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

Coloane community ban discussion

• Coloane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Wikipedia, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: [1] where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: [2] where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: [3] where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Wikipedia, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have a history of behavior which cannot be ignored at this point. You don;t get to disrupt FAC after FAC over and over simply because you want us to forget about past problems. You have never adequately explained you outright declarations to intentionally disrupt the processes at FAC. For this reason, I feel the community ban is an appropriate solution. I urge you to refrain from commenting on FACs and FARs in the future, and return to editing articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your concrete evidence to prove that I disrupt/ed the FAC process? I am not going to write anymore here since it really wastes me too much time to reply your comment, so this is my last comment here. I guess you probably wanted to save your face on my comment under U2. Plus I guess you have nothing to do so far and that is why you spent most of your time to see if you can do something. Oh by the way, it seems you did a right job to give a warning to someone I didn't know. Hopefully this is not the only one you can do as an admin. Good luck! Coloane (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: [4]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put this comment on Archive 354. Coloane (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane. It would seem a community ban on FA/GA discussions is the next stage from here. Orderinchaos 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall Coloane has commented in a past Macau FAC with personal attacks directed at Tony and myself at the very least. I have reminded this user that the attacking behaviour is unacceptable, but has ignored the message. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

So the question remains: Are we prepared to institute and enforce a community ban on this user? Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, something needs to be done; I just don't know what. Maybe a ban, maybe FAC probation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

I think if the user were restricted from any future FA discussions, that would be a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he has not clean up his acts & instead went on his 'crusade' further by ignoring any past community warnings or actions & even while his case is in arbitration now, I wld like to bring to your attention on his editing behaviour & actions towards Singapore-related articles & the SGpedia community not too long ago. As his case is still pending here, he has 'retired' suddenly as of Jan 23 but I've lingering doubts that he will remain so for long. [5]. u may also want to read his remarks posted on Jimbo Wales' talkpage previously. Fyi, I'm a RC patroller & was given the roll-back authority to help in monitoring on Singapore-related articles for such trolls & vandals. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane is my husband. I already let him retire and he will not come back for sure. I hope it can clarify your doubt. In addition, I do not think your claim about what he did for Singapore-related topics are reasonable. Guia Hill 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

The statement I made were based on his pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen from his history logs, talkpage (blanked repeatedly[6]), personal attacks on SG-related articles [7] & SGpedians [8] that also matches similar reports made by other editors/Admins all these while. I'm not alone nor the only SGpedian in making such a statement as seen from this discussion, related disputes & repeated ANI cases initiated unabatedly over the past 2 weeks. Besides the SG case I mentioned earlier, I trust the Wiki community is able to evaluate on any such claims being discussed here & decide on its final long-term solution once & for all as the community has tolerated such behaviour long enuf. The community only welcome & valued volunteers who are civil and constructive to the spirit and aspirations of Wikipedia in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. I just make a response here for you. You can leave your message on my talk page if you want. Your claims are entirely not relevant. He already got warnings from someone and this matter was over long time ago. What Jayron32 wrote is also irrelevant. I didn't have much time to read his edit history. But I am sure that Miyokan is the one who voted and really disrupted the FAC process and that is why Coloane reacted emotionally on his talk page. That is why Raul restarted the nomination. Jayron32 didn't read the context carefully. Finally I would like to tell you that this page is not a battlefield for retaliation. I don't enjoy this much. I also trust Wikipedia can foster people how to love and respect each other. Nobody is prefect here. With love and peace!! Guia Hill 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

I responded to your earlier replies even though your intervention consitutes a possible COI here. My statement made were backed with factual logs & third-party's reports & I'm not using this platform as "a battlefield for retaliation" as u claimed; I'm expressing my views & concern here in my capacity as a RC patroller. Despite numerous warnings & repeated ANI action in recent weeks, he still persist with his disruptive remarks/action at the expense of the good faith & assistance extended to him earlier. Whether my view or someone else view is being discounted or not, the onus is still left for the community to decide in arriving at a consensus as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Ask him & yourself honestly this question - what led to this unwholesome karma now? Shld he chooses to return to contribute esp on Macau/HK-related articles in future, we hope he wld have reflected & learnt on this whole episode & to accord everyone the same "love & respect" as u mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban from FAC. Long-term disruption leaves little confidence in a change after this. Lara❤Love 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Laralove, Jayron and Aldwinteo. Aldwinteo's remarks about the SG situation cause me particular concern regarding this user. We do not need people taking out vindictive GARs/FARs - it only creates more work for already overworked volunteers. Orderinchaos 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move for closure

Seeing no objections to the course of action, I say that we should notify the user that it has been decided that he is asked to make no further comments to FA and GA discussions in any way, and that such a probation means that if he continues to do so he may be blocked for disruption. Could another admin notify him of this. He already hates me, apparently, and in the interest of representing the widespread support for this proposal, it may be better if a relatively uninvolved admin notifies the user of this decision. If I do it, it may be taken as bullying him or something. Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is less than two days of discussion really enough to be able to gauge community consensus? At AfD at least five days is required. Guest9999 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue isn't only 2 days old. There are prior ANI reports on this user. Its been a frequent topic of discussion for over a week; the priod discussions are linked above. If this were truly only a two day discussion, I would agree with you, however, though THIS thread is only two days old, this problem has been being addressed by admins for some time, and despite this, the user continues the problematic behavior. He knows that we know what he is doing. He knows that we have told him to stop. He has not yet stopped. If you disagree that any action is needed, please say so yourself. The thread is here, and open to comment. What do YOU think needs be done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could tell (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the other threads mentioned a community ban. So far in this thread four users (by my count) have supported a ban, two of whom are - or have been - involved in disputes with the user. Other users have suggested dispute resolution or simply unecertainty as to what action to take. Personnaly I do not think that this shows that a community consensus has been formed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the views of ‘involved’ editors are less valid than those who are - um - uninvolved, perhaps you yourself could comment on the issue (as opposed to commenting on procedure around the issue) – as Jayron has already suggested.

PS, I am what you might call an “involved” editor, and have thus not commented in this thread (until now). --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I've no prior disputes with Coloane as my only direct contact with him so far wrt to the above case, is my reply to his posting at the Singapore talkpage dated Jan 3 & it ended there with a non-reply from him. Also, I've not advocated any specific action here earlier, except calling for a final resolution done thru' a community consensus when presenting the mentioned case and its relevant facts. If a vote is needed so as to wrap up this case once & for all, I'll cast my vote formally then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

That formal dispute resolution processes are started to receive wider community input on the behavior of editors here. Let's start with an WP:RFC. Any objections to this idea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how this proposal will go mate, I hope this case will not 'loose steam' again & be consigned to the 'Archives' & forgotten like [9] & [10] earlier. Also, I fear that the longer this case drags on, more 'show-stoppers or proxies' may pop up to derail the case,[11] although it's a clear-cut case of recalcitrant behaviour based on its merits for all to see. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears no one here cares much one way or the other, else we would have received more comments on this one. Users have valid concerns about a community ban so far; and if ArbCom will even accept this it needs to be shown that due process is followed and steps are taken at the community level to handle this. RFC seems a reasonable solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed immediate topic bans

• After reviewing the diffs above, I support an immediate and permanent topic ban on this editor. Classic disruption, nothing more, nothing less. It's these type of editors that discourage good people from contributing. -- Bellwether ^B_C 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur that, since no editor has come forward to support or excuse Coloane's behaviour (not even Coloane - he now claims to have permanently retired from Wikipedia), an RFC seems a complete waste of productive editing time and give my Strong support for immediate topic bans on:

1. Asian topics other than Macau and Hong Kong
2. FACs and FARs

for a minimum period of 9 months. I am an "involved editor". Alice^✉ 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support of the above including GAC & GAR ban as per his history logs. Unlike wat u think Jayron32, I believe this case is being monitored by many of his past victims & affected WikiProject groups but they're reluctant to comment or support further; either they have given up hope on seeing any final resolution again as per previous long drawn clashes/ANI episodes, or to avoid being seen as 'bullying' or 'involved editor' at this stage now. Let's get this done with so that everyone can move on & get back to our regular tasks in Wikipedia folks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning User:Hopiakuta

Resolved

Doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, nothing to do for admins. Orderinchaos 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I initially posted my concerns here of User:Hopiakuta making legal threats against me of libel in their edit summaries, and the further accusations made against me for no reason of hypocrisy, dictatorship, slander, conspiracy, committing fraud, etc. etc. etc. The only response I have had at the other page is someone saying that it's a user with a very long and drawn out history of problem edits and that I should raise my concerns here instead. I have briefly read through the specific page related to this user and can see no prior examples of the user making such accusations against others, so where do I add what I have experienced so that the admins get a full picture of what's going on? -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that your first move is to list all the diffs or link to the users contributions page so that anyone who comeshere can see what dastardly ddeeds User:Hopiakuta has perpetrated and get a full view of the sitatuion. You should probably warn him if you haven't alreadythat you've opene dup a discissuon about him on this page since that seems to be commonly procedure used here. Smith Jones (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to leave this to an admin who has previous experience of this user; there is an issue in communication, and needs to be handled with tact. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I would prefer. All the diffs concerned are listed with descriptive dialogue at the first link in this section, I would rather not have to list them here all over again. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory is a bit hazy: is this the young man with a handicap? If so we need to be sensitive and tactful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is belived that he has some cognitive disability, see this diff. I think this is a very complicated issue that has been attempted before with little success. There was an ANI thread about 6 months ago. I will try and find it. Woody (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the appropriate/relevant links are at the top of Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina, including links to two previous discussions on ANI. (I realize this may be quite a daunting reading list.) 131.111.8.102 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to stem from this edit. Clearly an accident, but I can see how he might have misunderstood (particularly as people's reactions afterward were unhelpful). —Random832 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And, later on, this made things worse. —Random832 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a role in this that I believe was initially inadvertant; somehow one of my posts at the British Airways Flight 38 talk page (the first of Random 832's diffs) resulted in the deletion of Hopiakuta's comment. I'm looking further into what has happened from my actions and have apologised to Hopiakuta on his/her talk page. I'll post more there. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All the same I didn't do any of that and yet I still got full vitriol and, frankly, unnecessary accusations of every editing crime imaginable for it. I'm not worried about myself because I've learned to develop thick skin through online experience: however what about the next user who makes an innocent enquiry and finds themselves on the receiving end of what I assume is a lot of pent up anger? Are they going to be able to shrug it off as well? I think in the interests of wikilove some tactful admin known to the user should still drop some kind words about checking of facts before leaping on people. An apology wouldn't go amiss either. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pattern of behavior with this user; see for example [12] or [13] or [14]. I understand what others have said about this user and his issues, but these things are gross violations of WP:NPA. Looking through his talk page history, I found no evidence that he was apologetic for those things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no legal threats involved. He said he was removing what he believed to be libel, he did not indicate at any stage that he intended to action such. As for the pattern of edits, I can actually see it from his point of view, he feels he is being censored by others (if you read the diffs one after another that's the picture which builds, even though neither user involved intended to do such, and one appears to in fact be a system bug which has bitten me a couple of times before.) Orderinchaos 11:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At first blush the user's style and signature seems to suggest someone who purposely wasn't following the informal style guidelines which isn't prohibited but what I mistakenly thought was mere vandalism with a few random thoughts thrown in. It took a few extra moments to distill the message in there and simply dismiss the extra lines. After I saw the similar message style and signature on several talk pages I realized it was constructive editing. Benjiboi 12:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My point (and I think the point of Prosfilaes above) is the personal attacks this user engages in, disability or no, are unacceptable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the pattern of edits, I'm not sure I care how he sees it. "You do not explain your complaint; so, my problem is very much, you, specifically, absolutely, completely, definitively. Obnoxious, noxious, elitist, imperious, imperialist, plutocrat, oligarch, handicappist, manure." is completely beyond the pale. If ScienceApologist or one of many other editors made that edit, it would probably earn them an indefinite block.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How can this issue be resolved? What does "nothing to do for admins" mean? Evidence has been provided that a user is making personal attacks against other users for no reason, and this discussion being resolved is just allowing it to continue. We have been told that this user needs a tactful admin to approach them because of various needs that they have - are you telling me that their behaviour is allowed because they have a disability? Other users would have had sanctions placed on them by now. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fred_after_pub.jpg

