his activities in recent months (maybe it's simply outdated -- I wouldn't know). Perhaps the philosophy is "I am an inclusionist until I find a problem with an article, and I do that quite often" -- but to think that way is to confuse the exception with the rule. I was thinking of politely requesting that he remove the box to avoid misleading others, but I suppose it's not anyone's business. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything about you, jc37 or ^demon? I was just making an observation about the process as a whole. east.718 at 16:21, 11/7/2007

I was commenting response to your "one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken" and "frequented only by a small core group of ... deletionists" comments. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One of these days, we'll find someone who actually does research to back up their accusations. (Actually I did, and gave the user a Barnstar for it.) My edit history is there for the world to see, and yet I get accused of being a deletionist for "pruning the bushes". One thing that's great about it though, is that it gives me a tool with which to immediately identify the "IWANTIT" commenters. I would presume that those who would use user categories for collaboration are also those who would do something as simple as check recent edit history before making blanket accusations. - jc37 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What in your recent editing history (which I have looked into multiple times, though admittedly I didn't feel compelled to spend hours analyzing it in detail) suggests anything contrary to what I said? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is not the proper venue at this time because there hasn't been opportunity to discuss the matter with the closer. While I understand the desire to avoid having all of these categories emptied, I think this AN/I thread is premature:

• The categories have not been listed at WP:CFD/WU;
• The bot operator who usually handles the emptying, renaming, and merging of user categories is aware of the controversy;
• The closer has been notified that his decision is being challenged on his talk page and is unlikely to use his bot (User:^demonBot2) to empty the category until (or unless) a resolution is reached.

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unable to reply last night. After closing that UCFD, I had every intention of coming to ANI myself and putting up a notice, as I was sure it was going to be controversial. However, I stepped out for a cigarette, one thing led to another, and I found myself waking up and rushing out the door to class. And such, here I am.

I closed the UCFD this way for several reasons, that I detailed in my closing rationale (which I won't reproduce here, but here's a diff). First and foremost is the issues of usefulness. It has been a long-established precedent on UCFD that user categories need to have a least some modicum of collaborative nature. As a closer, I don't ask for proof of much, just a little bit to say "This is being used for collaboration." Sadly, no evidence was forthcoming. This group of categories repeatedly has not been able to produce any evidence that these categories are being used for anything above and beyond identification. Show me a few diffs (where members are collaborating because they found each other through the category), and I'll be convinced. Secondly, I saw a great number of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ILIKEITTOO votes, which did not play into my rationale to close as such. I read the arguments for renaming, and I declined to close it that way because of active resistance to the idea with relevant arguments (it's true, being a member of a university does not imply interest, I don't want to collaborate on my university's article for sure...). Finally, the high school decision played into my closing rationale to some extent, as I felt the arguments played out there were particularly relevant, as the scope of categories is almost identical (the difference being a few years' age). I was well aware that I closed against consensus, but I felt I was acting in Wikipedia's best interest, trying to uphold policy and tradition, and try to move us close to the goal of improving the encyclopedia, rather than becoming a social networking website. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you shouldn't have closed the discussion, especially since you clearly cannot be considered a neutral admin on this issue. It is not the job of the closing admin to interject their own opinion, effectively overriding the community's. Several users have stated they have used these categories, myself included, but I have never gone to a user's talk page and said "Hey, I found you in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: XYZ". There is no way to substantiate the claim. Likewise, there is no evidence these categories are not used collaboratively, this closure was against consensus, and based on policy that was specifically refuted in the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you did the wrong thing, admins are not empowered to do whatever they like. See you at DRV :) User:Veesicle 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. It is the responsibility of a closing admin to close based on policy, not consensus. If consensus conflicts with policy, policy should be enforced until such a time as the policy is changed. Corvus cornix 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is against policy then the policy needs to change or WP:IAR. KnightLago 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin who closes any xfD discussion in violation of policy should expect to see the article taken to WP:DRV and have him/herself slapped with a trout. Corvus cornix 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not against policy. ^demon may believe that these categories related somehow to a social network, but his opinion should not cloud his judgment when so many users have stated they believe these are for a collaborative function, not social networking. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this particular case, I'm merely trying to point out to Veesicle that it's policy that comes first, not consensus. Corvus cornix 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle (talk · contribs) has listed this at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7. - auburnpilot talk 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have not actually read WP:USEFUL in awhile. (I'll put the important part in bold.) "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion." User categories fall within this. To say that USEFUL is not a valid argument at UCFD when USEFUL itself contradicts you (!) is absolutely Orwellian. So there was, in fact, a crystal clear consensus grounded in policy. Because this out-of-policy, anti-consensus, anti-collaboration action will also anger many of the thousands of users in these categories (I'm not one of them, incidentally) this is one of the worst examples of abusive use of administrator tools that I've ever seen. --JayHenry 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CORP and advertisements like Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts

I have already complained that wikipedia is used for advertisement by writing articles claverly and professionally so that they look like encyclopedia articles. Instead of narrating current incidents, I would like to request to read 'SD tags' section on my talk page. Please note that I tagging articles which are already tagged as COI. Thanks. abhih 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User: ForeignerFromTheEast=User: Mr. Neutron and others

• Meatpuppeteering

Several users: ForeignerFromTheEast, Laveol, GriefForTheSouth, Lantonov and Jingiby are jointly involved in a systematic pov pushing, specificaly in the articles related to Republic of Macedonia or Ethnic Macedonians.

• Posible sock

Some of them frequently move their usernames to new ones: ForeignerFromTheEast has been formerly named Mr. Neutron, while GriefForTheSouth has been formerly Jackanapes, Wickedpedian and Vulgarian. The latter was warned by an administrator to stick to a single username once for all.

• Dubious sources

In numerous cases, they provide (or advocate) highly questionable sources like personal nationalist websites, such as the one used in Krste Misirkov, or private blogs, as in ITRO, or in many cases- they dont provide sources at all. Some of their sources: private nationalist website, again, personal blog, geocities page, some strange word document etc. They almost turned National Liberation War of Macedonia into their political pamphlet. This led to protests from other editors, vandal retaliations and finally admin interventiions and page protections. Some of the statements that they've added there can be described as neonazi (for example: "the German and the Bulgarian WWII armies were greeted by the population in the occupied areas"), and a book published by the Axis Bulgarian military in 1941 is used as a "source" there. They have also turned the corresponding talk page into a mockery of the subject the article deals with. With their behaviour they are ruining the reliability of Wikipedia itself.

• Living person biographies

They insist on keeping some highly controversial Bulgarian nationalist sources in a living persons biography (Kiro Gligorov, see: external links). recently I tried to clarify that those sources originate from a Bulgarian nationalist political party VMRO-BND but i was revereted with a false explanation that "the party doesnt say that" although those links lead to the party's official site. I returned my removed edits however they can remove them again at any time for no valid reason.

• Arbitrary Deletions

Makedonsko Devoiche is just one of the many examples. Its a Macedonian song article which they have rewriten to suit their agenda claiming that the song is Bulgarian. I contested their unsourced pov statements, and in return, ForeignerFromTheEast having no valid counter-arguments decided to nominate it for deletion. However, before i showed up to contest the article and while it represented a Bulgarian POV, he didnt have a problem with its existence. Same scenarios have already happened in the past. Fortunatelly this article was not deleted due to admin intervention, however their dubious and unsourced claims are still in the article.

• Reverting valid edits

On numerous occasions they have reverted valid edits, and often their edit summaries include fake info (for example rv vandalizm when there is no actual vandalizm, probably to mislead an eventual recent changes observer). Once I was reverted for "forking" in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo although I provided sources and explanation for the renaming (redir) of the page from Golo Bardo to Golo Brdo. Finally an administrator had to intervene and things settled down. However, yesterday they tried to sneak-in a personal blog as a "source", but was removed after i contested.

• Pseudo-admins

they systematicaly patrol Macedonian-related articles which can be noted by their contribution lists, behaving like sort of administrators. Instead of constructive additions, most of their edits consist of adding contentious and often poorly or unsourced claims to Rep. of Macedonia-related articles, be they historical, geographical, political and even trivial such as teenage pop stars biographies. They revert anything that they personaly dislike including valid edits claiming them irrelevant (for example once the Struga Poetry Evenings link was removed from Tuga za Yug, because in Foreigner's personal opinion that international festival which hosted several Nobel Prize Winners was "irrelevant".)

• double standards

I've also noted a problem in Tose Proeski and on its talk page. It seems to be the following: while english artists such as Elton John are mentioned as English rather than UK or British and while they have the flag of England in the infobox instead of the UK flag, these Bulgarian editors impose other standards for the Macedonian singers who were born/or emerged during the SR Macedonia period. They have started a tendentious campaign of adding "Yugoslavia" to almost all of the singers' articles (example: Karolina Goceva), at the same time they have ruined the look of many of the corresponding infoboxes.

In certain cases there's a mild level of personal attack or cynicism probably used to provoke an agry reaction from the opposite side and a subsequent block. And most important, in many cases whenever someone rightfully protests against their behaviour, they counter-attack with refering to certain Wikipedia rules accussing the person of personal attack, socking etc. I wrote a honest "face-to-face" message to ForeignerFromTheEast regarding his behaviour but there's no answer, although he was online yesterday (reverting as ussual), so I have nothing else to do except to ask the admins to take necesary actions --Dzole 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a very good venue for this as this noticeboard moves very fast... I suggest you open a case at WP:SSP. east.718 at 16:27, 11/7/2007

There's nothing for SSP to do here, the identies of these accounts are clear. But in my opinion this whole situation is ripe for Arbcom. Too much permanent edit-warring, on all sides. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute. east.718 at 16:53, 11/7/2007

Looking at his contributions ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit descriptions (ie, "why remove this?", "no need for this"), long term edit warring and talk page discussions, I'm having an increasingly harder time assuming WP:good faith from this user. SWik78 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Swik78, still better than leaving no edit summaries at all in your case. Dzole, how ironic of you to speak about sockpuppets when it is pretty clear you were behind the recent massive sockpuppetry (to name a few):