I would appreciate if an admin could restore this image (still hosted at answers.com here) which was deleted without going through the proper ifd process. We are having trouble getting decent free images as it is, so I don't think we need to be deleting images such as this which was highly likely imo to be a genuine upload- it is high res, and the user commented on the image here [15]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the best route to take in this instance. The scan seems original, and it was tagged CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The image didn't satisfy WP:CSD#I9 so I've undeleted it. We have WP:PUI & WP:IFD to deal with suspicious images, and this one appears genuine. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it should be reviewed in terms of clarifying rights. User's only contribution; no overt assertion of having been the author of the picture or of some other way he'd have the rights to it, which given that it is a picture of a famous person seems particularly an issue (in that someone could well own it and argue that it has monetary value). - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The overt assertion would have to be the upload itself, as supported by the caption and talk page post referenced above. Unfortunately, we have an absentee uploader with no set e-mail address. We are left with two options: AGF given no evidence to the contrary, or delete the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or do some research as to whether the picture has been published elsewhere, and with someone else claiming copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should AGF here. The uploader knew when, where and in what circumstances it was taken and made a comment that seems perfectly genuine:

"This picture, taken in 1965 Freddie Mercury and his Isleworth Polytechnic student friends, after a lunchtime session at the pub. His rather conventional appearance hiding his hugely extrovert nature!". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the research approach. So far I haven't found anything using google image search, but if this photograph was previously published it is likely to have occurred in a print biography on Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but without a source or the uploader to ask how do we really know that the image is what it claims to be. Can it (or does it need to) be verified? Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvass violation here by User:TlatoSMD - review?

TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Posting this here for two reasons:

• 1. To counteract the serious canvassing by the above user
• 2. So that an uninvolved admin (if there are any) can review the canvassing and the appropriateness of the uw-canvass I left on the users talk page.

^Avruchtalk 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it all back (I think). Gave a severe warning. Can you sign the warning you gave them please. Viridae^Talk 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already have. ^Avruchtalk 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, I wonder if TlatosMD is a bad-hand account - huge portion of total edits (1/4th of about 200) just to the AfD and article in question. ^Avruchtalk 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RCU check re certain banned editors such as BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc as I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have grounds to make this allegation, please don't say things like this. This user has been editing for a while - at least since early 2006 from what I can tell (considering his user name used to be spelled differently). ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This individual has edited a variety of articles, not just PAW ones. Besides, it makes sense that an editor that has been heavily involved in editing a particular article would be active on an AfD for that article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its a different version of Tlatosmd (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Lots of edits under that account (including many to anything remotely related to pedophilia). ^Avruchtalk 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No question the user was canvassing. But wouldn't it be better to solicit recommendations from admins not directly involved in the deletion debate? That, after all, is the point of posting to a broader noticeboard such as this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, I think? ^Avruchtalk 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed the canvassing and rolled it back before I noticed the post here. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Requesting an opinion below. --SSBohio 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really happy with Viridae editing my user page to remove his notice.I see no provision of WP policy to justify it. From WP:CANVASS: "The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page." If he has done wrong deal with him, not by removing his comments; it's he who should be our concern with. I can protect my own user page and do not need help from others. I can deal with canvassing perfectly well myself also--I do not always give the same opinion upon reconsideration. DGG (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the oft-misunderstood aspect of *random* canvassing - the person is just as likely to oppose as support. Orderinchaos 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion

I don't know how significant only a threat to ban instead of an actual block or ban is, or whether this is the right place, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite has threatened to ban me, somebody that has been editing Wikipedia for years without one single temporary block, simply because I was asking somebody civilly if he was serious about something he has said.

User:SqueakBox has accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user here, and says he'll abstain from editing Wikipedia any longer if I'm not (literally he betted his "right to edit"). I then ask him on his talkpage if he's serious about that, and within a minute User:Ryan Postlethwaite not only deletes my question from SqueakBox's talkpage but even threatens to perma-ban me for it. Not reading his message or checking talkpage history within that minute, I put that question back once because I see nothing wrong with it, and it is immediately erased again.

As for the "canvassing" issue User:Ryan Postlethwaite refers to, that was because a very heated and active AfD was closed, obviously very controversially so when looking what its Deletion Review is turning into now, and nobody was informed at that time at all that a Review had been opened so I told the people that had been involved.

You can see a number of more threats on my two talkpages (User_talk:TlatoSMD and User_talk:Tlatosmd, creating two accounts was an accident years ago) which all directly relate to my interaction with User:SqueakBox, in fact all relating to me trying to tell him in a civil manner his behavior on Wikipedia is constantly disruptive, flaming, and generally unacceptable and intolerable both in talking to other editors and in constant edit warring, even repeatedly against admins, without any consensus in his favor, an issue where I have at least 20 people having encountered him for months agreeing with me, or that I told other people civilly he ought to get a formal warning from an admin. See also the fact he has been blocked several times for his behavior before. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You tried to tell one of our editors (SqueakBox) to leave, I reverted you and you asked him once again. That is harassment, and given you had just been warned for canvassing for the DRV, you should have realised you were on very thin ice. I explained to you that harassment is a banable offence, and I also said I would block you if you continued. We discuss disputes here, we don't try and make people leave the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Ryan Postlethwaite have been notified of this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak has name-called, harrassed, and not been blocked (since November). There's something wrong with a WikiWorld that will ban someone at the first "problem" and yet allow these personal attacks by another to go unchecked. At this time, the worst ones are a few weeks old (I think), but what kind of precedence does that set? I agree with TlatoSMD and was likewise blocked thrice in 24 hours with minimal warning (the admin and I have come to an understanding since), but when I've been editing since 2005 without even a complaint, I think such an action is easily a personal affront. That said, I want to reiterate that the admin involved in my issue and I have resolved the situation (both of us were over-zealous due to external events, as both of us have admitted). See WP:DTTR for the same sort of mentality that "we" should all have for long-standing editors in not only templates, but in warnings and discussions. WP:AGF would demand no less. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Ban him? I said I'd block him, I merely mentioned that harassment was a banable offence, I have no power to ban anyone of my own accord. Sometimes warnings have to be given, he's just had one for canvassing, then he went to SqueakBox's talk page, that's when he had to know what he was saying had to stop. However long someone has been here for, it gives them no right to ask another editor to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on VigilancePrime's blocks so nobody will suspect us of nepotism, but I endorse his opinion about SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is indeed a bannable offense, but if there is no harassment taking place, saying so is at best a non-sequitur and at worst a threat. If you considered his actions to be harassment, you could have explained that a bit more clearly. —Random832 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that SqueakBox first said, "I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user." Albeit this was likely in jest and not words of a serious nature, I don't see anything wrong with TlatoSMD responding in like. Besides, if TlatoSMD is indeed not a sock of a banned user, then SqueakBox should be careful saying stuff that he did. If he can make such a statement on ANI, why can't the target of his accusation respond in a similar manner? It's quite reasonable to respond to an accusation of this sort on the editor's user page. Lastly, if my memory serves me right, SqueakBox has previously asked or pressured several editors to leave the project. Thus, I'm not sure what all this brouhaha is about. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to make a big stink out of either of those comments. Squeak and Tlato should both consider themselves warned. As long as they don't escalate everything will be fine. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving TlatoSMD's methods aside (which in this case, however well-provoked, I disagree with), I see that SqueakBox did wager his right to edit on his assertion that Tlato is a sock of a banned user. I used to defend Squeak; Once he unmasked himself on my talk page by making vicious and untrue attacks on me, my tolerance for him ended. Squeak is the editor who's brought me closest to quitting this project. The honorable thing for him to do would be to have Tlato checkusered and, if Tlato isn't the sock of a banned user, make good on his wager. Whether he does the honorable thing is his own concern, not mine, not TlatoSMD's. --SSBohio 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As the checkusers say "Checkuser is not for fishing." In other words, he'd have to present them with a banned user and TlatoSMD and say "Are these the same?" ^Avruchtalk 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He did specifically present banned users BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as accounts he suspected me to be a sockpuppet of. Maybe being compared to somebody called Voice of Britain might even be an unwilling compliment as English isn't even my native language. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Mango, the "big stink", as you call it, was about the warning made by Ryan. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request block of abusive sockpuppets

User:Runningman01 is transparently a sockpuppet of User:Punkguy182, aka the banned user User:R:128.40.76.3, and the banned User:A.J.1.5.2., and many more (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:R:128.40.76.3 for older history of this user, and links in this thread for recent history) request more blocks. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked - obviously disruptive socks of one another and of R:128.40.76.3 (talk · contribs). I have closed the Punkguy182 talk page - if he wishes to appeal or complain, he can use User talk:Runningman01. Neıl ☎ 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. nb: I redirected User talk:Runningman01 to User:Runningman01 before I saw this; he could always undo it (he knows how). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps created by User:Talessman