• Kebolji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poniranje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wreasuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iamgoku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Picatikoyama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (offensive name)
• Jaditrici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zambez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Szbgm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nekojdrugsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zorla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onoj so tri bukvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tiibam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ForeignerFromTheEast 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be defending your edits rather than attacking mine. Feel free to open a complaint about the things I do incorrectly but do it in a different section. SWik78 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should do exactly the same. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a section about User:ForeignerFromTheEast and I am lodging complaints about edits from User:ForeignerFromTheEast. What am I doing wrong? SWik78 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to stand up to the same standards as those you measure others upon? ForeignerFromTheEast 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular section right here, titled User:ForeignerFromTheEast, the only issue that should be discussed are edits from User:ForeignerFromTheEast. Not my edits (unless they're somehow related to yours), not what I eat, not my favourite colour, not anything else other than edits by User:ForeignerFromTheEast. Take up issues about me in a section about User:SWik78. SWik78 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is more an issue of hypocrisy than favorite colors. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Favourite colours have absolutely nothing to do with this which was exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it. SWik78 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

comment: despite all, ForeignerFromTheEast continues agenda pushing in the living person's biography: Kiro Gligorov particulary regarding the claims about Gligorov's alleged "Bulgarian ethnicity". Certain poorly scanned documents are provided in the external links section as "sources". they are hosted at the official site of the nationalist poltical party in Bulgaria VMRO-BND (its Plovdiv office). The douments: [15], [16], [17]. From the homepage Template:Bg icon: © 2006 ВМРО-БНД - гр.Пловдив Всички права запазени. (transl. copyright VMRO-BND, city of Plovdiv, all rights reserved). Whenever i try to clarify the origin of those "sources" in the main text, Foreigner reverts me without providing any valid reason. He claims that the party itself "doesnt say such thing" about Gligorov although those documents are hosted on their server. Asked at the talk page about where such claims originate from then, if not from the party, he avoids answering and providing sources. Now he even warns me about the 3RR on my talk page --Dzole 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I have indefinitely blocked this SPA because the disruption that they bring does now outweighs their limited contributions. They have a history of revert warring, assuming bad faith and appear incapable of working in a colaborative way. They have ignored an RFC and a RFAR [18] and the latter makes good reading to understand the basic problems with this editor. Perusal of the history of Talk:Least-squares_spectral_analysis would also prove instructive. Last night Mikegodwin removed a bunch of stuff from this talk page at Geoeg's request (no problems with that. Geoeg then took this as carte blanch to remove the RFAR from the page (despite it being open) and several archives from the COI noticeboard. Clearly, if Mikegoodwin had intended this he would have done it himself. I'm tired of this user's disruption and its time to put an end to it. Like all of my admin actions, please feel free to disagree, overturn and comment as you wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Geoeg is a disruptive SPA who cannot work with other users. Sam Blacketer 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse While Geoeg does have some contributions, the disruption caused by a pattern of tendencious editing seems to outweigh those contribs. (Given that Geoeg hasn't modified his behavior after any of his previous 6 blocks). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note that there is a malformed unblock request ob Geoeg's talk page if anyone feels like dealing with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Save TheFingerer

I was editing under the account TheFingerer when it was brought to my attention that several of my edits were against policy. This occurred in the form of three warnings within seconds of each other at 7:42 [19][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169815184][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169815204], all for edits I had made prior to my initial warning. Upon receiving these warnings I promptly stopped editing except for a message left on the note of the editor who warned me, however was still blocked at 7:44 [20]. I posted an unblock request asking for a second chance, however John Reaves declined my request stating I had already been given plenty of warning [21]. I attempted to bring it to his attention that all three warnings were for edits I had made before the first warning and that I had stopped immediately upon having received these warnings, but he reverted my edit and protected my page [22][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169824762]. Given that I cannot contact the editor to ask for a review under my old account I am posting here to ask you to consider the facts I present:

• I received three warnings in under a minute all for edits I had made before the first warning.
• I did not make any edits after receiving the first warning bar asking a question on the page of the warner
• I was blocked having made no inappropriate edits after I received my first warning
• An unblock was declined because I had apparently received enough warning

All I am asking for is a second chance. SaveTheFingerer 09:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on your talk page, if you're interested in a second chance. Note: I have blocked SaveTheFingerer indefinitely as a sock and bad faith user. You clearly knew what you were doing and are no longer welcome to edit here until you've proven your good faith. henrik•talk 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about the time line of this. First warning through third warning was at 7:42. Block was at 7:44, no "fingering" went on after the 7:42 warnings. While I suspect I am assuming too much good faith and this truly is a vandalism only account, the fact that his page has been protected and email blocked (which he hasn't abused as far as I know) disturbs me. His accounting is correct. Usually when a vandalism only account gets caught, they go away, change accounts, and don't try to put up a fight. This is a bit different. I am commenting purely on the timeline and the general way this was handled. spryde | talk 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that henrik gave a clear explanation and i am still concerned about the username. Nothing changed so far. It still refers to [Image:Male right middle crop.jpg] which he used to harass many users. We don't want anyone to 'finger' any user. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am not denying what he originally did was wrong. I am just concerned about the timeline. If I am crazy, tell me I am crazy and I will go back to editing my Lumber Tycoon/Politician/Heckuvaguy article :) spryde | talk 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Well, the proper procedure is to contact the blocking admin Icairns (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and discuss that w/ them. I've just commented on the fact that the blocked user is still obsessed w/ 'fingers'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Read the contribs: the first sixteen edits were to give "the finger" to other editors. It is a disruption-only account opened by an experienced user who is now trying to game the rules to get an unblock. The unblock reason was "I was not given warning, I was unaware that my actions constituted vandalism, can I have a second change (sic)" which is not compatible with their earlier statement that "Giving the finger promotes WikiHate". Perhaps a checkuser might be in order? The behaviour of this account is unlikely to be an isolated incident. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, new accounts knowing exactly what is WikiHate, how to make a template, adding pictures to it, coming here to complain, etc... are w/o any doubts sock puppets. This is clearly a sock puppet of someone who got some problems w/ the editors he 'fingered' them. There's really nothing to do here and believe CU would be just a waste of time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pure, thoroughbred bullshit, you knew exactly what you were doing, as long as I am editing wikipedia, you will never change any page. You are a pathetic wated excuse for a human. This is Zanusi 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. Corvus cornix 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Neil. shoy (^words _words) 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Wated'? HalfShadow 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing other users' statements on one's own user page

A while ago, I started a thread here with the same title (see the archive here) regarding User:GHcool using his user page as a WP:SOAPBOX and to call out other users, quoting them out of context and without a chance for rebuttal, effectively making them look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid.

Despite User:GHcool constantly changing the heading to make the incident seem more innocuous (see here, here, here and here), several administrators called on User:GHcool to remove the offending parts of his user page, which resulted in User:GHcool making a single edit, leaving the rest of the page as it was.

The page has since been extended by a few quotes (here, here and here).

Can any administrator have a word with User:GHcool and make sure he revises his user page?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:30

I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question. Furthermore, since I am unaware of any guidelines against changing the heading of a section in a non-talk page, I trust that nobody will criticize this action.

Its a shame that Pedro Gonnet feels the need to harass me like this. I could understand if he were one of the users I criticize on my page, but he isn't. Most of Pedro Gonnet's edits are perfectly acceptable to me. We have disagreed on talk pages in the past, but in general, I find that Pedro Gonnet is not a problem editor or a liar. I try to limit my criticisms to statements that are demonstrably false. I do not assume bad faith, nor do personally attack users. I feel that this does not solve any problems and would probably create more problems. I prefer instead to criticizing users' fallacious statements, since, in my opinion, the responsiblity of Wikipedia editors is to correct falsehoods, demanding proof, and noting a biased point of view. This is the third time somebody has tried to stop me from using my user page to explain my views and I expect and hope that it will be the third time the charges will be exonerated. Thank you. --GHcool 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of the new quotes mentioned above do, indeed, misrepresent the users by being taken out of context. I suggest you remove them from your userpage, or the end result is going to be the entire page being deleted. ELIMINATORJR 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminatorjr, you'll find that I'm a pretty reasonable person. Perhaps if you gave me feedback on the specific instance when you feel I misrepresented someone, I could review it and see if I could correct it. I think that course of action would be more productive and more cooperative than idle threats. --GHcool 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, this probably isn't the place. ELIMINATORJR 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I recommend that anybody else who wants to discuss this matter talk directly to me on my user page like Eliminatorjr has done. There's no need to take time away from the busy administrators on this issue. --GHcool 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incident -Talk The Holocaust

User-Mona23653 deleted a post that I had made on Ukrainian Colloboration in WW2, this post included a link to another Wikipedia article. I have restored my original post. User Mona23653 should not be allowed to censor the talk page.--Woogie10w 11:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just leave them a message, there isn't really anything that requires administrator intervention. east.718 at 16:29, 11/7/2007

This is the text of my message to User Mona23653--- " Don't delete my postings, I am one person you can't bully. I mean it, stop deleting what I post!! " User Mona23653, I noticed has been accused of hostile postings in the past. I don't appreciate my posts being censored, especially when they direct readers to another Wikipedia article.--Woogie10w 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To ice the cake Mona23653 makes statements regarding the Holocaust in the Ukraine that are not backed up with sources. Mona23653 attacks my source because he is a Russian.--Woogie10w 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of User talk

Any objections to the restoration of User talk:Eyrian? Mercury 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously don't undelete the last revision. I don't think it really matters much, so why bother doing it? GRBerry 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This request is probably linked to This thread. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor having returned, an in light of the above thread and RFAR, I have undeleted the talk. The right to vanish in this case would only apply to those departing with no intention to return. If I have made an error, any admin acting in good faith may undo this action with my endorsement of reversal. Best, Mercury 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did he return? I don't see anything in his contribs or logs since Oct 28th. User:Veesicle 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He "left" in august. His most recent was a few days ago on the 28th. Given Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Eyrian I believe the restoration was ok for the circumstance. Best, Mercury 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Abhih

I don't know where else to put this, but can someone help this guy out? I'm trying to give him some advice on his talk page about appropriate and inappropriate uses of CSD templates, but instead...he reported me to WP:AIV for removing CSD templates whose claim was essentially that the article was not encyclopedic (which is not a valid CSD reason)...can an admin please explain to him why excessive use of inappropriate CSD templates is disruptive? The guy obviously wants to help Wikipedia, but I think he's having trouble understanding that there are already policies and consensuses in place...and you can't just speedy an article because you don't like it (note that some of the speedies have been perfectly legit)...he seems to have fairly good intentions and could probably be a good SPAM warrior...just a wee misguided. - Smashville 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - he's very enthusiastic about his hunting down of potential COI and advertising, but he obviously doesn't quite grasp the concept of an article expressing notability. Judging from the way he shrugged off Smashville's comments, pointing out that he's not an admin, someone with the bit would probably do well to give him a careful explanation of the speedy deletion rules and some of the other options... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alert to any admin familiar with User:SEGA and his ongoing activity despite a community ban