Hy, I'm not sure if this the correct place for this, but here it goes. I'm hereby reporting the following incidents and requesting some neutral assistance. In a laudable effort User:Talessman created several maps about the historical nations in wide geographical areas (western and eastern hemisphere, Mediterranean area and Near East). Afterwards he added them into several articles. However his maps are simply unfitting for several articles as they simply show a too wider area. The subjects of many articles (the country in question) is many times hidden among all the other ones and barely perceptible. The maps are also not focused upon the countries in question. If one removes the maps Talessman re-adds them again and again. I believe that he takes any opposition against the maps way too personally (they are his maps in the end). Flamarande (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I add the maps to articles where there are no existing maps of that nation/culture/people, or when the existing maps fail to show information about neighbors, or other nations that interacted with the article's subject. Some of the original maps were challenged because they showed the entire Eastern Hemisphere. So I cropped them to show the Near East, or Asia, during those time periods. That allowed readers to at least see the subject, and when they click on the map thumbnail they can get more info. If they don't want that info, then they don't have to click on the map. Most editors like the maps, some have grudges against them. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a grudge against them in general, Srnec does. When a legitimate grievance is given, and I am given the opportunity or ability to "fix" the maps to make them better for the article, I'm happy to do so when given time. The Byzantine Empire article is an excellent example. I could do the same for the articles Flamarande is talking about, but it will take time. For now the existing (already scaled-down) maps will have to do. Showing "too much information" isn't a crime; it enhances the articles by showing readers who the article subject's neighbors were, giving reader better information not otherwise presented in articles. There's no reason to delete them from the articles, especially when there is no other map available, or when the existing maps don't show relevant information. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition there's edits like this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this guy took it upon himself to delete legitimate content from a page about me, saying that he is "cleaning up" the page. How did he clean it up? He deleted relevant information about who I am. I'm not just a political activist, I'm also a historian that actively contributes to Wikipedia. I've been told by local news organizations that they did check this page when researching info about me. Therefore it should be accurate. I don't embellish or make anything up, just clarify or make easier to read. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined, on the map issue, to lean partially on the side of including them. If NO OTHER map exists, they don't seem to be particularly harmful. If you think a better map needs to be made, do it yourself. If better maps do exist, and consensus exists to replace his map with a more appropriate one, that is fine. THAT BEING SAID, the WP:3RR rule is firm. Multiple reversions are not to be tolerated, and regardless of which side is "right", participating in revert wars merits an instant block, even if you are reverting to the "right version". So, stop removing or re-adding the images until consensus can be reached. If the two sides in this arguement cannot reach it amongst themselves, seek further comment by using dispute resolution venues such as requests for third opinion and requests for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as there are indeed OTHER valid maps, the maps made by Talessman are largely not needed. He is including his own maps in dozens of articles everywhere. Just take a look at Domain of Soissons and at History of the Basque people (look at the history page of the second article - I'm simply not savvy enough to show it). There are plenty of users who remove his maps arguing that the maps are simply too large and what does Talesmann? He just re-adds them ad nauseam. Flamarande (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-add them or some other people do. The maps were made to show information that I couldn't find, even when looking on Wikipedia. How many articles fail absolutely to mention who their subjects neighbors or trade partners were? Reading many of the articles on Wikipedia, I walked away with NO understanding of who their neighbors were, what actual territories they ruled, etc. There are only a few editors who remove the maps, and there are a few who add them. But just deleting them off of an article b/c it has "too much info" is wrong, it deprives the readers of legitimate and helpful information, and it is unnecessary. The maps should be left on articles where they show the subject nation. Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talessman has stated that he added maps to articles for which *there were no maps*, that is acceptable and improves the project. We encourage original pictures as an exception to original research. On the issue of articles for which there *are* other maps, the specific map to use, should be taken to the Talk page of that particular article to achieve consensus. On the issue of notability of Lessman himself, it's not relevant to this heading, and the article has already been tagged and we'll see what process concludes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, where Thalesman adds his hemisphere map to an article about the Gepids, although a local map was already there. Very inappropriate, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is using an old example from when I was first learning how to edit Wikipedia. Funny how he doesn't use the current version of the page, which also contains one of my maps at a more zoomed-in version. Notice the difference between the two maps; they both show different kinds of info and both are relevant to the article, even enhancing it. Why is that inappropriate or bad? Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of these maps are simply not useful or informative even when they are the only maps available and so are counterproductive. They are often too large in scale and too simplified of complex situations. Especially the Dark Age maps. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, you say here they aren't useful or informative, yet on other articles you complain that they are too informative. I provide sources on each map's sourcepage. Yes they are large in scale - they cover a wide area and they give a lot of information. But they show relevant and helpful information to the readers of the articles. They aren't imposing, and they link to a larger view of the map which allows the reader to see the subject and its neighbors, trading partners, etc. Since when has providing relevant information at the readers' convenience been a crime on WIkipedia? Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point, that Wjhonson has left above... This is a case of an issue that needs to be taken up on an article-by-article basis and established by consensus on the article's talk pages, and not here. If you can't reach a consensus or compromise on your own, then bring it up at requests for comment and ask someone else to help solve the problem. If the map is added, and then removed don't add it back. Take it to the talk page and discuss it out. Also, don't remove the map from articles where no alternative exists, unless there is a good reason, and if it is removed, please be prepared to have a detailed explanation as to why it should be removed, and leave said explanation on the talk page. Again, if the two of you can;t reach a compromise, use dispute resolution to involve a neutral third party to help solve it. This thread is all heat and no light. Unless someone has violated policy, such as WP:3RR, this is not the place to report it. WP:ANI is not the place to win arguements or resolve disputes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for more points then. He's still editing his own article, adding sources that don't support the claims being made. I've explained here why the sources aren't acceptable, yet he's edit warring and making claims of vandalism and harassment. The AfD is looking like a snowjob, so it might be best just to purge the article sooner rather than later? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a map issue, however asside from the reverting of unwanted edits, you seem to be the top contributor on the article (Thomas Lessman) ^[16]. (related 65.69.227.28, 24.255.216.148). If your Bio survives Afd, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a regular content dispute. Thomas Lessman needs to recognize that if his maps are removed, and reasons for the removal are given on talk, he cannot just add them back, he has to address the issues raised. From there, it's just Wikipedia:Dispute resolution like for everyone else. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. If someone has valid reasons to remove something (in this case the enormous maps, but texts and boxes are also included) one shouldn't simply ignore the fact and re-add the material again, again, and again. I understand this (it is one of the basics of Wikipedia), but Talessmann doesn't seem to understand this policy/philosophy. Flamarande (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this attack image, Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg‎, uploaded by Talessman. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack image, it is a legitimate flyer distributed at an event of the organizaion the article was based on. It's being discussed on the image's talkpage now and is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talessman, Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself as you did here. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained why I did that, and hadn't realized I had broken a wiki-rule. That is being discussed now on my user talk page and on the image's talk page. Again, it is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread should be on a talk page somewhere aiming for developing consensus, it's content related and nothing admins can do in this situation. Orderinchaos 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A parting comment on my part: it's important to note that Talessman has put a lot of work into improving Wikipedia. Yes, he may or may not be stubborn and yes, he may or may not have handled arguments over maps the right way. And I sure didn't like the image I cited above. Nevertheless, to me, his good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia far outweigh any problems discussed here and I hope a way can be found to work all this out. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently now I (and others) should be blocked from editing Million Dads March Network on the basis of us "trolling around and vandalizing or attacking". My sole edit to the article was this where I removed the outrageously POV word of "atrocities" in relation to divorce/custody situations. Trolling? Vandalizing? Attacking? None of the aforementioned, and I had no intention of making further edits to the article either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I wouldn't worry about it or take it personally. It's clear to everyone else that you did not vandalize the article and that "atrocities" had to come out. Nobody is going to block you or protect the article at this point. Jayron gives some good advice elsewhere on this page.--A. B. ^(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I love me some drama.

Please review a block

I am posting this here at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. I hope that I can get some help on this matter.

Dear NewYorkBrad,

I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.

Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Wikipedia, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.

Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.

I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent. Rosencomet (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, you'll find information about meatpuppets here. — Scientizzle 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful links: Vittala (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium — Scientizzle 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The operative definition of "meatpuppet" has been expanded greatly in the last few years - it used to mean "someone who's obviously a sockpuppet, but has an explanation that can't be disproven" (i.e. the "roommate"), now it means "anyone who communicates with and/or agrees with anyone else on something that I don't like". —Random832 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse lifting the indef block. Guy seems to have acted a little hastily here. Yes, the contributions to the AFD discussions showed the signs of "meatpuppetry", but coming to help out a friend is hardly an instablockable offense. At worst, this user showed poor understanding of how Wikipedia works, and such problems should be met with help, not insta-blocking. This is a clear case of biting the newbie. No one even attempted to investigate or even talk to this user. A note on the talk page could have gone a long way towards addressing this. Heck, a block notice wasn't even left, leaving the user with no way to even know how to request an unblock. I say unblocking is the proper course of action now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Random832, that's a completely inappropriate comment. Please remain civil. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? You actually think that Random's comment is in any way "uncivil" or "inappropriate"? I dearly hope this is some joke that I am not comprehending. --Iamunknown 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. His incivility, if it could be called that, was directed at an ill-defined word, not any one person. Overuse of a term denigrates its value in describing what it originally set out to describe. Orderinchaos 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess; he's someone you know, either in real-life, or online, and you talked to him (or in a forum he was party to) what you were doing on Wikipedia. He agreed with you, as friends are so wont, and decided that he should throw in his two cents as well. You didn't request him to chip in, but he went ahead and did it. It's a borderline situation, but since the intentions were honorable, I think we can show some lenience here and unblock. Just be aware that in the future, it might be a good idea to go your seperate ways on-Wiki, for the sake of propriety. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. But whoever unblocks should be someone with the time to "coach" a bit, because otherwise this user will probably wind up right back in trouble. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems an unreasonable request. There is no evidence that this user needs much coaching; the block in itself, if it hasn't scared them off, has shown them that what they have done is probably wrong. They appear to want to edit articles; there should be no assumption of bad faith here because there is so little evidence to go on. Unblock them, leave a mea culpa, leave a welcome template, and leave them alone is my recommendation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory, you're right that the block should have set them straight, but without a block notice or message of any kind ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll keep an eye on them for a couple of days. If no one objects in the next hour or so, I plan to unblock them. Speak now or forever hold your piece. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked this user. The above discussion seemed to be heading that way, and no one has advocated for keeping the block in place. I will keep an eye on them. I have left a friendly message on the talk page, and if the user becomes a problem (I don't expect this) I will clean up my mess... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny business around David Gest

On RC Patrol I stumbled upon a strange sort-of edit war on David Gest. Normally I'd try to get to the bottom of things, but I have to run out the door right now. Any other admins with free time want to take a quick look? I did a semi-protect for 24 hours because there was a lot of traffic from 2 anons, and the most recent edits seemed to be nonsensical (putting a user-warning tag on the top of the page). --Bobak (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For a BLP, the article is woefully unreferenced (particularly given the potentially unfavourable he-said-she-said alleged claims from legal actions). Given a brief check through the history it's tough to find a stable version (this edit war seems to be but the latest that has beset the article). It had a few (not nearly enough) references back in August last year. Given the borderline non-notability of the subject (what exactly did he produce? briefly married to a famous-ish person, small part on a panoply of z-list tv shows) we should hack this back to a sourced stub confined to the matter for which he is notabile (whatever they might be). Recitations of divorce-court arguings and reality show minutiae, even if they were sourced, don't make for a worthwhile article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done the hacking in question, restoring an August 2007 version with many sources. I also chopped a bunch of the sloppy trivia. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an Admin reviewing my edits there befoer marking this as resolved, just to lend my edits the credibility of admin review per this an/i section. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP: 71.99.126.188