To any admin familiar with the "SEGA saga". SEGA has been permanently banned (See Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Community_ban_on_User:SEGA ). However, this user is still active under a number of IPs. 67.33.61.18 (talk · contribs) was originally blocked for 6 months prior to SEGA's community ban being put into effect. The 6 months has ended and that IP is now active again. Recent edits by 68.112.18.13 (talk · contribs) are also SEGA stepping around his permanent block. 68.112.18.X is another IP range identified in SEGA's very lengthy Sockpuppet case and this IP has been mirroring the edits of 67.33.61.18. Also note: after being tagged as a SEGA IP sock, 68.112.18.13 blanked their sock template with this edit. Admin Wiki alf replaced the tag here. And again the IP blanked their talk page here. Since SEGA is under a permanent community ban, shouldn't all his usual IP haunts be blocked... or re-blocked as well? 156.34.142.110 15:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot running riot

Hello I would like to alert the wikipedia community that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) appears to have gone on a mess campaign to get every image licensed under the template {{logo}} deleted reguardless if they have a proper rationale or not. All the images are being tagged for deletion and when this happens the bot posts on the talkpages of articles in an intimidating matter saying in other words "The image will be deleted" basically, claiming that all Rationale's I think we can improve this bot because it just seems to be a nuisance. The sunder king 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of edits you think it's making incorrectly? --bainer (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images which have fair rationales as having no or incorrect rationales. The sunder king 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are looking for is a specific example or two. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit concerns me. The image is the standard resolution with a rationale and proper license, and the bot has threatened deletion on it. The sunder king 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template, they fail WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's tagging images correctly to me. Image:Borough of Sunderland COA.png, Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, and Image:Nwlogo.gif...which you've recently removed the tag from...all have information lacking from their rationales. You've failed to include a link to the article it's being used in. --Onorem♠Dil 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They are being used in articles, but please read Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, it has a strong rationale. The sunder king 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From the tag, "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed."

I didn't say that they aren't being used in articles. A link to the article the image is being used in must be included in the fair use rationale. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read and done that on the description pages. The sunder king 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If Betacommand would be more communicative (your reverts could have had something in the summary) this could have been resolved much sooner. —Random832 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest when you see the amount of complaints/requests on his talk page from people who haven't read the linked pages, you understand why he is now less communicative than before. We all have only 24 hours in our days. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Random. Orderinchaos 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a simple matter of placing the article the picture is used in in the Fair Use rationale. If you do this, it should be okay. JuJube 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but couldn't BCBot be modified to insert the proper 10c article link rather than tag them for deletion on a technicality? Powers ^T 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not something a bot can do, how is it supposed to know where the current rationale is for? not all rationales are the same. β^_command 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, such logos are used on a single page. Powers ^T 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen images uploaded for page A and a rationale was written for page A, Image was placed on page B and later removed from page A. does that mean rationale A is valid for page B? (no) it requires human judgment. β^_command 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to a bot inserting fair use rationales, that should never be done automatically, or what's the point in having a fair use rationale, anyway? How is the bot supposed to know if the article that the image is in, is actually being used under proper fair use considerations? Corvus cornix 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, but in the case of logos it seems vanishingly unlikely. The vast, vast, vast majority of cases are blindingly obvious. Powers ^T 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here...

...Was not the bot, nor the user who undid the bot. The problem was two sterile reverts: [23] and [24] which restored the bot rationale warning tag without explaining why the tag had been placed.

All editors and administrators bear a responsibility for discussing issues which may come up. We accept bot actions within accepted ranges of activity as exceptions to that - the bot tagging here is appropriate. However, Betacommand manually reinserted the bot tag twice without so much as an edit summary or talk page comment to explain why the rationale that was there was not compliant with rationale requirements in the fair use policy.

I have warned Betacommand for sterile edit warring and failing to take reasonable efforts to inform and discuss and clarify policy when it was challenged. The bot was right; the tag was right; the rationale was deficient. Explaining why it was deficient was B's responsibility under the circumstances, however, and he didn't do that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak and I'm getting emails and messages at my talk page from newbies concerned their images are being deleted (I'm sure I'm not alone amongst admins in getting these sorts of contacts) - they simply don't understand what they need to do to make them comply, and there is a general perception out there that the rules and goalposts keep moving, so if they fix it now, they'll have to fix it again in a few weeks or months. This is the main problem I have with this - for the sake of arbitrary correctness we are driving good contributors off the project out of sheer frustration. In cases where it simply points to a redirect or disambiguation instead of the final destination, the bot should fix it itself instead of mindlessly nominating for deletion. Orderinchaos 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That last biut seems kind of obvious to me... Viridae^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. It is understandable that a bot makes bot-like edits, but it is also reasonable to expect the operator of the bot to provide civil and helpful responses to good-faith queries. --John 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot follows redirects, as for DAB pages those are not valid. As for reverting, if a user actually read the notice, and the link that is provided they would know what the issue is. Instead the choose to undo or revert without fixing the issue that has been brought up. I just revert back. User who come to my talk page I try and help. β^_command 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. In particular, when applying arcane and often confusing policy to users who have little understanding of it, administrators and senior editors have a responsibility to proactively communicate in more detail to get the right message out. We cannot force the editor to listen and understand, but failing to make the effort to explain it to them adequately is assuming bad faith and unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. They should not have to come to your talk page to get an adequate explanation. If you revert, you owe them at least an edit summary that explains. You haven't been doing even that. Please take the time to help people. Assume good faith and explain it to them at least once, preferably at least twice if they don't get it the first time. WP:AGF and WP:BITE require that we treat them with respect and good faith efforts to communicate. The sterile reverts are as far away from that policy and underlying intended policy as you can get... Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:209.94.170.126

Resolved

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism only from this IP. 2 blocks in the past, 2 warnings about vandalism today as of this entry. I think it's time for an extended block. SWik78 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 72 hours. Please make future reports like this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks! GlassCobra 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [25]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [26]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [27]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[28]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [29].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, removal of sourced material, POV-pushing, personal attack

Resolved

 – content dispute --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has removed sourced material from Neo-Nazism and National Socialist Front, in an effort to push an uncited point of view. I have made comprimises and searched out several references to back up the facts in those articles, but EliasAlucard continues to revert my constructive and referenced edits. He has also made at least one unwarranted personal attack against me in an edit note in the neo-Nazism article, and has used caps in edit notes (aka yelling). He was also recently edit warring to change the capitalization in the titles of Anti-fascism and Anti-communism; without justification, against standard capitalization guidelines, and against the consensus on Wikipedia for articles about isms (although he seems to have backed down from that).Spylab 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Spylab here is misrepresenting me. His sources don't claim that National Socialist Front has as its ideology, "Neo-Nazism". They call it a Neo-Nazi organisation/group, which is what it is, but they do not label its ideology as "Neo-Nazi". Second of all, Neo-Nazism, is not a unique ideology in itself, it's a political movement seeking to revive an ideology, namely, Nazism. This is even confirmed by User:Spylab's sources. About his sources, I didn't remove them, I bundled them together into one cohesive source. And as for his personal attack claim, I remarked: it seems you have a reading disorder or something; all of your sources confirm that "Neo-Nazism" is a political movement trying to revive Nazism; and Nazism is an ideology.[30] Why? because his sources, don't say once that Neo-Nazism is a unique ideology that differs from the original Nazism, they all say it's a political movement. This is hardly POV-pushing. I have been accused of vandalism by this user, and that can certainly lead to a block on his part for accusing me of vandalism over a content-dispute. What's more, is that he has been reverted by me and another user over his failure to understand that Neo-Nazi groups do not have an ideology called "Neo-Nazism", and he should be blocked for at least 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:17 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:Slarre reverted Spylab's edit by pointing out that his sources don't support his preferred version.[31] It seems to me, Spylab lacks a lot of knowledge on Nazism and he misinterprets his own sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:32 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

• My footnotes, do in fact, back up my edits. That is why I chose those references. That can be confirmed by clicking on those references and using control-F (or find) to find the appropriate text.Spylab 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following references call neo-Nazism an ideology, not just a movement:

• "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
• "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
• "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
• "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary to the cult of the music itself." I removed one reference that did not call neo-Nazism an ideology, but those four references clearly refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology.Spylab 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the place to discuss this. This is a content dispute, not about vandalism or anything else. You should stop pasting your refs here and let us discuss it where it belongs. For the record, your refs are all wrong and not academic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:12 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with the above. WP:ANI is not the place for content disputes; try dispute resolution. --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple content dispute at all, especially since part of the problem is incivility in edit notes and talk pages (not just the single personal attack you linked to), and the unwillingness to comprimise. As for the content dispute itself, I have provided several references, and you have dismissed them all out of hand, and haven't provided any references proving that neo-Nazism is not an ideology. We are just supposed to take your uncited personal opinion as fact. Here is a list of 15 more references. That makes a total of 19 references explicitly describing neo-Nazism as an ideology vs zero references attempting to disprove that fact.Spylab 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Here to troll

Resolved

Here to troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user while on the Yellow Pages article. Only one edit, but the content of that edit along with the username suggests no interest in constructive contributions. Arakunem^Talk 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely. Please report future violations like this to WP:UAA. Thanks! GlassCobra 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, pretty much everyone beat me on this one; I got beat on the block, edit-conflicted here... man, just when I thought I was on the ball, too. Bah! EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic user P.F.O.S.B.

P.F.O.S.B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor may need to be blocked soon for editing which perhaps falls short of being obvious vandalism. They have made a number of edits, clearly NPOV violations, to controversial articles (e.g. Abortion, Lethal Injection) with plainly misleading edit summaries. The editor has also edit-warred on Prison Break and so far has removed one warning from their Talk page without comment (not a crime in itself, I know, but it doesn't help assess the user).