Resolved

 – Nakon's rangeblock appears to have resolved the issue for the time being --Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is becoming a real nuisance, purposefully adding false info to these pages: Prague Spring, Czechs, and Czech Republic, and has made disruptive and insulting comments. Problem is, that it's a dynamic IP address that has just returned from a block and attempts to mask his vandalism by either making his/her edits appear as reverting vandalism, or entering "typo" or "grammar" to the edit summary, I'm not sure what to do, but I think the IP should be blocked and maybe the IP range, maybe it would help to semi-protect the pages. Anybody offering help?--The Dominator (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, this is one of the person's previous IP talk pages: [17], where they have made disruptive edits, please check the contributions as well, breaking Wikipedia's policy on civility and refusing to discuss the matter in a civilised way.--The Dominator (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. The IP vandalised the pages before January 8. They were blocked as such on January 8. Since that date, they have no vandalism, and their last edit was January 11. As the IP has not edited in two weeks, and the only vandalism in the contribs history has been dealt with, I see no further action to take here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my first message? it's 2 different IP addresses, but it's clearly the same person. 71.99.126.188 and 71.99.117.144 and a whole bunch more.--The Dominator (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Unresolved it. You didn't make that explicit, and only showed us the one IP address. Hold on while I investigate further.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is using dynamic 71.99.0.0/16 IPs. This particular IP range is currently blocked on the Czech Wikipedia. TML (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It looks like the XXX.144 had been blocked previously. The XXX.188 has only edited today. I don't see the blatant vandalism here; I don't speak Czech or whatever language the words he is changing are in. Could you perhaps give us some more background so we can understand the details of what is going on? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I made a full translation, it would be very vulgar, so just to get the picture of what we were discussing, he left an extremely offensive comment (in Czech) on my talk page, and I responded in Czech to try and get him to discuss and persuade him. In Czech the short form for "Czechs" is Češi, and archaic Czech is Čechové. He keeps removing the former, and in his edit summary writes "revert vandalism" or something like that. Consensus has been reached (also see talk:Czech Republic) that the common forms will be kept. He also writes in the Czech Republic article, that the short form for the CR is Čechy, this is incorrect as that refers only to Bohemia and always has. The user then, went through my contributions and started reverting my edits at random, he has been blocked but it seems like he's back, he still refuses to engage in civil discussion.--The Dominator (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Dominik's account - this IP range has been a persistent problem on a number of articles. Blocking and short term semi-protection has been fairly effective, but I'm starting to wonder if a range block may not be a better solution. Either way there may be some impact on innocent IPs.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that he has started undoing my edits at random again, look: [18], obviously undid my edit just for the heck of getting me angry.--The Dominator (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are on to the third IP address now - 71.99.126.188; 71.99.85.203 and now 71.99.121.55. I think a range block is the way to go. I've never attempted one, so I think someone with experience should take a look.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, third IP today, at least sixth overall. And I'm pretty sure that he has vandalized Czech Republic months ago, since on the talk page there is an IP starting 71.99 that has made similiar edits.--The Dominator (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put. I am inclined to agree that, based on what I am seeing, that a range-block may be in order. Any potentially affected "innocent bystanders" can still create accounts if needed. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to handle a rangeblock. Can an experienced admin who has done them before see if this seems a reasonable solution, and if so, do a range block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and anonblock the 71.99.0.0/16 range for a bit. The IP is part of Verizon's /11 netblock, but it appears that all of these address are within the /16. Nakon 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You may all be interested in Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalkerish

Ntarantino21 (talk · contribs) - does this User's editing remind anybody else of a stalker? These edits seem creepy to me. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. very strange. Now what to do about the account. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've revoked its editing privileges, just as Nickyt41191 (talk · contribs) was blocked before. And it's not that strange. There used to be an explicit speedy deletion criterion for Wikipedia articles that were being abused as solely vehicles for corresponding with the subject of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Currently it's incorporated as part of A3. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Weierstrass

Should be short-term blocked for continued transgressions. Has had 5 warnings now, including "final" ones, for various things, including violations of WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Doesn't seem to be getting the message very clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show diffs? I don't see the vandalism in his contribs, perhaps I am being dense. Some uncivil edit summaries, certainly, and I see an edit war with two main participants, but it mostly looks like a content dispute. Why not try Talk:Number of the Beast in the first instance if you have a dispute? --John (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range 156.34x

User: 156.34.142.110 has been warned about edit warring (removal of logos). He removed a warning message from his talkpage as seen here. Later on, as User: 156.34.210.147, he continued his disruptive activities as seen here and here. About time he is blocked. Óðinn (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Libs. I don't think we'll be blocking such an established contributor for such a minor transgression. east.718 at 08:45, January 24, 2008

When did edit warring become a minor transgression? And, most importantly, when did a user's edit count start to count as immunity against the administrative sanctions? Óðinn (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Diff question, since when did we start counting the word of anon. new users that their returning anon. old users? MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At least on Evanescence, it looks like he removed a logo from the "Name" field of the infobox, which would seem to be entirely proper due to the fact that the logo seems to have been causing the actual photo of the band to not display. As near as I can tell, this IP only did so once on this article. Nevermind, it was twice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

...and it looks like there were multiple incidents at Slayer. In that case, the photo looks OK with the logo, so there's no formatting issue from that standpoint. Not discussing the issue is a pretty serious concern, as well. Is there a policy on the use of a logo and photo in the infobox? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. We could do with some more experienced people to comment there; at the moment it is an even split between those who are in favour of having made-up "logos", in most cases just some typography cropped from an album cover, in the infobox of every band article, and those who would rather do without unless there is some verified evidence that it is actually considered a logo. (No prizes for guessing which side I am on!) Edit-warring is certainly unhelpful; then again, so is forum-shopping. --John (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But Libs did not cite "made-up logo" as the reason for the removal on Evanescence and Slayer. Rather, it was something like "image in text-only field". But if the image is removed simply because it's been decreed that name is a "text-only field", then the image should be put somewhere else in the article. Otherwise it's orphaning the image. Gimmetrow 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the discussion I refer to above. I don't want to duplicate that discussion here; suffice it to say that orphaning non-free image files which are not essential to the article, and which are in most cases made up, is not necessarily a bad thing. --John (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You talk a lot about the so-called made-up logos. I´d like to see some examples. Was there concern that this or this are not the actual logos of Blind Guardian and Nighwish respectively? How come such concern was not raised first on one by one basis, as opposed to just blindly removing every logo you can come across? In any case, questioning of the logos' validity is not the point here. Edit warring, for which the IP in question has already been warned is. Óðinn (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um?.. An edit that is based on consensus and has a valid edit summary attached to it is not an edit war... its encyclopaedia building. And "the IP in question" is "Libs". It's OK for you to refer to me that way in your biased/anti-anon complaints. The new lean is to move the logos into the article mainspace since the infobox name field is "text-only". There is some debate as to whether the logo should have some claim to notability or historical use... but moving them into mainspace just so the bots don't get them is a fair enough "lean" for now. ( at least it should be because I have been doing it all day ) If someone wants to go back and delete them all that can happen later. For now the only consensus is Name=Text-Only on the grounds that Wikipedia, by its own mandate, is a free encyclopaedia built on free content first. And there just isn't anything more "free" than plain text. And WP:FAIR's foundation is free-use wins out over fair-use... so not only is it consensus to replace the poor quality fair-use graphics with text... its policy. I've been moving poor quality/"questionable official" logos down into article mainspace all day. Since the Evanescence article has been brought up as an example here previously... perhaps one of the earlier editors in this discussion could take the time to move that band's logo out of the infobox. If no one has the time... that's OK... I can always pick it up in my travels. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the user who filed the notice is pushing WP:POINT here. Even on the notice itself there is consensus that Libsey has done no wrong. I don't really understand why Odin is clutching at straws. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please stop edit warring on logo removals. The removals are approaching three reverts all over, which violates Wikipedia policy, and disruptive editing / edit warring short of 3RR on any given article is still blockable behavior." Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the best thing would be to provide comprehensive diffs - this includes evidence of edit warring "all over", it also includes showing that he's broken/near to breaking 3RR "all over". That would allow people to make a more logical/fair/just decision. Rather than coming here pushing your own point (You're involved in this because you uploaded the logo's, take a look at the said user's talk page for evidence) and showing a few questionable diff's for evidence. I suggest you relax and a take a breath. It's understandable that you're annoyed because you uploaded all/most of the logo's but you've just got to relax and take it in your stride please, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who goes around and accuses people of being point-pushing stalkers. It might behoove you to follow your own advice. Further, if you have a problem with the warning the IP in question was given, take it up with the admin who issued it. I have nothing to do with it.Óðinn (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to everyone, look at this incarnation of the IP in question. Now he's specifically after the logos I've uploaded, citing the same "consensus" which can't possible exist yet, since the discussion is still in progress. Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking? Óðinn (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And take a look at the Revision history of Epica (band) If that's not revert-warring, I don't know what is. Óðinn (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of admin action welcome

I know that AN/I is often flooded with editors crying "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, but I am somewhat concerned about this one. With the current arbitration case about episodes and characters, especially concerning redirects currently carrying on, it was disappointing to see another edit war on an article last night. What is very concerning, though, is admin User:PeaceNT's last edit to the article, restoring their preferred version whilst the article is in full protection. Whilst PeaceNT at first claims that this version is not their preferred one [19], they later admit that the edit "was done under IAR" and to "protect Wikipedia" from either ArbCom or deletionists - I'm not sure which ([20]}. This last comment really concerns me, as it suggests that not only was the article reverted to a preferred version (which is not good to begin with), but it wasn't even done through any semblance or intention of following policy. Comments welcome. BLACKKITE 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, a long edit war with accusations of bad faith all around and virtually no discussion on the talk page. Given the length between the first redirecting and the edit war, as well as the somewhat unchallanged claim of individual notability, it seems quite unapparent what the correct wrong version is (unless the discussion took place somewhere else and I'm just completely unaware of it). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I IARed and reverted what I perceived as the evidently non-consensual version, whether I preferred it or not didn't matter. Editors are certainly not allowed to delete/redirect articles on a whim, then persist on warring to get the page protected, especially when their conduct is being examined by the Arbcom. That said, I would have no problem if they use discussion and redirect the article based on consensus, when such thing is reached. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the point here. You do not IAR and revert when an article is fully protected, even if it is in the Wrong Version - which, actually, I agree it probably is. That is unless there are serious issues such as BLP, which there aren't here. Your reasoning for doing so, which appears to be related to the ArbCom, strikes me as seriously worrying. BLACKKITE 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am party to no Arbcom procedures. PeaceNT points at a lack of consensus for the redirect, and she has a weak point. There probably isn't one among Pee-Wee Herman fans. Still, the article is a 6 paragraph plot summary with no sourcing, so even if all the Pee-Wee Herman fans said "no redirect", policy would indicate that redirection was appropriate. Remember, this is not a democracy, and only arguments that are weighted in policy have weight at all. Given that, there is no urgent matter that required violating standing policy: PeaceNT was absolutely unjustified in editing the article in a protected state. A second admin, Merovingian, has also edited it while protected. His edits were mechanical, so I can't get too excited about those, but they still irritate me.Kww (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two names of the article: Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special is at present an article, and apparently the one at controversy. Pee-wee's Christmas Special is a redirect to the list of episodes. DGG (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the issue that article was protected for, is a no-no. Full article protection should apply to admins too. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

is a reasonable argument on the talk page over whether the notability of this episode, which apparently individually won an Emmy, has adequate sources. This is enough that consensus is required for the particular redirect. My personal position is that the change to the redirect for these articles, earlier and now, constituted vandalism, and any editor may revert as needed, and any admin can protect in the unvandalized state--but I know not everyone agrees with this evaluation of the overall situation. One could certainly say that changing back to a revert while the original series of reverts was under arbitration is not acceptable. An alternate technique, waiting until the article happens to be in the state you prefer, and then protecting it, is as much as violation of the spirit of the restrictions on administrative action as changing it first, though there is no explicit prohibition. Given the dissension, I wouldnt have done what Peace did. It was at best a little imprudent and aggressive. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing spoilers

Resolved

 – All sorted now.