This begs the question of how many "good" edits a user needs to make, to be able to avoid being blocked as a disruption-only account. In their defense, I'm sure P.F.O.S.B. will point to the many speedy-deletion tags that make up the rest of their contribs. However, tagging Base load fallacy as an attack article may not be all that constructive... Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

I've been thinking about this too. The user has made about 80 valid speedy deletion taggings, which is an excellent contribution from a new user joining new page patrol. But, we can't make it seem like one can "buy" POV edits and tendentious practices with a certain amount of near-automatic new page tagging. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Ivo seems to be getting calmer by the minute. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked IvoShandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for gross incivility. Edits such as this and this are completely unacceptable here and he's been here long enough to understand that point. He's excerising his right to vanish, but he shouldn't do this in a disruptive way. Could someone do review for me? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good block and it's sad that it was needed. As IvoShandor was a valued, long-time contributer... I think he should be unblocked if he indicates he's calmed down and will stop with the attacks. --W.marsh 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course W.marsh, that's my plan, I'll make that clear on his talk page. He's a good user, but we should assume that he is really wanting to vanish, and if that's the case, then we don't want him taking other users with him because of his attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with W.marsh that it was a good block. I might have warned the user first to give them a chance to back down. I believe there is a school of thought among some admins that "civility blocks never work"; I do not however recall what, if any, alternatives are offered by them to deal with this kind of serial incivility. --John 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a very prolific contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and I really don't want to see him vanish. That said, he seems to have had a rather mercurial personality lately. He's been getting frustrated rather easily at certain incidents, like with Mattisse (talk · contribs) at WP:DYK and with TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) in several different situations. I'm not sure why he's been frustrated at working in a collaborative environment lately, except for the possibility that he's been butting heads with a few strong-willed people. I don't have any opposition to the block, but it's regrettable that it's come down to this. I wish he'd find a way to deal with these frustrations and not get upset so easily. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, he snapped at me yesterday. Of course, my response wasn't particularly nice, but what he said today was unacceptable. SashaCall 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And he hasn't learned his lesson [32] SashaCall 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rants & attacks by User:Thomasinventions

Resolved

 – User blocked with polite but firm message, feel free to unblock if he calms down and shows signs of becoming rational. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm receiving lengthy rants and attacks by Thomasinventions (talk · contribs), which could probably benefit from an outsider's intervention. User added this piece of original research to Ebay, which I reverted. Presumably the same user, under various related IP addresses, previously added the same info (diff, diff, diff, diff), which me and other editors had previously reverted. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Trainunion

I am not sure this counts as vandalism, but new user account Trainunion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revered 6 prods without explaination. When asked why the answer was [33].--Gavin Collins 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned by another user, I reverted the violation of WP:NPA he left on your talk page. Cheers, Qst 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User is now blocked, and is now asking for unblock, which is likely to fail. I don't think we need to worry about him anymore. --EoL talk 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:East718, User:Nancy, User:Qst and yourself for acting to timely and effective manner. --Gavin Collins 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... wait... the user continues to make personal attacks, however, they claim to have good intentions (saying the articles are notable). Should we do a good-faith unblock? --EoL talk 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he is entitled to remove the prod templates as he did give a reason: they are "plenty notable". However, his respose to my questions as to why they are notable [34] was responded to by [35]. I think he had a chance to respond in good faith already. --Gavin Collins 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The Prod's that he reverted are all related, so they were not random troublemaking. Additionally, the prod template does say that anyone can remove it if they "object to (the article's) deletion for any reason". An explanation is requested, but the language suggests that one is not required. While I do not condone the user's over-reaction and associated incivility, I don't think he was out of line in removing the Prods. If someone objects to the prod, they may remove it. If someone objects to the removal, the next step is to list at AfD, which was not done here... Arakunem^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this thread, and had already dropped the block down to a day. I'm willing to unblock him if he ceases edit warring and personal attacks. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:43, 11/7/2007

Once the prod tags have been removed, my understanding is that they cannot be restored, unless there is an exception? Could you confirm if this edit is in order [36]. I presume the next step is to go to AfD. --Gavin Collins 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only exception I'm aware of is if the tag was removed in error (which is certainly not the case here). The next step is to go to AfD, if you wish to pursue the deletion of the article. Other options, like discussion or walking away, are, of course, always open. -Chunky Rice 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of another exception why a prod template would be restored: reverting vandalism, which was what the user Nancy did. But you ignored her reasoning. Why was this?--Gavin Collins 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not ingored anybody's reasoning, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you'll take a look at the relevant policy (WP:PROD), you'll see that a PROD tag should not be restored, even in the event that it appears to have been removed in bad faith. I don't think that you understand that the PROD system is set up to faciliate uncontested deletions. Once it is contested (even by an SPA), PROD no longer applies. -Chunky Rice 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD says that the prod template should not be removed if the edit is not obviously vandalism. Nancy believed in good faith it was obvious vandalism; but you assumed she restored the template by mistake. Is that correct? --Gavin Collins 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism in removing a PROD tag has to be a little more than removing it and stating the article is notable in the edit summary. So, yes, I believe she was mistaken if that's what she thought. An anon could remove a PROD tag without any edit summary, and that should not be restored. Unless it's a part of blanking vandalism or it's being replaced with racial slurs or something like that, PROD tags should not be restored once removed. -Chunky Rice 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of a redirect appears to be invalid, please help

I just found this on my User Talk:

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of misgivings/problems with this:

1.) I have no idea how one can place a "hangon" tag onto a page that does not appear to allow one access to it long enough to hit "edit this page". Is there a trick to this I don't know about, by any chance?

2.) The actual complaint is that it redirects to a "non-existent page". This is a truly bizarre claim, because it actually redirects to the main disambig page, Girls Just Want to Have Fun (disambiguation)... which, you know... exists. As opposed to being "non-existent", which requires, well, not existing. The pages were created the same time as each other - months and months ago - so I don't know how this got to be a reason given for a "Speedy Delete" nom.