A group of editors working on article related to The Wire (TV series) has apparently decided to remove information they consider to be spoilers. The root cause is the fact that new episodes of The Wire are available on HBO On Demand seven days before they air in their regular timeslot. HBO On Demand is available from most cable companies and is included with a subscription to HBO.

For the most recent episode, information has been removed several times citing "premature spoilers". (see history) Similar removal of "spoilers" has taken place on several other Wire articles [21] [22] [23]. In my opinion, if the information being added is verifiable from the episode (i.e. no speculation, interpretations or original research is present) it's not acceptable to remove the information as "spoilers" (per WP:SPOILER). Chaz ^Beckett 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of spoilers for being spoilers is not justified. In fact, by removing spoilers, one risks creating "teasers", which are in fact of little use to anyone and unencyclopaedic. LinaMishima (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an argument that posting removing information about an upcoming episode that came from leaked clips, scripts, etc., would be acceptable, as - until it airs - the producers could change anything. The first airing is when the episode's contents are confirmed. The fact that this is the network making the actual episodes themselves available, however, makes that concern moot in this case. I'd recommend that each lead specify when the episode became available, in relation to its airdate (which is a little unusual, enough to merit a mention in the lead). This should make clear that the plot summary that follows is indeed a full plot summary, and should remove any perceived need for a spoiler warning. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded LinaMishima (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The big letters at the top here pretty much answer the issue. Whomever is removing the content should be reminded of this, and then warned for edit warring if it carries on. Coldmachine^Talk 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's chiefly Opark 77 (talk · contribs) - I've left a note on his talk page. Neıl ☎ 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about this issue prior to making any reverts. I did so specifically because I was adding information relating to episodes as they aired on demand back in late 2006 and was asked not to. This year I asked if that was still the preferred approach, received a positive response and have worked in line with that response. I've never broken the three revert rule and my edits were motivated out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia as I have stated on Talk: The Wire (TV series). I have directed users to that discussion in my revert edit summaries in the interests of working collaboratively but I admit it was remiss of me not to do so every time. Obviously the result of the discussion here at ANI is that we should add information as the episodes air on HBO on demand and I'm happy to go along with that. Apologies for not being fully aware of the latest spoiler policy. However, I made a suggestion of an approach and was given the approval of an administrator. I've acted in good faith and aimed to improve the encyclopedia.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts that - I think this can be marked as resolved. Neıl ☎ 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chicagofacts

Chicagofacts (talk · contribs) had been making what I believe to be good faith, but confrontational and edit-warring, edits in many gang-related articles. One of those articles, Latin Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject of an edit war by him and an anon, to the point that I decided to impose protection to get them to discuss. Chicagofacts responded with this: [24], accusing me of being "high and mighty over something [I] clearly have no idea about." My response[25] apparently fell on deaf ears, as neither he nor the anon has tried to discuss at all.

Today, he was apparently editing as 24.12.248.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when he placed this[26] on my talk page, right after blanking the section on Talk:Latin Kings in which I had asked for discussion, along with other sections.[27]

I'd like to ask for the account and the IP to be both blocked for a moderate amount of time, in light of the continued refusal to discuss, the effort to stymie discussion by removing sections from the talk page, the blanking of his own talk page,[28], and what I see now as harassment. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will short term block the ip that commented on your talkpage - I don't see the point of checkusering to see if it really was Chicagofacts, it could easily be someone shopping for a block instead but why bother? I will also leave a message on Chicagofacts talkpage commenting on what it is that sysops do. If this is ineffective then best bring it back here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

D&D vandal harassment

Resolved

 – Handled at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bad boy from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man is dogging a bunch of articles as anons; could someone go handle my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? A bunch! FYI, I'm going to list all these IPs at the CU case in case it is useful to User:Alison. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another admin took care of it. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:Reino Helismaa

Plz, take the attention for Reino Helismaa (talk · contribs). His ru-wiki account ru:User:Reino Helismaa(block log) was blocked by me (as ru-wiki-sysop ru:User:Alex Spade) for a month, because his vandalism and sock puppets: ru:User:87.240.15.25(block log), ru:User:Pmmm(block log), ru:User:Hiljainen Soittaja(block log).

After that he have started to change the personal page/information in En-Wiki.

• [29], [30], [31] - assertive changes of my attribution.
• [32] - change of my language status.
• [33], [34] - the non-authorised upload of my photoportrait. (1) He is not author - this image was created in 2003 on Starcon-2003 (annual Russian Star Wars fans gathering) by another. (2) I'm not АЛЕКС СПАДЕ (or Алекс Спаде). My pseudonym is Alex Spade (Latin) or Алекс Спейд (Cyrillic) and nothing else - this is my attribution and only these variants of pseudonym is permitted. Alex Spade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Заблокировали меня не Вы, а администратор Кalan, на срок до 6-го января. Вы лишь совершенно произвольно переблокировали на бОльший срок, чем предусмотрено правилами, без соответствующего решения АК; по электронной почте присылали оскорбительные письма с угрозой бессрочной блокировки. Так что не надо врать.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No hablamos ruso aquí. Hable inglés por favor. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservation for removal of misunderstanding. I haven't been asking to analize and take into consideration actions of ru:User:Reino Helismaa in Ru-Wiki - this is just a prehistory. I am asking to analize only five actions, which are mentioned above, in accordance to Wikipedia:Civility in point "Defacing user pages" and some others. Alex Spade (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of at least attempting to understand the above statement by Reino, I ran his text through Babelfish. Here's what it gave me. Do with it what you will:

• Blocked me not you, but administrator k.alan, for the period up to 6th January. You only completely arbitrarily interlocked for larger period than it is provided by rules, without the appropriate solution OF AK; insulting letters with the threat of termless blocking sent on the electronic mail. So that it is not necessary to lie. <--- babelfish translation of above.

That's all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If en-wiki-sysops are interested in more commentaries - why and how much times was Reino Helismaa blocked in Ru-Wiki - the brief review can be given. Alex Spade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to, I am not sure it will inform here, and can only serve to bias admins from making a neutral assessment of the situation. For the record, I gave him a stern warning at his talk page about vandalising other people's user pages. I consider that such a warning is sufficient action at this point. If he returns to vandalise your user page, even once more, or does so to any other user, a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a few interactions with this editor, who has been creating Finnish-language articles on the English Wikipedia, has uploaded a lot of images without valid copyright statuses, and doesn't respond to messages on his Talk page. He may have a communication problem, but the problems with him are escalating. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate, and refusal to acknowledge and react to warnings is still blockable as disruptive. If a user is warned, and the behavior continues, why not block? I have no idea if this is warrented here, but just a general statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange user creation bug at Special:Userlogin

When I created a doppelganger account with my (current) IP address in it, the system seemed to allow it for some reason. Is this a bug that I should raise at bugzilla??

Either way, I did it per a suggestion on User talk:68.39.174.238, where they suggested to the IP editor to create an account as My IP Address is 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is weird, I thought the system didn't allow IP addresses as usernames, but for some reason it does! Anyone else found this happen to them?? --Solumeiras (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any automatic prevention of creating usernames containing (but not being) an IP address, but they can be blocked for having a confusing username like many in User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a criteria that would fall under the purview of WP:UAA? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS (talk · contribs) upto? Woody (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing good, but blocked by Majorly. Imo a username that does not only consist of an IP address is not directly blockable at WP:UAA. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what User:32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is up to, but the username is ironic to User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names being sorty WP:BEANsy, considering the page is a prime target and encouragement to create inappropriate usernames to end up on the list. — Save_Us † 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I created it for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 6#IP addresses and have no plans to ever update it. It's only linked from there and here but I will delete it if people think it encourages misbehaviour. I have not gone through the list to examine contribs and blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the name 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is a WP:POINT violation - trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the point that talking about this stuff is a violation of WP:BEANS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP defamation

Resolved

149.254.200.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent vandalism, blocked, now defamatory comments -[35]. Not current so AIV inappropriate. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours as a precaution. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Crisis on an article about a crisis in the middle east

There has been much debate at the article Iran-Iraq War. Some believe the US should be listed as a combatant, some disagree, and some believe the combatant part of the box should be sacked altogether. Both sides have very convincing arguments. Maybe a few admins could look at this, as now there are accusations of racism (or is it xenophobia? probably racism), bias, and caballing. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to calm this down a little: see my comment on the talk page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good temporary solution. I think the box should just be removed. It can't express the actual degree of involvement, and there is no consensus either way. The box is optional, and sometimes no information is better than controversial information, regardless of whether it's right or not. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A caution on BetacommandBot deletions related to disambigation pages

There's a problem with the way BetacommandBot handles disambiguation pages, which results in deletion of properly tagged fair use images. The usual sequence of events is:

1. Uploader uploads image, links it from page A, and provides proper fair use template for page A on the image page.
2. Another editor moves A to B and makes A a disambiguation page, but does not change the fair use template. (Arguably, they should have fixed the incoming link from the fair use notice to A, but it's not a link from article space, so it's not customary to fix it.)
3. At some later time, BetacommandBot finds the image page, checks the incoming and outgoing links, notes that there's an incoming link from page B but no outgoing link to page B, and flags the image as lacking a fair use template. The image uploader is notified, but not the creator of the dab page. (Arguably, BetacommandBot should check the page move history, notice that B used to be named A, and fix the fair use template.)
4. The uploader gets a talk page message from BetacommandBot, but doesn't act on it. (It's not really the uploader's problem; their work was done back at step 1. The uploader may not even be active on Wikipedia.)
5. One week later, BetacommandBot schedules the image for deletion.
6. An admin, working off the BetacommandBot list, deletes the image. (Arguably, the deleting admin should manually check for this situation.)

The author of BetacommandBot says it's the responsibility of the creator of the dab page to fix this. (ref) A comment in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation says the deleting admin should check. I'd suggest that BetacommandBot needs to be smarter and check move histories; it has over 700,000 edits, and humans can't keep up. Meanwhile, admin caution at that final delete step is indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has had problems like this for some time. It does good work, however the number of false positives due to misinterpreted redirects and dabs is unfortunate. Betacommand has been made aware of these issues in the past. I will not speak for him, but when I brought this same issue up before, he denied that the bot did this at all. If this is a problem, it is helpful to know ways in which the bot is making confusing and/or problematic tagging so that it can be made to run more efficiently in the future. I agree that this bot function is important, but I would like to see more responsive upgrades made to the bot so that its work results in less false positives like above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous issues were with redirects, which were apparently an issue with the MediaWiki API. The bot should be able to follow redirects, it can't however, determine which article on a disambiguation page to follow. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

there is not a simple method of parsing DaB pages. some of the move,redirect,DaB creations are very complex and not parsable. And links in NFUR's that are Dabs, mean that the rationale for that image/use is invalid. β^_command 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS you also forgot to state that BCbot leaves a warning about the image on the talkpage of every page where the image is used. β^_command 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats rational. I agree; with regard to dab pages, the bot (and other users) should not have to decide which page in the dab it is supposed to follow. Perhaps, could the bot somehow provide a different warning for situations where it appears that a move-redirect-dab construction is the fault? Such as a special warning like "The fair use rationale currently links to a disambiguation page. The rationale may need to be updated to reflect a page move. Please update the rationale so that the image will not be deleted." That seems a reasonable thing to do; the bot should be able to look for markers on special kinds of pages and then tailor its warning messages based on the type of problem it encounters, shouldn;t it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the issue is the bot only sees the pages where the image is used (and redirects to those pages). the bot does not examin what links here, or even the links on that page. what the bot does see is a blob of text and a list of page titles where the image is used. it then checks the text for at least one of those. it doesnt do anything fancy it does not check for wikilinks all it checks for is the name of the article. β^_command 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arab League images

User:Arab League has recently created several articles about several organization that most of them has been put for deletion. For those articles, he has uploaded several pictures and flags all with "PD-self" tags. There are two options:

• He is a member of all of those organization. So, there MAY be a probability that he is the creator of those flags. This arises concerns about confilict of interests.
• He is not a memeber of those organizations. So, definetly he has not created those flags, but for what he calls "truth" in here he has uploaded them with bogus tags. --Pejman47 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Resolved

 – A request for arbitration has been filed

the final touch?

Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) is a long-time problematic editor with highly dubious intentions. See his talk page and contrib history. Until now, he has managed to stay just below the action-taking point. This edit summary, however, puts it over the top. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess next step is RfC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? That would seem to be a POV-loaded edit summary, but what's actionable about "the beauty of Judaism"? - Revolving Bugbear 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. Adding that a criminal is Jewish doesn't bring out the "the beauty of Judaism." And that's his modus operandi - plastering "he is jewish" on criminals etc....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to see it in context of previous edits; a lot of his previous edits are adding Jewish categories to the likes of criminals, porn stars etc. (Though, there's also what look like good-faith edits too). BLACKKITE 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't looking at the article, just the edit itself. Sorry. </stupid> - Revolving Bugbear 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs history, his edit summaries are VERY problematic, and looking at his user page he has been warned before. A choice collection of OTHER edit summaries, in addition to the one noted above:

[38] threatens other user with admin sanction...

[39] additional questionable statements about jewish people.

[40] crackpots???

Additionally, his entire edit history consists almost ENTIRELY of:

Dubious "proof" that various mass murders, notorious criminals and other "unsavory" people were Jewish [41] and [42] and [43] and [44]

That other notable Jews were guilty of or suspected of crimes [45]

This seems like a suspicious pattern of edits, and needs to be addressed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that he also views Albert Einstein as a fraud and is unwilling to credit him with E=mc2 ([46]). Given this editor's particular history, his interest there could credibly be thought to stem from the fact that Einstein was Jewish, rather than his deep abiding interest in the history of 20th-century theoretical physics. Even assuming the most optimistic best-case scenario about his intentions, his edits fall entirely into the patterns described above of ascribing Judaism to distasteful figures while minimizing or discounting positive accomplishments by people who happen to be Jewish, and I've blocked him for 31 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to advance his point. I would suggest that an RfC proceed to explore the question of whether he might expand and improve his editing, and whetherh his continued presence on Wikipedia would be constructive. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A bold move, but I don't disagree with the final result. I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits, and the longer he is editing articles, the more clear his POV-pushing has become. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how a block will solve the underlying problem, and I cannot say I'm looking forward to the RfC. DGG (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

a block will stop his disruptions. i favor a indefinite community ban for this user, to be repealed ONLY in the evnet of genuine contrition and a promise to attempt to wokr with other editors instead of warring against them. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, an RFC in this case will atleast show due process. I agree it will be messy. I see an ArbCom in the future over this issue, but we should atleast exhaust all other routes before this gets that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has this editor added any value to this project? I confess, I'm missing the part where we should use kid gloves in handling a hate-monger and anti-semitic. I don't see that its worth wasting time on this. Please let me know why we aren't simply blocking this editor for a month or three hundred, and re-blocking every time he does it again, up to and including indef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea why not KillerChihuahua. all this dickering around does is encourage the vandal. i can understnad the desire for 'due process' by forming an RFC (although it wl be a waste of time -- the user has showns no interest in wikipedia and while i try to asume good faith this user seems to be acting maliciousl and with disregard for the feling and sentiments of his fellow users. i recommend an indefinite ban that will only be lifted if the user apologizes an d promises to try to work with other users against instead of using violence and racism. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: SERIOUSLY look at his diffs. he blatatly tries to use his admin status to force andother user to kowtow to his demands.

and if you look mclosely at his other difs, you will jnotice a virulent strain of politicla hatread and anti-Semitism. that is unhelpful tow ikipedia orwikipedia's ineterests.

and furhter more,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

I think that may go too far at this point. If an indefinite comprehensive ban is imposed, it is drastic enough that an ArbCom decision should give it, not us. Also, the RFC in question may reach the conclusion that a community topic ban on all articles relating to Judaism, and on all edits regarding Jewish ethnicity may be enforced. Likewise, the admins here at ANI may reach the same conclusion, and enforce their own community ban. There is good reason to let due process run its course. I will admit that this users past edit history is not encouraging, but lets at least GIVE him enough rope... and wait to see what he does with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Due process? You mean Rules-Wankery? I've made 49 indef blocks. None were a result of an ArbCom decision. None have ever been overturned. I will cheerfully6 paste them all here, or email to anyone who emails me and asks for the list. An indef block is simply a block with no expiration, which can be overturned by any admin. No need for ArbCom. No need for Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made many indefiniate blocks myself, for clear-cut cases of vandalism and abusive sockpuppetry and other clear cases. However, this is not one of those cases, in my opinion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This reads as short, I apologise - its a simple question. I honestly don't see why not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you state "I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits" which means he has no value-add. Why do you think this is "not one of those cases"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I considered just blocking him for a longer period, or indefinitely, and being done with it. In fact, I had "1 month" in the drop-down window and changed my mind at the last moment. In the end, the pendulum has currently swung to a point where even blocks of editors with long track records of being up to no good are controversial, or likely to be overturned because shorter blocks hadn't been imposed first or an RfC hasn't been run through. So I decided to balance rougeness with my lack of desire to squabble over an longer block. Admittedly, though, this could be viewed as a punt. I will go on record as favoring a longer block of 1 month to indefinite, and being willing to impose it, if there is reasonable agreement here and no major objection (of course, if you support the block, you'll probably end up in the dock before ArbCom next to me as part of the "kangaroo court", so be warned...) MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NB there is an {{unblock}} request up, based on free-speech and other grounds, which I'll leave to someone uninvolved to review. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment pointing him to WP:FREE before I saw this here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I had prepared a report for AN/I many weeks ago should circumstances dictate. To summarise, my good faith has long been exhausted and I would endorse an indefinite block of him. I first contacted "Graham" when I reverted an edit adding an unquestionably irrelevant link to the King David Hotel bombing. Cursorily glancing at his talk page caught my attention and, having reviewed his contribution history and interactions with others, I decided to leave a more substantive message than I originally anticipated. My intention was to communicate my concerns (as both an editor and admin'), introduce him to the fundamentals of Wikipedia, give him the benefit of the doubt, and hopefully allay concerns that had already been expressed long before my first message. He has demonstrated that he has no intention of heeding such advice and his continued behaviour and editing pattern is unquestionably consistent with an editor who is engaged in a disruptive agenda that is inherently incompatible with the project.

His avowed ip 67.83.219.204 (talk · contribs) has exhibited a similar pattern, including this edit - the implication is explicit when one factors in that Google suggest he is/was in reality Catholic. He has gravitated predominantly towards controversial articles, with a BLP dimension, invariably to identify someone as Jewish - usually implicated in some form of criminal activity (one of the most inexplicable) ). Relevant discussions are located at the talk pages of Graham Wellington and Brewcrewer (talk · contribs), whose well-intentioned comments and legitimate actions were (repeatedly) described by the former as vandalism. I had originally hoped it was the result of inexperience, Wellington nevertheless continued to accuse Brewcrewer of stalking long after the original discussion here. There have been many disturbing comments authored by Wellington, many of which have been highlighted on his talk page; an example: [47]. Wikipedia must not indulge those who exhibit all the characteristics of an unashamedly tendentious editor. Lets keep things in perspective. SoLando (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've seen enough to extend his block to indefinite. I don't think that Wikipedia needs to play host to the sort of campaign this user is apparently engaged in, and if a year on-wiki isn't enough for constructive contributions to emerge then there's reason to be pessimistic for the future. I won't object if another admin decides to unblock him, though I would ask in that case that the unblocking admin be willing to follow up on further complaints against this editor. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, and add that anyone who wishes to unblock should post their rationale here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. SoLando (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as nom ;-).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pffft, objection? No chance. Endorse. BLACKKITE 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball endorse FWIW. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Probably a fine move. It would have been interetsing to see where he would have gone had he been aloud to continue under a topic ban, but admitedly my good faith in this user was nearly spent. End result was what I expected, even if I was willing to give them another chance. No big loss here. Endorse as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz

Dear Wikipedians User:Angelo De La Paz of buddhist vietnam origin is not allowing others to edit Islam in India the user is also vandalising article by taking out important paragraphs, decreasing numbers and so on. I provided User:Angelo De La Paz with lost paragraphs and upto date numbers along with Refferences in users Talk Page. please deal with user accordingly. please view users Talk Page first column Islam in India . Thanks. --HinduMuslim (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning at the user's page to stop reverting the article, and instead seek alternate ways of adressing the problem. He has been instructed to use the talk page to discuss reverts, and to build consensus before doing so again. He has also been told to attempt dispute resolution before attempting to revert the article again. He is now aware that repeatedly reverting the article is a violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for doing so. At this point, I don't see much else we can do. Since he has been warned, he may be blocked if the behavior continues, let us assume good faith for now and see if he follows my suggestions or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK!Let's see who was the truly vandal!Please see what were you did in your contributions, note: 99.237.253.131 is another IP adddress of HinduMuslim
• Your attacks in my Talk Page:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

HinduMuslim, could you please explain what the signifcance is that you feel the need to indicate that Angelo De La Paz is of Vietnamese Buddhist origin? That's skating really close to a personal attack violation. Somebody's background shouldn't be of import when discussing a difficulty, only their behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But user has no Idea of Islam in India no disrespect but user should allow others to edit article as well.