Additionally, having looked at the Criteria for Speedy Deletion in regards to redirects, I do not feel this necessarily warrants it anyway (meaning I would LOVE to use the hangon tag... if I could even manage to figure out how to in this case), as not only does the redirect go to a page that does in fact exist, but it happens to be a VERY common misspelling of the title of the original song, after which several other things are named (sometimes using the "Wanna" spelling to boot), and I thought that it would be simpler and perfectly logical to just include both variations of the title on one disambig page, under the circumstances.

At any rate, it's an odd situation... advice please? Runa27 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually anything to do now. On October 16, it looks like there was some page moving, and the page got tagged for speedy deletion, but this was eventually changed back to the original redirect. You're looking at a message that was only valid for a short time about 3 weeks ago. Regarding your 1st point about applying a hangon to the redirect, when you are redirected, you will see a link to the redirect at the top of the page. That's where you'd go to see the actual redirect. Leebo ^T/C 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a way to edit a redirect — after you are redirected to the target page, you'll notice a little note underneath the title that says "Redirected from X", where X is a link to the redirect. Click that link and you'll get to the redirect page without it redirecting you to its target, like this.
• The speedy deletion tag (and subsequent warning to your talk page) came about due to some move mistakes; it was added when the redirect in question looked like this, which was to a page that didn't exist. The redirect was fixed to the proper place and the speedy deletion tag was removed.

Hope this helps. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr unblock request / block

Resolved

Can anybody have a quick look at the unblock request at User talk:Theisles and review also if I 216.143.251.162 (talk · contribs) should be blcoked as well. I warned the both but Theisles went ahead with another revert...--Tikiwont 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock has been declined by JodyB and block will expire soon while 216.143.251.162 has brought the issue to the article's talk page. --Tikiwont 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:69.226.46.17

• 69.231.5.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.226.46.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mastermesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently it all started with the popular culture section of the Plymouth Valiant when I added a trivia tag then purged that section, that user got angry and vandalised one of the page I created as seen here as well as writing in to another user with a false statement that I removed it because it had nothing to do with foreign shit boxes, this is without checking my user contribution history

He then under the username Mastermeth (see contribution history), decided to vandalise numerous of my articles, which he ended up getting banned. Following the ban, he than came to my talk page and made another personal attack, accusing me discrediting Detroit and then removed that. I only got to know about it when I received a new message notification. I believe that these listed above are the same users as he has written the same topic about Michigan. Willirennen 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I don't see anything since two days ago. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Willirennen contribs, it looks like he logged in today and saw the new message banner. spryde | talk 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this contribution history, I suspect that that user may be a sock puppet of this user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page moves by User: TheNightmareMan

First off, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, so please forgive me if this is the wrong place.

User: TheNightmareMan Special:Contributions/TheNightmareMan has moved a bunch of Talk pages, including today's FA Borat, in an attempt to archive them. I'm not fully proficient with Wikipedia yet, so I don't want to attempt to undo this. Can someone please take a look at it? The pages affected are: Talk:Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan‎, Talk:Beijing opera‎ and Talk:Phishing. Thanks! Ank329 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, people do that when a talk page gets too long. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he almost did it right. There are no links to the archives on the talk pages for Borat :-D. Never done this before but wish me luck! spryde | talk 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting comments here after having also reported at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. This user went through an inappropriately "archived" multiple article talk pages by using redirects to move the pages, which has broken the talk page history and left the original talk pages completely blank (he also removed project templates, etc). This also removed current conversations and left several editors baffled. It can be undone by moving the content back to the main talk page, but admin action is needed to fix the histories. Collectonian 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note on how to archive. As these page moves were from several hours ago and they have been fixed, I don't see the point of a block. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually only one has been fixed. The Beijing opera and Phising still need fixing :) Collectonian 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. like Collectonian said, the Beijing opera and Phising Talk pages still need fixing. Thanks Ank329 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:63.3.10.130

User:63.3.10.130 attempted to reset my password today, probably in response for me nominating one of his articles for deletion. Is there a protocol for handling situations like these? Caknuck 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I look at this more closely, I'm pretty sure we have a sock of User:Cowboycaleb1 here. Look at the date the account was created, the contribution histories & the spelling of "referance" in the edit summaries. Second opinion anyone? Caknuck 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As some small advice, delete the e-mail/ignore/don't do anything with it. Maxim 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I figured. Thanks, Caknuck 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated re-creation of deleted article Russel Timoshenko

Resolved

The article Russel Timoshenko was deleted on 26 July after an AfD debate. The editor User:Fodient has since re-created the article on numerous occasions: twice at Russel Timoshenko, at Russel timoshenko, at Russell Timoshenko and as a redirect at Russell timoshenko. The editor's persistent re-creation of a deleted article is bordering on vandalism. Thanks, WWGB 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Salted the earth. east.718 at 02:44, 11/8/2007

We been asked at the Belarusian Wikiproject to recreated the article; we rejected it. We also had nothing to do with it's recreation at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be alert

Everyone's favorite foul-mouthed, likely-Canadian-expatriate vandal is back. This is following a four+ month absence, so watchlisting the articles on the linked page, or at least some of them, would be greatly appreciated. Natalie 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Add 58.8.21.24 (talk · contribs) to that list. I had a lovely little exchange with this dapper young gentleman. JuJube 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)