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Neither user has behaved in a particularly good manner over this issue, and the idea that dispute resolution should be used applies in this case to both of them. Both should stop all editing of the article, and seek outside intervention. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded image

Resolved

 – Image deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if an 11 year-old girl has uploaded an image of herself. This isn't, officially, against policy, but I feel it's a little dangerous. Any ideas? Is there a way we can delete it? Should we delete it? Thanks! --omtay38 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thee is no picture there now, so eitehr someone dleted it o ryour link is broken. Smith Jones (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Kylu deleted it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again a failure of due diligence. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Findings of fact ~Kylu (u|t) 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what was the "failure of due diligence" here, Corvus cornix? It looks to me like all worked as it should: Somebody noticed a problem and reported it; somebody else saw the problem (or the report) and fixed it; somebody reported that. What am I missing? -- Why Not A Duck 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was directed at Smith Jones. I wasn't clear. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block review

Resolved

 – 3 unblocks declined, pp

I have just blocked Rikara (talk · contribs) for incivility and personal attacks. As I am involved with him, I would like other admins to weigh in on the block. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the edit summaries are pretty incivil.   jj137 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've also declined the unblock request. Nakon 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And he has another one up, this one incredibly incivil and half-true (the only other editor who used a personal attack in that conversation was warned as the insult was mild and it was his first offense). Again, I'm not reviewing; I don't want another admin abuse thread on me, frivolous or otherwise. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page for the duration of the block. I don't want to extend it right now since there's a chance he's just blowing off steam, but at the first sign of a resumption of this behavior after the block expires, a much longer block would be in order. Jeske, can you explain what your involvement with this editor was (not disagreeing with the block, just curious)? MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the users reverting his unsourced/original research additions to Super Smash Bros. (series) and had filed a 3RR report on him after his fourth revert. I also rebutted his claims on the talk page of said article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - looks pretty un-civil to me. Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin here, so sorry if I'm out of line. This guy was blocked for 24 hours due to personal attacks, but his 3RR Violations have yet to be reviewed. I think a second 24 hour block may be in order. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The 24 hour cooling off period should be sufficient for a first time. If he comes back and does it again, either incivility or edit warring, another block can be issued. (I'm also not an admin)Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but his thoery of "the 3RR is bullshit" would just be supported in his views by letting it go. That wouldn't sit well with me. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I tend to agree, but at this point the 3RR block would be little more than a blunt instrument applied with about as much dignity as V-Dash's rhetoric. Blocks are never punitive. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cooling off" blocks tend not to do the opposite of "cooling off". That said, 3RR may be an issue, but I have not looked into the situation, so I am not qualified to judge. --Iamunknown 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The user and I were sparring over information in the Super Smash Bros. (series) article; he was adding unsourced information obtained from theories, leakers, and extrapolation and I (and several others) reverted him telling him to cite a source, to which he responded belligerently. I reverted him thrice; to avoid getting pulled into a point-of-no-return I disengaged, requested protection for the article, and filed a 3RR report once he breached 3RR. He reverted three more times afterwards, for a total of 7RR within app. 45 minutes. When he came to the talk page (meaning no disrespect to the person I'm comparing him to) Joseph McCarthy's own behavior during his witch hunt wasn't as vile as this user's behavior was. He demanded that other editors "listen to him" (despite the fact that the reverse was true; it was he who was flat-out dismissing us) and stated that the 3RR is "pointless", resorting to using personal attacks, which ended there when I blocked him. Even on his talk page, the last two of his three declined unblock requests were rabid, and I had to request protection to stop him from abusing the unblock template. That's the CliffsNotes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting community ban for two tendentious, disruptive editors

Please look over this action and comment about my proposed remedy here. It is time that the community of administrators took action against those forces seeking to disrupt Wikipedia for their own goals of promoting fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant move, this may be the first time in a year I've seen anything worthwhile come out of an Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Abridged is looking for a graceful way out. I know nothing of the underlying issues, but if they choose to exercise their right to vanish, perhaps we should let it go at that? Of course, there's the issue of whether they are still in good standing. Anyway, just a thought. — Satori Son 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted here explaining why this proposal is utterly ridiculous... and shameful. Lara❤Love 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily harsh reaction to a proposal from a number of long-term constructive editors. I will assume you merely are unaware of the background to the situation, since you stated previously that you were "too busy" to read the full story.[48] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond Arritt. Lara, you do not understand the real story here. The community is speaking. It is appropriate that you listen to what the community is saying.--Filll (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "unnecessarily harsh". I don't care what the background is. If I don't have a blocklog or links to RFCs or other processes we use here to deal with disruptive users, then I don't agree that requesting a ban is appropriate. I look at it as laziness that nothing was done before. And now people want to jump at an opportunity to ban the users for abuse of process when one has less than 1000 edits and less than 4 months experience. Is that overly harsh? Does that not make sense to you? Lara❤Love 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You've argued that one of them is inexperienced and doesn't know better; you've argued that the other should be respected because of his experience. But you apparently have no interest in the obvious question: why didn't the experienced editor counsel the inexperienced one that this was totally inappropriate? You can't have it both ways, Lara. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am forced to spend 50 hours or more to build up a case against one or both of these tendentitious editors, that is just time I will not be spending on the project. And then someone like Lara will just let them go without even a warning, or unblock them after some other admin blocks them. Whig has an ugly track record. And anyone who has edited with him knows it. How about this, Lara. Show me some productive edits from Whig, instead of forcing me to spend dozens of hours compiling his record of unproductive edits? You are claiming it is your right to force us to deal with a nightmare so maybe something good will come from either of these two editors in a few months or years time.--Filll (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is warn, then blocks, then a ban. Sort of that whole protocol thing. the_undertow ^talk 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC, but to what I don't know) Or not, Filll. The burden isn't on me. You can't just ban a user that has never been blocked or through any of the processes we have in place here for disruptive editors because you've not been inclined to do anything about this behavior that is so outrageous to you. And Raymond, I never said Whig should be respected. I said that considering he is an established editor and encouraged Abridged to file the RFC, that should be taken into consideration in regards to AGF on the part of Abridged. Lara❤Love 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already did most of the research to respond to some accusations Whig made in the RfC:

Requests for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

Start by reading these threads in ANI archives 311 and 317: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig

Here are some recent diffs:

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [49]

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

Whig's recent behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD [[User_talk:Whig/Archive_1#Re:_Quackery_AfD|Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour] To quote East718:

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.

1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

Also to the point is this in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#Incivility_by_Peter_morrell. I've added some emphasis.

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Adam Cuerden is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.[50] Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Adam_Cuerden.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to look at Adam's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Adam is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC per above

For further comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 may be useful. May as well spend a week and do this properly, so that the ban will stick. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This still has nothing to do with Abridged, which the editor I've been concerned with the whole time. Lara❤Love 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Abridged should be blocked, and never said she should. She has been a productive editor on the whole, and some simple advice should be enough to get her past this thin-skinned phase, or so one can still hope. It is possible that problems might continue - her recent stay on Wikipedia has been more problematic than her former one - but I worked productively with her for a couple months a while back, and this recent behaviour seems atypical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

auto(un)block review

I just undid the autoblock that User:Trimy67 was stuck under. Trimy seems to be an actual non-trolling editor, even though some of his edits are a little problematic. (Hia998 was the original blockee.) However, as I was undoing the block, this happened.

Er... ? - Revolving Bugbear 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit might provide some clues. Pairadox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HemperorOfSmokeLandVillez.dum

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Friday

This user has been mentioned before here, and I reluctantly raise the issue again. His edits to Bourke Engine are becoming beyond disruptive and I have just reverted him once more. His edit summaries are almost as long as his edits, and are, well, eccentric to say the least. Other users and I have tried to reason with him, but it seems to be a one-way process, in that he is not communicating as we might expect. He does not appear to have learnt from a previous block, and while we should assume good faith, enough is enough. I would take it to WP:AIV, but it would be difficult to sustain an argument solely based on vandalism. He clearly believes in his POV, but is ruffling feathers in the process. Community input would be welcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he just got blocked, and i am all for it. Do not see any constructive contributions, and has not learned from a previous block. We can do without him. Tiptoety ^talk 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand,he is clearly passionate about his subject, but on the other, his style has got him blocked indefinitely. Won't argue with that; perhaps he'll come back when he straightens out a little. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I went ahead and indef blocked based on his latest gibberish. We don't have to agree whether he's trying to be constructive or not- we can focus purely on the effects on his editing and avoid speculation. In my view, he's not able to contribute meaningfully or collaborate with others. So I did what I thought was best, but as always, if anyone has a better idea, go for it. Friday (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - Thinks its the best thing to do at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto There is a difference between "can't communicate" and "won't communicate", but it seems all the chances here have been thrown away. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Since there was not the slightest change in behavior after the previous block, a series of escalating blocks would be a waste of time. Acroterion _(talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef block as well. I'm actually fairly impressed with how many editors tried to engage this user and give them guidance. But in the end, AGF obviously has its limits, and Friday acted appropriately. — Satori Son 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleven day-old MfD

Would an admin mind cruising over to MfD and close out the entry from January 13? It has been open long enough. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Compare Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Request_for_comment_on_Finding_of_Fact_.239_.28Adam_Cuerden.29

with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Adam_Cuerden.27s_use_of_administrative_tools

Note that there are new votes on the second one. New support votes

Question: Has the Arbcom even bothered to read this RfC that they ordered? Because I have been asking them for two months to explain that finding of fact, and brought it up in the RfC because it seemed so problematic, but they refuse to comment on it at all.

The arbcom, after this RfC have now added another, new way to desysop me to their list of proposals - one that says that I can't be trusted as an editor either. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Proposed_decision_-_Adam_Cuerden

Is there evidence for that new, bold assertion that I can't be trusted to follow community norms as an editor? If so, it's hard to see where, since, you know, they don't bother to say.

In short, I have no faith whatsoever in the arbcom's ability to reacch a fair decision, since they show no signs of reading what I e-mail them, whether through Jimbo, (as was done two months ago), through Arbcom members, through mass mailings. They seem to be ignoring the RfC as well.

Can anything be done about the Arbcom, in situations like this? I edit under my own name, and am not looking forwards to having these things show up on google for the rest of my life. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more disruptive, and tenaciously promote far-fringe agendas or conspiracy theories. Then people will rush to your defense. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The case is resuming. It is not being handled as I would have advocated, but when things are handled by a committee of 15 people, sometimes they are going to disagree about things. I thought that arrangements had been made such that project-space pages no longer showed up on Google, but if that is not the case I can have the arbitration pages courtesy-blanked after the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See [51] Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad, finding of fact 9 makes very specific claims that appear to me to be obviously and unquestionably not true. Adam has asked directly about it here and on the RFC. I asked directly about it on the proposed decision talk page a month ago, as did others. In the case of Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, no reasonable person could say that Adam used the tools in such a way as to gain an advantage. Could you, or another arbiter, explain this finding of fact? Thanks. --B (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also annoyed that the new proposed remedy compounds this by implying that my editing behaviour (as opposed to admin tool use) has not been within community norms, and requires 6 months monitoring to make sure I can edit appropriately to community norms. Where on earth is that suggestion coming from? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me for being sarcastic, but if Adam started making articles like Blue Cheese Moon, Time is like an oval, Telepathic animal husbandry and Magical talking rocks and so on, and fighting frantically for the value of these, then Adam would come under the protection of senior members of the community and be a protected trusted contributor to Wikipedia. Adam's fault is that he tries to defend NPOV and mainstream science. He is on the wrong side.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Adam's initial post and Raymond's response) Sarcasm aside, this was one of the most bizarre and unsatisfactory ArbCom cases I've ever witnessed. The case was brought by a sitting Arbitrator as a "test case" to examine the principle that we should desysop people more aggressively, or something. This was in the added, and explicitly stated, subtext that Adam was running for ArbCom at the time. It opened with rapid acceptance of the case in the absence of typical dispute resolution, in response to a slew of still-unrefactored personal attacks and abuse from the initiating Arbitrator. Within 12 hours of the case opening, there were draconian proposals put forward by Arbitrators for wide-ranging disciplinary action against Adam, including desysopping with extreme prejudice and barring Adam from any future RfA, as well as formally censuring a passing admin who declined an unblock request. There was a period of reactive sanity where a few of the more draconian or factually incorrect findings were withdrawn, and ultimately the case was suspended for an RfC which ought to have been a prerequisite for taking the case in the first place. The RfC showed community disapproval of some of Adam's actions, but general support for retention of the sysop bit. Now the conclusion is that he should be desysopped for 6 months and remain on probation for another 6 months after that, because resuming the case would be "problematic due to passage of time".

The problem here is that Adam's selection as a "test case" was, to the outside observer, highly capricious and arbitrary. While he had made mistakes, he was not afforded the usual dispute-resolution and feedback mechanisms; instead, it was decided to make an example out of him pour encourager les autres. That is bad for morale; the fact that the test case devolved into a mess doesn't help. As to what can be done, the answer is probably not much. ArbCom is composed of human beings. I think the best that can be done is to recognize that ArbCom is made up of human beings, to note the RfC findings, request a courtesy blanking, and make a decision about how strongly you want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. At the very least, hopefully we've seen the last "test case", but that's not much comfort. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - is there evidence that has been submitted privately that we don't know about? Quite frankly, this case is nothing but a chilling effect for all admins - you better hope you didn't make a bad block based on bad advice six months ago or you may be desysopped. Now that an RFC has expressed overwhelming opposition to the desysop proposal, the committee is drafting a new proposal that will prevent undoing the damage via an RFA (which, based on the RFC, probably would have passed within about 1 week and 20 minutes after the desysopping took effect). Is there something that the arbiters know that we don't? Because if not, I must have really bad reading comprehension skills. --B (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, this seems like making mountains out of molehills here. I do not intend to alter my blocking or protection habits at all based on this. For the record, there does NOT, as noted in the RFC and above, appear to be a push to remove his sysop tools and block access to RfA. The solution with the most support at this point appears to be that he is desysoped at this point, but is fully free to reseek them at any time, including by RfA. Also, Adam's own proposed solution, that he is on admin waiver for 6 months, and be regranted his tools upon showing good behavior, seems to also have some support among the arbcom. Let's not take an "us against them" mentality with the ArbCom. I am not sure such a mentality is terribly productive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I never suggested that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, nor I. ArbCom does a remarkably good job in the vast majority of the very difficult cases which come before them. I'm saying that I think this particular case was poorly handled. Whether it's a mountain or a molehill depends on whether you're Adam, I suppose, or on how closely you can identify with his situation. Having been tentatively shopped as a "test case" myself, maybe I'm overly sensitive. MastCell ^Talk 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

B, I think they are looking at the RfC closely- at the defense, not at the votes per se. I don't think other admins have anything to worry about. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, maybe saying this is not going to help because of who I am. But please give it a chance and listen anyway. I said during the RfC exactly what I thought you needed to do- the first thing was to basically stop the general user behavior which you think is alright because you undertake it in the defense of what you believe is scientifically correct. I can sympathize with the view that if one user is right, their actions should be given license because of it. But I don't think that is what the ArbCom wants to hear. I tried to tell you, anyway. I think you're a good guy and a good editor, and you can have your tools back someday. Just don't act like the fringies are an inferior lot and get to be treated badly because of it (even though you think so). I genuinely think that factor, and the defense which grew out of it "look at what the fringies did, so what I did was OK," is what pushed it to this stage. Stop listening to those who tell you this: they are wrong, and you are losing your admin tools because of it. Maybe it isn't fair that you are the one to be made an example of, but the ArbCom is pretty obviously talking about the general situation. It is also probably talking about the defense on the RfC, judging that the defense "look at the fringies," and the user behavior which occurred because you are fighting the fringies, was not according to community standards. What other behavior could they be talking about in the new thing about general user conduct? I'm not meaning to poke you while you're down. And believe it or not I'm not here to gloat, because I really would have been happy if you'd just stopped acting as you were. I'm really trying to help, and I believe you will be an admin again. And a good one. Let me know and I'll vote for you per the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Query to folks who have the tools

During the RFC phase new evidence came to light. Adam had been brought to arbitration for a "bad block" on an account that he thought was a disruptive sockpuppet. Those of use who aren't sysops can't examine the new evidence because the entire editing history of the possible sockmaster account has been deleted - we can only gather from administrator conversations that this second account may have been a sock of the same editor. Could someone who has the tools please summarize this for the rest of us? Seven arbitrators still maintain that Adam's blocks were outside policy and six of seven have still signed onto a finding that affirmatively states There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet. Is this correct? Is there no evidence even suggestive of that? Since this was the ostensible reason for opening the case in the first place, I'd like to understand. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any hints as to the name of the hypothetical puppetmaster? Don't say it out loud; just point in the appropriate direction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Durova^Charge! 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know if these registered names are relevant or not but they are similar. . .R. Baley (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mathoffman99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Matt hoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

  Matthoff96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Mattius Hof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

  Hoffymatt76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Serial vandalizer

Resolved

I propose blocking Legendk1:

Look what he's done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Legendk1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason7825 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a welcome note and a warning to stop his / her disruptive edits. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Clearly not here to edit positively. Nakon 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Undelete Request for “Civility of Yankee Imperialism”

A new page: “Civility of Yankee Imperialism” was recently removed: “The result was delete as original research. Closing under WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).”

Every sentence on this new page, reproduced below the text of this paragraph, is a verifiable assertion derived from one or more of the reliable sources provided. These sources are academic books and articles that passed through a rigorous process of scholarly peer-review before being published by well-known presses. The views of the competing scholarly schools discussed on this page are represented fairly and presented, as far as possible, without bias in a manner inclusive of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources addressing the subject of the proposed Wikipedia entry. This page contains no original research whatsoever! The notability of the entry can be gauged in the scholarly reviews of the new entry’s most important source: Steven Schwartzberg, Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003). Excerpts from these scholarly reviews are accessible at: [52] Longer excerpts are available at: [53]

A debate among diplomatic historians and Latin Americanists has emerged in recent decades centering on the dynamic relationship between US policy and political developments in Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. The two sides in this debate on the character of US - Latin American relations during these years might be referred to as the cynical school and the civility school. Most of the scholarship of the last generation or two has remained within the confines of the cynical school. This scholarship emphasizes the influence of the Second World War, and the growing Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, in determining US policy and shaping political developments in Latin America. It emphasizes US covert intervention in Guatemala in 1954 and the role of US condescension and racial prejudice in combining with selfish US interests (especially security and economic interests) to determine US policy.

The scholars of the civility school maintain that different expressions of concern for the common good determined the ways in which more particular US interests were understood and pursued. They argue that US officials, depending on how much they cared for the human rights of individuals relative to the dignity of nations, expressed concern for the common good in support for democratic solidarity and in respect for the national autonomy of others. They hold that there is a liberal tradition in US policy that has promoted a shared commitment to democratic progress as a foundation for international cooperation in the pursuit of common values and interests (as well as for the pursuit of more particular US values and interests) and a conservative tradition that has promoted mutual respect among diverse countries for the autonomy of each as such a foundation. The scholars of the civility school focus on the ways in which these liberal and conservative traditions have informed the conduct of US policy. They also emphasize the ways in which political developments in Latin America are largely autonomous of US policy and help to determine changes in US policy while being somewhat affected, in turn, by these very changes.

US Cold War interests contributed to policies that at times had a decisive effect on instances of regime change and regime maintenance throughout the period from 1944-1954. So did Cold War concerns within the internal politics of the countries of Latin America. The fairly consistent strength of these interests and concerns was compatible with an extraordinary wave of democratic openings that began in 1944 and with a subsequent reverse wave of democratic breakdowns and military coups that began in 1948. The relative ascendancy of liberalism or conservatism among US officials determined the ways in which US Cold War interests were defined and pursued. The balance between liberalism and conservatism in US policy was determined by the moral convictions of individual US officials, by their optimism and pessimism, and by the strength of largely autonomous democratic movements on the ground in Latin America.

US policy played a decisive role at only four, or perhaps five, critical junctures in the history of Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. It did so by helping to tip the balance to the democratic side in a few close contests: in Cuba in 1944, in Ecuador in 1947, and in Costa Rica in 1948. It also played a decisive role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Guatemala in 1954. The president and other important leaders of this Guatemalan government, however, considered themselves Marxist-Leninists and their long-term commitment to democracy was dubious to say the least. US policy provided the democratic side in Brazil with significant assistance in 1945, and inadvertently provided significant assistance, perhaps even decisive assistance, to authoritarian forces in Argentina in 1946.

References

• Bethell, Leslie and Ian Roxborough, editors. Latin America between the Second World War and the Cold War, 1944-1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

• Blasier, Cole. Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985).

• Diamond, Larry and Juan Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, editors. Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder: Lynn Reinner, 1988).

• Dozer, Donald Marquand. Are We Good Neighbors: Three Decades of Inter-American Relations, 1930-1960 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1959).

• Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

• Green, David. The Containment of Latin America: A History of the Myths and Realities of the Good Neighbor Policy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971).

• Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan, editors. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).

• Lowenthal, Abraham F., editor. Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).

• May, Ernest R. “National Security in American History,” Graham Allison Gregory F. Treverton, editors, Rethinking America’s Security: Beyond the Cold War to the New World Order (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), pages: 94-114.

• Rock, David, editor. Latin America in the 1940s: War and Postwar Transitions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

• Schmitz, David F. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999).

• Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. “Rómulo Betancourt: From a Communist Anti-Imperialist to a Social Democrat with U.S. Support,” The Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 29, Number 3 (October 1997), pages: 613-665.

• Shils, Edward. The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society edited by Steven Grosby (Indianapolis: Libery Fund: 1997).

Steven Schwartzberg Steven Schwartzberg (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're in the wrong room. deletion review is two doors down on your left... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: Rouge admin needed

Rouge admin desperately needed.

I noticed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and Fringe theories noticeboard, there have been a lot of politics brought up, recently.

So, I did some searching at Special:Linksearch of political websites which would typically be unreliable. Here's a brief list of what I found:

(left-wing)

• Media Matters [54] [55]
• Gatewaypundit [56]
• DailyKos [57] [58]

(right-wing)

• Newsbusters.org [59] [60]
• The Jawa Report [61]
• LittleGreenFootballs [62] [63]

(non-partisan\third party)

• Politicalgateway [64]
• CATO [65] [66]
• Lew Rockwell [67] [68]
• Mises.org [69] [70]
• Geocities.com [71] [72]

Now, per WP:Anti-elitism I know what the knee-jerk response is going to be and I have my counter-rebuttal prepared: Yes, I know that extreme, self-published, or biased sources (like advocate groups or political opinion pieces) aren't necessarily unusable sources, if the subject involves the source itself or the article otherwise is referencing a notable opinion. However, that's not what's being done here if you take a look at the links above, and there are rampant violations of policy which are being ignored. If you dig through those sources, you find plenty of them being used to establish facts on major articles, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Any good admin needs to run through there with the banhammer.

As noted above, that was just a brief list I made. More extensive searches and lists of URLs frequently used as unreliable sources should also be pursued. As a few particularly horrible examples, the white supremacist forum, Stormfront.org [73] is currently used as a source for the article on National-Anarchism [74], on Anarchism and Nationalism [75], and on the biography of Gerald Fredrick Töben [76] On that last point, Gerald Töben is an anti-semitic nutcase, but nevertheless, it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP to be making claims that he's a "a favorite among white supremacist organizations such as StormFront" and cite that using a forum post on Stormfront.org. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)